Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#1381 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:45 PM

Because there's no empirical evidence to support the claim that there is one. And the 'evidence' there is after 2000 years of proclamation that there is one, is terrible and from what i've seen, non-existant and easily debunked and quickly falsifiable.

What reasonable person wouldn't be, short of absolutely certain, at least sure by this point?

I guess it just seems to me that there is at least enough evidence and arguments to keep one's mind open to the possibility whether it be through the universe having a beginning, fine-tuning, the appearance of design, DNA, origin of life, origin of consciousness, evidence for the historical Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, beauty in nature,the existence of concepts like love or forgiveness, human comprehensive abilities compared to the entire animal kingdom, personal experiences, like 100+ philosophical arguments, etc.

Now I'm aware of the counter arguments to each of the "evidences" I just mentioned but I find the majority to be ultimately unsatisfying for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is most definitely no god. At best both sides are making statements of faith based on previous world views, already held. I mean sure maybe there is none, maybe there is but at the very least I would say one should remain open to the possibility and keep searching. So many atheists think theists and deists believe in a god or gods based on completely no evidence at all which is just not true.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1382 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:46 PM

Yes it does, you are incorrect, again.

Galileo was considered a HERETIC.

Told ya.

Dragon's did not exist :rolleyes: , sorry to burst your bubble dic, er, Heretic.

And he also believed in God :P
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1383 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,230 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:48 PM

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1384 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:56 PM

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.


You're obsesssed and distressed
Cause you can't make any sense of the ludicrous nonsense
and incipient senescence
that will deem your common sense useless
this aint no recess!

I want to believe in you, but my plan keeps falling through
I know I have to face the harshnes, grin and bear the truth
And I have to walk this mile in my own shoes
(and I'm no fool!)

[Chorus]
I'm materialist
a full-blown realist
(physical theorist)
and I guess I'm full of doubt
so I'm prone to hear you out and refuse
I'm materialist
There ain't no fear in this
it's for all to see, so don't talk of hidden mysteries with me...

Mind over matter, it really don't matter
If the street's idle chatter turns your heart strings to tatters
Flatter hopes don't flatter and soul batter won't congeal to mend
a life that is shattered into shards
Was it in the cards?

The process of belief is an elixir when you're weak
I must confess, at times I indulge it on the sneak
but generally my outlook's not so bleak
(and I'm not meek!)

[Chorus]
I'm materialist
Call me a humanist
(physical theorist)
and I guess I'm full of doubt,
but I'll gladly have it out with you
I'm materialist
I ain't no deist
it's there for all to see, so don't of hidden mysteries with me

Like Rome under Nero, our future's one big zero
Recycling the past to meet the immediate needs
And through it all we ramble forth with perservere and climb
Our mountains of regret to sow our seeds

I'm materialist
I'm materiliast
I'm materialist
I'm materialist

BAD RELIGION
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#1385 JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:03 PM

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.


You should "create" a new thread on this topic. At least then you could argue with yourself without all this on-topic stuff getting in the way.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1386 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:04 PM

I guess it just seems to me that there is at least enough evidence and arguments to keep one's mind open to the possibility whether it be through the universe having a beginning, fine-tuning, the appearance of design, DNA, origin of life, origin of consciousness, evidence for the historical Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, beauty in nature,the existence of concepts like love or forgiveness, human comprehensive abilities compared to the entire animal kingdom, personal experiences, like 100+ philosophical arguments, etc.

Now I'm aware of the counter arguments to each of the "evidences" I just mentioned but I find the majority to be ultimately unsatisfying for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is most definitely no god. At best both sides are making statements of faith based on previous world views, already held. I mean sure maybe there is none, maybe there is but at the very least I would say one should remain open to the possibility and keep searching. So many atheists think theists and deists believe in a god or gods based on completely no evidence at all which is just not true.


Those things you listed are all arguments....not evidence, for God. I could make very good arguments for teapots around Jupiter, but I can't bring you evidence for them. That's the problem with God. People try to bring arguments in place of tangible evidence, when all one's simply asking is, "Where's the beef?". I don't care what your favorite cook-book says about how to cook beef, or how it sacrificed itself so you could eat of its flesh and drink of its blood, when you're hungry. People want to see the cow, after they've been told how good the milk tastes. If you can't produce the cow, then why the hell should people believe you have any milk?

(I'm sure the metaphor isn't lost on you, but there'll be some local yokel who tries to argue the metaphor instead of what the metaphor represents.)


And just because things look or 'appear' fine tuned, does not mean that a creator therefore consciously designed the universe. The universe is not designed FOR human life, but for a fleeting moment can sustain it according to the laws of the universe. MAKE NO MISTAKE, the universe, is trying to kill you, and I promise you, it eventually will kill everything inside it....sparing no one and nothing. We are on a collision course with oblivion. THAT'S 'the design' of the universe from its inception. The stuff in between the birth and death of the universe is simply that transition, with a buncha cool temporary stuff in between.



"That's All Folks!"

Posted Image


  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1387 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:09 PM

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.


Posted Image
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1388 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:16 PM

Those things you listed are all arguments....not evidence, for God. I could make very good arguments for teapots around Jupiter, but I can't bring you evidence for them. That's the problem with God. People try to bring arguments in place of tangible evidence, when all one's simply asking is, "Where's the beef?". I don't care what your favorite cook-book says about how to cook beef, or how it sacrificed itself so you could eat of its flesh and drink of its blood, when you're hungry. People want to see the cow, after they've been told how good the milk tastes. If you can't produce the cow, then why the hell should people believe you have any milk?

(I'm sure the metaphor isn't lost on you, but there'll be some local yokel who tries to argue the metaphor instead of what the metaphor represents.)


And just because things look or 'appear' fine tuned, does not mean that a creator therefore consciously designed the universe. The universe is not designed FOR human life, but for a fleeting moment can sustain it according to the laws of the universe. MAKE NO MISTAKE, the universe, is trying to kill you, and I promise you, it eventually will kill everything inside it....sparing no one and nothing. We are on a collision course with oblivion. THAT'S 'the design' of the universe from its inception. The stuff in between the birth and death of the universe is simply that transition, with a buncha cool temporary stuff in between.



"That's All Folks!"

Posted Image


Hmm I would say the terms "arguments" and "evidence" overlap somewhat. For example just randomly picking a few things from my list, because DNA and life exists then arguments can be made that these things are evidence of a sort of god/being or supreme mind rather than blind forces of nature or nothing. So arguments are made based on the evidence available.

Like if I find a gun at a murder scene, just the gun itself being there does not prove a murderer was also there (obviously the dead body would but that's besides the point for now) but the gun can be used as evidence that a murderer was there and that was what he used. So based on the evidence available an argument can be made (in this case a gun was at the scene, perhaps it's likely the murderer used that specific gun).
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1389 Biexallent

Biexallent

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:24 PM

I think sharpshooter and co are a bit too turned on with all this talk, but hey, that's just what I think.

Edited by Biexallent, 24 September 2012 - 04:26 PM.

  • 0

#1390 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:27 PM

I should maybe have clarified - Of course the "evidences" I listed are not scientific evidences that = proof of a god or supreme mind. But they are the kind of evidences that arguments can then be made from (and in my opinion that at least warrant keeping a more open mind about the whole topic).
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1391 DefCon1

DefCon1

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,475 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

Because there's no empirical evidence to support the claim that there is one. And the 'evidence' there is after 2000 years of proclamation that there is one, is terrible and from what i've seen, non-existant and easily debunked and quickly falsifiable.

What reasonable person wouldn't be, short of absolutely certain, at least sure by this point?


Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.
  • 3

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

QUOTE (Rye and Kesler @ Jun 29 2009, 10:24 PM) Where is Celebrities? I am tryin to find it on Club vibes but i can't find it. Is it relatively new? Sounds good though we will have to check it out.

I think Germany is the exception because they should know how to use their own balls.

QUOTE (pacecar @ Aug 2 2009, 11:53 AM) Sheep are ok but horses, ewww.


Posted Image


#1392 Biexallent

Biexallent

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:45 PM

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.


Well said!
  • 0

#1393 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:48 PM

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.

This is only semi-related but it's an interesting quote regarding medical sciences:
"Half of what you are taught as medical students will in five years have been shown to be either wrong or out of date. The trouble is, none of your teachers knows which half. So the most important thing to learn is ‘how to learn on your own."
-Oliver Cope
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1394 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:51 PM

Hmm I would say the terms "arguments" and "evidence" overlap somewhat. For example just randomly picking a few things from my list, because DNA and life exists then arguments can be made that these things are evidence of a sort of god/being or supreme mind rather than blind forces of nature or nothing. So arguments are made based on the evidence available.

Like if I find a gun at a murder scene, just the gun itself being there does not prove a murderer was also there (obviously the dead body would but that's besides the point for now) but the gun can be used as evidence that a murderer was there and that was what he used. So based on the evidence available an argument can be made (in this case a gun was at the scene, perhaps it's likely the murderer used that specific gun).


Arguments is not evidence....evidence is evidence, my friend. The strength of a claim or an argument rest on the strength of the evidence for the argument or claim. I can't argue very strongly that Big-Foot exists, because I don't have any credible evidence, even though I have plenty of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes aren't considered 'strong' evidence. The 'history' in the Bible sounds more like story-telling and anecdotal evidence. Many things have been exaggerated after-the-fact. Many stories were edited and re-edited over the centuries. (Council of Nicea??)

The First Council of Nicaea

First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.

The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. The choice of Nicaea was favourable to the assembling of a large number of bishops. It was easily accessible to the bishops of nearly all the provinces, but especially to those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The sessions were held in the principal church, and in the central hall of the imperial palace. A large place was indeed necessary to receive such an assembly, though the exact number is not known with certainty. Eusebius speaks of more than 250 bishops, and later Arabic manuscripts raise the figure to 2000 - an evident exaggeration in which, however, it is impossible to discover the approximate total number of bishops, as well as of the priests, deacons, and acolytes, of whom it is said that a great number were also present. St. Athanasius, a member of the council speaks of 300, and in his letter "Ad Afros" he says explicitly 318. This figure is almost universally adopted, and there seems to be no good reason for rejecting it. Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. The assembly numbered among its most famous members St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra. Some had suffered during the last persecution; others were poorly enough acquainted with Christian theology. Among the members was a young deacon, Athanasius of Alexandria, for whom this Council was to be the prelude to a life of conflict and of glory (see ST. ATHANASIUS).

The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea. There is less agreement among our early authorities as to the month and day of the opening. In order to reconcile the indications furnished by Socrates and by the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, this date may, perhaps, be taken as 20 May, and that of the drawing up of the symbol as 19 June. It may be assumed without too great hardihood that the synod, having been convoked for 20 May, in the absence of the emperor held meetings of a less solemn character until 14 June, when after the emperor's arrival, the sessions properly so called began, the symbol being formulated on 19 June, after which various matters - the paschal controversy, etc. - were dealt with, and the sessions came to an end 25 August. The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius.

The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival. Eusebius of Caesarea and his two abbreviators, Socrates and Sozomen, as well as Rufinus and Gelasius of Cyzicus, report no details of the theological discussions. Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius. (For the part played by the Eusebian third party, see EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA. For the Creed of Eusebius, see EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA.) St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence. The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.


The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C.H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.

Other matters dealt with by this council were the controversy as to the time of celebrating Easter and the Meletian schism. The former of these two will be found treated under EASTER CONTROVERSY; the latter under MELETIUS OF LYCOPOLIS.

Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. All the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today. Of these the following is a brief résumé:

Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

The business of the Council having been finished Constantine celebrated the twentieth anniversary of his accession to the empire, and invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents. Several days later the emperor commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he commended himself to their prayers, and authorized the fathers to return to their dioceses. The greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.


All these 'historical' things were decided on by a bunch of men trying to consolidate political power....and not just the politicians like Constantine, but the bishops of each sect as well. Gifts were exchanged, treasures were given to increase the wealth of each person in order to expedite the political consolidations of the religious stories and doctrines, in order to use a template across the reaches of the empire that had grown vast through military conquest. Constantine knew that he could win these lands by military conquest, but to hold them, he needed something more powerful.....a shared and common belief, that he could be a part of and control.....which is what he did by conspiring with the other power hungry men, who agreed to the same story in order to rule their own lands, and to increase their own wealth.

This is the birth of Christianity as we know it to be today. This is when the supernatural assignments give through doctrine were agreed upon.

Once we cut through the bulls#$%, and realize that it was man who made god, we get closer to seeing what these religions really are....which are essentially institutions of power and wealth. It's the oldest pyramid scheme.

Even your example is faulty, my friend, and I don't mean the obvious contradiction that I highlighted.. Real detectives wouldn't assume the just because a gun was found at the scene of where a dead body was, that they could jump to the conclusion that the body was there as a result of murder. Even if there was a body, and a gun, there are steps that one MUST take before saying that foul place occurred, because the gun may have been used by the person as a means of suicide, or accidental discharge, resulting of death. So, too with the metaphor of religious claims and 'evidence' one has to carefully take a look at the claim in front of them and investigate the likeliness of whether or not things appear as they seem, OR if what is being displayed to you is an illusion of the actual truth. One NEEDS good critical thinking skills to separate a crime scene from an accident scene, in a gun/dead body situation or a 'dead guy' was born of a virgin, died and came back to life, turns water into wine, can walk on water, oh and is also his own father, even though he's the son, and part of a holy apparition as well. There's a smell test to everything that you evaluate as a person Nevsie....and you know or should know, that if you apply the same smell test to religion as you do to most everything else in life.....something stinks about the smell of the religious claims of truth and 'history' and 'evidence'.

You can lead a horse to water.....or a detective to an accident scene, but you can't force him to conclude it's an accident scene if he's going into it with his mind made up that it has to be a crime scene, as he was told there is a gun AND a dead body....i mean, what more do you need, right?
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1395 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:52 PM

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.


I agree, totally on point. You definitely checkmated Sharpshooter there!

Anyways, some of these Atheists are almost as bad as religious people, both at two extreme ends of something that hasn't been proven 100% one way or another. One believes in something that can't be seen while the other doesn't believe in anything that cannot be seen or scientifically proven. There are arguments on both ends but they all have one thing in common.
  • 0

Posted Image


#1396 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:53 PM

I think sharpshooter and co are a bit too turned on with all this talk, but hey, that's just what I think.


I think you're turned on by the thought that i'm turned on.

Gross.
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1397 JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:55 PM

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.


Much like god, you'd think the 47 pages before this didn't exist.
  • 2
Posted Image

#1398 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:57 PM

Arguments is not evidence....evidence is evidence, my friend. The strength of a claim or an argument rest on the strength of the evidence for the argument or claim. I can't argue very strongly that Big-Foot exists, because I don't have any credible evidence, even though I have plenty of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes aren't considered 'strong' evidence. The 'history' in the Bible sounds more like story-telling and anecdotal evidence. Many things have been exaggerated after-the-fact. Many stories were edited and re-edited over the centuries. (Council of Nicea??)



All these 'historical' things were decided on by a bunch of men trying to consolidate political power....and not just the politicians like Constantine, but the bishops of each sect as well. Gifts were exchanged, treasures were given to increase the wealth of each person in order to expedite the political consolidations of the religious stories and doctrines, in order to use a template across the reaches of the empire that had grown vast through military conquest. Constantine knew that he could win these lands by military conquest, but to hold them, he needed something more powerful.....a shared and common belief, that he could be a part of and control.....which is what he did by conspiring with the other power hungry men, who agreed to the same story in order to rule their own lands, and to increase their own wealth.

This is the birth of Christianity as we know it to be today. This is when the supernatural assignments give through doctrine were agreed upon.

Once we cut through the bulls#$%, and realize that it was man who made god, we get closer to seeing what these religions really are....which are essentially institutions of power and wealth. It's the oldest pyramid scheme.

Even your example is faulty, my friend, and I don't mean the obvious contradiction that I highlighted.. Real detectives wouldn't assume the just because a gun was found at the scene of where a dead body was, that they could jump to the conclusion that the body was there as a result of murder. Even if there was a body, and a gun, there are steps that one MUST take before saying that foul place occurred, because the gun may have been used by the person as a means of suicide, or accidental discharge, resulting of death. So, too with the metaphor of religious claims and 'evidence' one has to carefully take a look at the claim in front of them and investigate the likeliness of whether or not things appear as they seem, OR if what is being displayed to you is an illusion of the actual truth. One NEEDS good critical thinking skills to separate a crime scene from an accident scene, in a gun/dead body situation or a 'dead guy' was born of a virgin, died and came back to life, turns water into wine, can walk on water, oh and is also his own father, even though he's the son, and part of a holy apparition as well. There's a smell test to everything that you evaluate as a person Nevsie....and you know or should know, that if you apply the same smell test to religion as you do to most everything else in life.....something stinks about the smell of the religious claims of truth and 'history' and 'evidence'.

You can lead a horse to water.....or a detective to an accident scene, but you can't force him to conclude it's an accident scene if he's going into it with his mind made up that it has to be a crime scene, as he was told there is a gun AND a dead body....i mean, what more do you need, right?


Good grief Sharpshooter, really addicted to this god thread eh?? So out of your 23000+ posts, how many have been in this thread or the other god threads?
  • 0

Posted Image


#1399 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:01 PM

Much like god, you'd think the 47 pages before this didn't exist.


:picard:
  • 0

Posted Image


#1400 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:01 PM

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.


Do you know the difference between a Scientific Theory and a theory?

It's not that a God can't be verified, but that the claim as put forth by theists as their specific god being 'real' can be reasoned, argued and evidenced against. Many other claims of truth can be as well, like a flood that killed everything and everyone, save for two of all the planet's creatures in all their forms today on one boat.

Otherwise, there's a teapot that's orbiting Jupiter at this moment being watched over by a sentient plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

Do you doubt that the teapot and spaghetti being aren't real? Don't ask me for evidence though.


And there's a difference between science and dogma.....science changes because it's meant to....dogma doesn't, because it isn't meant to. Please don't try and compare the two in that regard.
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1401 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:03 PM

Good grief Sharpshooter, really addicted to this god thread eh?? So out of your 23000+ posts, how many have been in this thread or the other god threads?


Pretty sure 22,000+ have been attributed to responding to your retarded posts, Charlie Brown.
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1402 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

I think you're turned on by the thought that i'm turned on.

Gross.


WTF??? Are you serious? What you said is a little disturbing and creepy.
  • 1

Posted Image


#1403 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

I agree, totally on point. You definitely checkmated Sharpshooter there!

Anyways, some of these Atheists are almost as bad as religious people, both at two extreme ends of something that hasn't been proven 100% one way or another. One believes in something that can't be seen while the other doesn't believe in anything that cannot be seen or scientifically proven. There are arguments on both ends but they all have one thing in common.


Oh, like totally, fer sure.

:rolleyes:
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1404 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

Arguments is not evidence....evidence is evidence, my friend. The strength of a claim or an argument rest on the strength of the evidence for the argument or claim. I can't argue very strongly that Big-Foot exists, because I don't have any credible evidence, even though I have plenty of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes aren't considered 'strong' evidence. The 'history' in the Bible sounds more like story-telling and anecdotal evidence. Many things have been exaggerated after-the-fact. Many stories were edited and re-edited over the centuries. (Council of Nicea??)



All these 'historical' things were decided on by a bunch of men trying to consolidate political power....and not just the politicians like Constantine, but the bishops of each sect as well. Gifts were exchanged, treasures were given to increase the wealth of each person in order to expedite the political consolidations of the religious stories and doctrines, in order to use a template across the reaches of the empire that had grown vast through military conquest. Constantine knew that he could win these lands by military conquest, but to hold them, he needed something more powerful.....a shared and common belief, that he could be a part of and control.....which is what he did by conspiring with the other power hungry men, who agreed to the same story in order to rule their own lands, and to increase their own wealth.

This is the birth of Christianity as we know it to be today. This is when the supernatural assignments give through doctrine were agreed upon.

Once we cut through the bulls#$%, and realize that it was man who made god, we get closer to seeing what these religions really are....which are essentially institutions of power and wealth. It's the oldest pyramid scheme.

Even your example is faulty, my friend, and I don't mean the obvious contradiction that I highlighted.. Real detectives wouldn't assume the just because a gun was found at the scene of where a dead body was, that they could jump to the conclusion that the body was there as a result of murder. Even if there was a body, and a gun, there are steps that one MUST take before saying that foul place occurred, because the gun may have been used by the person as a means of suicide, or accidental discharge, resulting of death. So, too with the metaphor of religious claims and 'evidence' one has to carefully take a look at the claim in front of them and investigate the likeliness of whether or not things appear as they seem, OR if what is being displayed to you is an illusion of the actual truth. One NEEDS good critical thinking skills to separate a crime scene from an accident scene, in a gun/dead body situation or a 'dead guy' was born of a virgin, died and came back to life, turns water into wine, can walk on water, oh and is also his own father, even though he's the son, and part of a holy apparition as well. There's a smell test to everything that you evaluate as a person Nevsie....and you know or should know, that if you apply the same smell test to religion as you do to most everything else in life.....something stinks about the smell of the religious claims of truth and 'history' and 'evidence'.

You can lead a horse to water.....or a detective to an accident scene, but you can't force him to conclude it's an accident scene if he's going into it with his mind made up that it has to be a crime scene, as he was told there is a gun AND a dead body....i mean, what more do you need, right?

The council of Nicaea deciding on what official positions the church would hold is irrelevant to the actual truth behind the history. For example if they wanted to edit out Jesus being married and downplay the role of women in the Bible, that wouldn't negate whether or not Jesus existed in the first place or whether or not he was resurrected. It would mean that people corrupted the history of it all for their own benefits, but hey people are good at doing stuff like that.

Arguments are not evidence no, but evidence can lead to arguments. Foot prints on the sand can lead to one arguing someone was there before.

Even if we were to agree and say there is no evidence, just arguments, those arguments I still feel are strong enough to keep an agnostic outlook as opposed to an atheistic one; which is my point of this discussion.

I wasn't trying to construct the entire case that a murderer was there and for sure killed someone. My point was the gun could be used as evidence, regardless of whether or not it was actually the murder weapon or the person was murdered at all. Similarly, say with the fine-tuning argument, it can be argued this is evidence of a supreme mind at work, regardless of whether or not there is one. Like I said; despite the list I posted there still might not be a god, perhaps there's even a good chance there is not one, but based on what we know and the arguments that have arisen (I'll forgo saying evidence haha) I think it's reasonable to take a more agnostic position rather than an atheist one.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1405 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

Pretty sure 22,000+ have been attributed to responding to your retarded posts, Charlie Brown.


Or making stupid posts like this?
  • 3

Posted Image


#1406 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:05 PM

WTF??? Are you serious? What you said is a little disturbing and creepy.


That's hot, tell me more.
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1407 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:07 PM

Or making stupid posts like this?


Exactly....just like this one that i'm now responding to. You've hit the nail on the head once again, by demonstrating how to make retarded posts.

Carry on.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1408 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:12 PM

Do you know the difference between a Scientific Theory and a theory?

It's not that a God can't be verified, but that the claim as put forth by theists as their specific god being 'real' can be reasoned, argued and evidenced against. Many other claims of truth can be as well, like a flood that killed everything and everyone, save for two of all the planet's creatures in all their forms today on one boat.

Otherwise, there's a teapot that's orbiting Jupiter at this moment being watched over by a sentient plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

Do you doubt that the teapot and spaghetti being aren't real? Don't ask me for evidence though.



And there's a difference between science and dogma.....science changes because it's meant to....dogma doesn't, because it isn't meant to. Please don't try and compare the two in that regard.


I don't even know what the hell you are talking about, honestly? I mean, you bring up these ridiculous analogies that you made up in 2 seconds to "validate" your answers to people's posts. Anyways, off to study, wasting too much time reading nonsensical posts.

Edited by Pouria, 24 September 2012 - 05:12 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image


#1409 JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:13 PM

That's hot, tell me more.



I lol'd.

Sharp, you are either very patient or very bald.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1410 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:14 PM

The council of Nicaea deciding on what official positions the church would hold is irrelevant to the actual truth behind the history. For example if they wanted to edit out Jesus being married and downplay the role of women in the Bible, that wouldn't negate whether or not Jesus existed in the first place or whether or not he was resurrected. It would mean that people corrupted the history of it all for their own benefits, but hey people are good at doing stuff like that.

Arguments are not evidence no, but evidence can lead to arguments. Foot prints on the sand can lead to one arguing someone was there before.

Even if we were to agree and say there is no evidence, just arguments, those arguments I still feel are strong enough to keep an agnostic outlook as opposed to an atheistic one; which is my point of this discussion.

I wasn't trying to construct the entire case that a murderer was there and for sure killed someone. My point was the gun could be used as evidence, regardless of whether or not it was actually the murder weapon or the person was murdered at all. Similarly, say with the fine-tuning argument, it can be argued this is evidence of a supreme mind at work, regardless of whether or not there is one. Like I said; despite the list I posted there still might not be a god, perhaps there's even a good chance there is not one, but based on what we know and the arguments that have arisen (I'll forgo saying evidence haha) I think it's reasonable to take a more agnostic position rather than an atheist one.



I'll leave the Council's work to one side then, and just address the main point and thrust of your post then.

Arguments have to based on something...like evidence, or reason and rationalizations.....and if those are shown to be faulty, like many of the suppositional ones being proffered by the religious as 'logical', then you must decide which argument on its face is more logical, as you are one who puts themself forth as being logical and rational and of sound mind.

Again, do the truth claims on face value, pass the smell test for you?
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.