Has Noahs ark been found?

You got it all wrong, it would be a lifted 4X4 with 1200HP and 2000+lb ft. or torque and would be called "Mark of the Beast"

 

 

man I wish we could have a religion section on LP. A lot of bright people to discuss things!

 

Good lordy Wiggs, didn't you major in philosophy, more specifically in the philosophy of religion, where you had ample opps to discuss, read, and write the subject to the nth degree, ivory tower style? Why in God's name would you want to discuss the subject on a car forum? My guess is that you want to "lord over" your very own subforum even if it means you have to slum, so to speak.

good debat going on here, but this just in!

 

^^^^^

you are new to this thread.......aren't you

People who study/ have studied philosophy never back down in a debate, although sometimes they will just call it quits if you are lucky.

 

'agree to disagree' this is the only way to deal with one.

good debat going on here, but this just in!

 

 

Don't steal my funny!

 

^^^^^

you are new to this thread.......aren't you

 

 

^^^^^

you are new to this thread.......aren't you

Not quite,

I took the image from earlier post, lolled hard and just added text after I saw other "meanwhile" images appearing. I thought it might be fun image to be used later on and just wanted to share it. credits may go to: TheAmericanStig

 

I am not going to take on actual subject because it draws close to forum religion rules, but your opinions are interesting read.

Good lordy Wiggs, didn't you major in philosophy, more specifically in the philosophy of religion, where you had ample opps to discuss, read, and write the subject to the nth degree, ivory tower style? Why in God's name would you want to discuss the subject on a car forum? My guess is that you want to "lord over" your very own subforum even if it means you have to slum, so to speak.

 

We might not agree on the "bail out on your mortgage" thing but you always speak with so much wisdom

I also suspected D wants to be "it" when it comes to these discussions hence me willing to suggest his pontification and call him our "leader"

Good lordy Wiggs, didn't you major in philosophy, more specifically in the philosophy of religion, where you had ample opps to discuss, read, and write the subject to the nth degree, ivory tower style? Why in God's name would you want to discuss the subject on a car forum? My guess is that you want to "lord over" your very own subforum even if it means you have to slum, so to speak.

I do specialize in Philosophy of Religion; I plan on teaching it at University some day; hence, why I love to talk about it. I enjoy helping people to either (a) see the error of their ways or ( learn to justify their own beliefs for there is nothing worse than someone who clings to a belief yet cannot justify it in any way. that's just superstition. That, and when you get bright people together, bright questions are raised and it helps me further solidify and better my positions as a philosopher.

 

Lord over my own subforum you say... ..........

 

People who study/ have studied philosophy never back down in a debate, although sometimes they will just call it quits if you are lucky.

 

'agree to disagree' this is the only way to deal with one.

 

Agree to disagree is such a pussy thing to say. It's basically saying, I cannot justify my position any longer but I am too stuborn and ignroant to let it go.

We might not agree on the "bail out on your mortgage" thing but you always speak with so much wisdom

I also suspected D wants to be "it" when it comes to these discussions hence me willing to suggest his pontification and call him our "leader"

 

 

I have always been your leader.

Agree to disagree is such a pussy thing to say. It's basically saying, I cannot justify my position any longer but I am too stuborn and ignroant to let it go.

 

I hate to pipe up in this discussion, but when I see this I have to ask...Justify it [one's position] to whom? To the world at large? To those who do not agree with their position? Is there always a need to "win" an argument? What is the ultimate conclusion and when does/should an argument end? If person A and Person B are arguing, and neither is willing to change their position, then the argument is useless, is it not, regardless of who has the most logical position? And who determines who's logic is the deciding factor anyway? They are simply arguing just for the sake of arguing, which, I suppose does serve a purpose on some levels, but saying "I agree to disagree", isn't that simply saying no one is going to "win" lets just drop it and go get a beer? Just wondering...

I hate to pipe up in this discussion, but when I see this I have to ask...Justify it [one's position] to whom? To the world at large? To those who do not agree with their position? Is there always a need to "win" an argument? What is the ultimate conclusion and when does/should an argument end? If person A and Person B are arguing, and neither is willing to change their position, then the argument is useless, is it not, regardless of who has the most logical position? And who determines who's logic is the deciding factor anyway? They are simply arguing just for the sake of arguing, which, I suppose does serve a purpose on some levels, but saying "I agree to disagree", isn't that simply saying no one is going to "win" lets just drop it and go get a beer? Just wondering...

 

 

Justify it in general; but especially to someone who challenges the position. For, if you can't justify your position, you shouldn't hold said position! Simple as that, you should just say, "I don't know". Nothing wrong with that.

 

The whole point of arguing is to get to the truth; if you consider that to be winning, them yes, all arguments must be won. ONLY irrational people are unwilling to change their position in the light of contrary, convincing evidence. There is only one kind of logic.

 

I'm not saying that, in conversation between friends about mundane topics (like sports, etc.) people don't (and can't) say "agree to disagree". I mean it in the philosophical context of something like debating the existence of god.

Justify it in general; but especially to someone who challenges the position. For, if you can't justify your position, you shouldn't hold said position! Simple as that, you should just say, "I don't know". Nothing wrong with that.

 

The whole point of arguing is to get to the truth; if you consider that to be winning, them yes, all arguments must be won. ONLY irrational people are unwilling to change their position in the light of contrary, convincing evidence. There is only one kind of logic.

 

I'm not saying that, in conversation between friends about mundane topics (like sports, etc.) people don't (and can't) say "agree to disagree". I mean it in the philosophical context of something like debating the existence of god.

 

 

Very true...however, as we all know, many many irrational people have opinions and they will not change their positions...so can there be no winning when it comes to arguing with an irrational person? Also, sometimes, the "real" truth is but a matter of perception, is it not? Sure, there are concrete scientific concepts that can be shown to be true, per our limitations of the moment. For example, one can prove that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen, because chemistry tells us this is so. But what about more abstract concepts? Take a poem or a piece of art. To argue a particular example of one is "great" would be futile, wouldn't it be, since its the perception of its inherent greatness that the argument depends upon. So if person A says, "that Jackson Pollack-like piece is great!" and Person B says, "no, that looks like someone with the runs sharted on a piece of paper!" then there can be no winner? So to that extent, I guess I'm wondering if Logic comes in at all times, especially when there are so many illogical people running around?

 

Sorry this is derailing the whole Noah's Ark discussion, but, although I don't always agree with everything Wiggs has to say, I do like his ability to get from A to B and back again and his willingness to share how and why he makes that journey! Good Stuff!

Very true...however, as we all know, many many irrational people have opinions and they will not change their positions...so can there be no winning when it comes to arguing with an irrational person? Also, sometimes, the "real" truth is but a matter of perception, is it not? Sure, there are concrete scientific concepts that can be shown to be true, per our limitations of the moment. For example, one can prove that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen, because chemistry tells us this is so. But what about more abstract concepts? Take a poem or a piece of art. To argue a particular example of one is "great" would be futile, wouldn't it be, since its the perception of its inherent greatness that the argument depends upon. So if person A says, "that Jackson Pollack-like piece is great!" and Person B says, "no, that looks like someone with the runs sharted on a piece of paper!" then there can be no winner? So to that extent, I guess I'm wondering if Logic comes in at all times, especially when there are so many illogical people running around?

 

Sorry this is derailing the whole Noah's Ark discussion, but, although I don't always agree with everything Wiggs has to say, I do like his ability to get from A to B and back again and his willingness to share how and why he makes that journey! Good Stuff!

 

 

You raise a good point; however, you did make one misstep and that was that there is ONLY one "real" truth, about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. We may not know said truth and it may be beyond our human abilities to get to said truth but it is out there, nonetheless.

 

In your Pollack-like example, it is either great or it is not, it cannot be both so one person is 'right' and one is 'wrong'. Now, that is not to say that it can be determined which is which, but the fact that we cannot (or have not) does NOT make it the case that there isn't an objective truth to be found.

 

Think of it this way. Some planet 4 Quintillion Light Years away is either made of cheese or it isn't. We don't know which is true, but the fact still remains, that one of those statements is. So, we may argue on whether or not the planet is made of cheese, but one of us is right (hint, it's me ).

 

'Arguing' with an irrational person is futile, you are absolutely correct; however, I would aver that you what you are doing isn't REALLY arguing. It's more like disagreeing because an argument entails some form of rational though in my opinion because it is truth seeking. Irrationality isn't truth seeking therefore you cannot argue if you are irrational.

I gotta say- I am really impressed with everyone being on their best behavior. No bad language, no name calling, no invoking the holy spirit, good punctuation and even proper grammar. From a bunch of dudes with pop-up doors no less

 

The difference between having superstition and having faith falls 50/50 on an extremely fine line.

 

If Noah's Ark is found, now or in the future- it will perpetuate and expand the cause and actions of the superstitious. Those of us with "faith" couldn't care less if there exists an ark up on a mountain. That would be kind of cool. It won't make or break me. But the superstitious sit around and chant for the Rapture whilst dancing around with Rattlesnakes. Kind of scary to perpetuate their actions, y'think?

 

The God I know and fear is powerful enough to create an ark, or a black hole. Or a nuclear bomb. Or a terrorists. Or Jesus, or Mohammad (though, I can't seem to find a picture of him anywhere) or an iPhone or whatever he wants.

 

Would anybody here profess their faith if this Ark is in fact documented and confirmed by secular scientists? I hope not. I hope that's not all it takes to "confuse" you into believing. Why does the presence or absence of an Ark prove or disprove God to sooooo many people? Seems weird to me.

 

I gotta say- I am really impressed with everyone being on their best behavior. No bad language, no name calling, no invoking the holy spirit, good punctuation and even proper grammar. From a bunch of dudes with pop-up doors no less

 

The difference between having superstition and having faith falls 50/50 on an extremely fine line.

 

If Noah's Ark is found, now or in the future- it will perpetuate and expand the cause and actions of the superstitious. Those of us with "faith" couldn't care less if there exists an ark up on a mountain. That would be kind of cool. It won't make or break me. But the superstitious sit around and chant for the Rapture whilst dancing around with Rattlesnakes. Kind of scary to perpetuate their actions, y'think?

 

The God I know and fear is powerful enough to create an ark, or a black hole. Or a nuclear bomb. Or a terrorists. Or Jesus, or Mohammad (though, I can't seem to find a picture of him anywhere) or an iPhone or whatever he wants.

 

Would anybody here profess their faith if this Ark is in fact documented and confirmed by secular scientists? I hope not. I hope that's not all it takes to "confuse" you into believing. Why does the presence or absence of an Ark prove or disprove God to sooooo many people? Seems weird to me.

Great last point! You have to believe that an omnipotent and omniscient god would despise feigned belief in him just for the sake of 'getting in' to the afterparty.

 

I am curious as to why you fear god, though? god is omnibenevolent (perfectly good); he necessarily has to be in order to be god. Given that, he could never do anything 'bad' to you as, if he did, there then would have been a 'better' thing for him to do at that moment making him NOT omnibenevolent and therefore not god. You hear the phrase all of the time "god fearing christian" yet, when you think about it, no one should ever fear something that is perfectly good. Palin as president on the other hand... I digress!

 

Oh, and BTW, pop-up doors = pop-off panties.

Fear to me is anxiety mixed with agitation. When I don't understand something, I get anxious. Anxiety=fear.

I'm probably all alone in that definition of fear though.

 

Fear to me is anxiety mixed with agitation. When I don't understand something, I get anxious. Anxiety=fear.

I'm probably all alone in that definition of fear though.

 

 

In that case, your fear is completely understandable!

 

Fear of the unknown is why we have religion. If we KNEW what was going to happen when we died, OR if we never died, we would have no religion because there would be no point. It's the NOT knowing that has everyone scared shitless!

In that case, your fear is completely understandable!

 

Fear of the unknown is why we have religion. If we KNEW what was going to happen when we died, OR if we never died, we would have no religion because there would be no point. It's the NOT knowing that has everyone scared shitless!

 

 

Go look at the stars for 10 minutes today. If you aren't scared and seriously wondering what the point is, you doing it wrong.

Go look at the stars for 10 minutes today. If you aren't scared and seriously wondering what the point is, you doing it wrong.

 

 

Totally agree. When you think about how pointless your life actually is, it makes you never want to get out of bed!

 

Fortunately, there are Lambos and FMF threesomes.

Totally agree. When you think about how pointless your life actually is, it makes you never want to get out of bed!

 

Fortunately, there are Lambos and FMF threesomes.

 

 

All this talk about panties and FMF, where the hell is your GF?!!

All this talk about panties and FMF, where the hell is your GF?!!

 

 

My wife is upstairs, and who do you think gets the 2nd F ?!!?!?

My wife is upstairs, and who do you think gets the 2nd F ?!!?!?

 

Atta boy. I love women who love women.

Go look at the stars for 10 minutes today. If you aren't scared and seriously wondering what the point is, you doing it wrong.

 

I disagree. My existance is very defined and important. fcuk the stars. They have no more importance than me. My existance = perpetuation of my genes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Atta boy. I love women who love women.

 

AMEN!!!

I disagree. My existance is very defined and important. fcuk the stars. They have no more importance than me. My existance = perpetuation of my genes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

 

 

LOVE Richard Dawkins.