Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
I'm just gonna put this out there, if all religious people could be like Mede I wouldn't hate religion ^.^
Now Mede I'm not calling you psycho, cause I've had some strange things happen to me that I could say ghosts did it. But they were tricks my mind played on me, I've seen shadows out of the corner of my eye. I've heard whispers saying my name in the middle of the night as I walk up and down my street or when I sit in my room writing or reading.
You see I've turned my back to god and became Atheist because of religious people and due to the fact that if God truly has a plan for everyone. Then he new I would become Atheist so he must be okay with it, and I try and be nice in my life and do good I don't act like an ass like many Atheists do. Sure I love debating the topic of God, because it is something no one can quite explain. Sure you can hold the bible in the air, but can you really explain God like you can a person you know? No you can't, it is something humans can't understand. Whether he is truly a real being or the oldest character of fiction humans have ever known.
Science can never disprove God, because Science can never disprove faith.
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
Yes he did know you would become atheist Eagle, and no he is not ok with :) Is it a coincidence that you chose these forums to debate this specific topic and I happened to be on here and have spoken this to you? I doubt it. There is still an opportunity. In fact every second you breathe is an open opportunity God gives you. It's great really that you still believe in good and try your best to do so. God admires that. You have a potential that can be greatly used. In fact we all do. The bum on the fwy exit even.
You are right, God cannot be explained in such a way. The fact is, he is meant to be known personally. As in, if you truly want to get to know him, its not through anybody else but yourself. It's you doing the effort and wanting. Followers of Christ do the process of announcing this truth and showing you how. You do the believing.
If I can make a recommendation: read the book ok Job. That's the book that truly impacted me. It wasn't really somebody speaking to me.
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
If he doesn't need our praise then why does he request it all the damn time. But the God of the bible is a Malevolent God. Why? He teaches slavery. He committed mass genocide. He contradicts himself countless times. He fucks up in his own creation. I'm sorry, but this god is not a god worthy of praise.
And it still doesn't make sense for a god to care for just one species on one planet. Seeing as there are billions and billions of other planets out there.
And what about Evolution. That thing that has been proven. And the fact we know the earth is way over 6,000-10,000 years old.
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
You went very basic Acid. I've heard actual scientist and researchers say the same thing you have and be completely silenced because you guys don't read the scriptures fully through with an open mind therefore you do not understand nor think God is good because you have picked up everything that seems wrong. Just how I and many others have taken our time to look at the views of all religions and beliefs, it's only fair that if you want to call out the evilness in our God that you acually read carefully to fully understand him. I will not try to defend his place as a just God because I have said enough and now it's another one of those cycles. It's either you believe me or not, that's the point of the debate. As for the evolution thing, have you read Mythonian's posts?
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
How bout this, everyone shut up, keep your opinions, and let others kepp theirs.
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
I just want to say that the people who wrote the Bible were not scientists. They were regular people, and for anyone to expect them to understand the true nature of the universe, and then write it down using the words they had available to them at the time is kind of expecting a lot. Atheists always take the Bible so literally, but they forget that it wasn't written for us. It was written to convert a bunch of peasants about two thousand years ago. Jesus used metaphors to get his point across, maybe the guys writing the Bible did too.
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
Do I believe in god? No.
Is there a god like being(s) or consciousness that created us all? Maybe.
In all honestly I think communism got it right "religion is the opium for the masses." It holds us back.
EDIT:
I was reading earlier posts saying that religion was not the cause of war. In some cases yes, it was the TOOL, to get soldiers to believe in what they were fighting for. Much like Marines instill brotherhood and "duty to country" in their training(basically brainwashing). And in many of cases those "people" have started their own WARS based SOLELY on religion. Crusades. Spanish Inquisition. Salem Witch Hunts.
Quote:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must die. In this way you will purge the evil from Israel. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT
I believe the bible actually describes REAL events. Ancient ruins keep popping up in the most unlikely places. Like 40 ft underwater in the Mediterranean sea. The best part is these ancient cities actually predate the Sumerians, which were thought to be the oldest civilization. We are older than we thought!
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acid
And what about Evolution. That thing that has been proven. And the fact we know the earth is way over 6,000-10,000 years old.
I'll skip my original idea for what to go into next, and I'll discuss this a bit.
How old is the Earth?
Well, ignoring the fact outlined in my earlier post that the Earth could not possibly have formed naturally (I used the term "coalesce"), let's examine how you could possibly prove the Earth's age...
Scientists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and others usually cite the so-called "fossil record" as irrefutable proof that the Earth is millions of years old. Additionally, stratification of rock and sediment layers contribute to their evidence.
Well, let's look at the fossils...
How do we determine their age? Well, usually we use something called radiometric dating.
In my first post, I said that I wouldn't go into it, but I'll do it anyway since it is now relevant.
Radiometric dating uses the rate of decay of unstable elements to calculate the elapsed time.
To measure it, you need three things:
- The half-life of the element (time it takes for half of the total amount to decay)
- The current amount of substance that has remained in the fossil
- The original amount that would have existed when the fossil was made
Half-lives:
As I've said before, I'm a Chemical Engineer major. I've taken multiple years of Chemistry, and understand the actual atomic and nuclear decay processes.
However, there is something that no textbook will say: decay rates can vary.
That simple statement, seemingly innocent, tears the entire concept of radiometric dating to pieces. The reason it varies is because kinetic energy (i.e., heat) causes decay rates to increase exponentially.
You can't measure something accurately if the rate of decay isn't constant. Here are some instances that prove it is inconsistent:
1. The Apollo 11 mission brought moon rock and soil samples back.
They used some Uranium Lead tests on them and produced four different dates: 4.6 billion years, 5.4 billion years, 4.8 billion years, and 8.2 billion years. Potassium Argon tests on lunar rocks later revealed an age of 2.3 billion years.
How could they get such radically different dates? Well, it is because the decay rates aren't constant.
2. Some volcanic lava rocks from Hawaii were subjected to Potassium Argon testing, and yielded a result of a range between 160 million and 3 billion years.
However, the rocks were taken from a volcano that erupted in 1801!
3. Grand Prairie, Alberta, Canada, 1973. A high voltage line fell and fossilized some tree roots.
Scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan, were asked to date them, but refused because they said the tests "would be meaningless; it would indicate an age of millions of years because heat was involved in the petrification process." Well, there you have it, and that is what I said earlier: decay rates are not certain, and vary greatly with variance in temperature.
4. Carbon-14 is currently the most well-known method of radiometric dating. Let's discuss it, shall we?
It was discovered in 1947 by Willard Libby. It was used to measure organic matter that had died, since all organic matter contains carbon. The half-life of Carbon-14 is claimed to be 5,730 years (even though it varies considerably with temperature).
Let's pretend that temperature doesn't affect it though...
After five half-lives (29,000 years), only 3% remain. After another five half-lives, only 0.09%. Another five, and only 0.003% remain. Another five, and 0.000001% remain.
So, after about 100,000 years, 99.999999% of the Carbon-14 is gone.
Well, how the hell will we measure something that died millions of years ago? We don't have instruments that sensitive whatsoever... We especially didn't have them 20+ years ago, which is when 90% of the current dates were discovered (and scientists are just ignoring the fact that the process made no sense).
Additionally, here are some issues with C-14 dating:
- Some living mollusks were killed, and then put through Carbon-14 dating, which put them at 2,300 years old.
- An English castle built 800 years ago had mortar which was dated at 7,370 years old.
- Fresh seal skins were dated at 1,300 years old.
Here are some known things that can alter Carbon-14 and other radiometric dating in addition to heat:
- Atmospheric pollution from volcanic activity and industrial burning.
- Solar activity, solar flares, and sunspots
- Cosmic radiation from events in our galaxy such as supernova formation
- Meteors or larger cosmic bodies falling to earth (look up the "Riddle of the Great Siberian Explosion")
Well, what about the fossil record and geologic charts?
Geologic charts depict the eras in which varying species are supposed to have lived, and then what they evolved into for the next era. It is intended to portray the progressive "ages" of Earth's history.
Here are some proven contradictions in the Geologic chart:
- Saber-toothed Tiger. Supposed to be 100,000 to 1,000,000 years old. Carbon-14 gave a date of 28,000 years old.
- Natural Gas. Supposed to take 50,000,000 years to form. Carbon-14 gave it a date of 34,000 years.
- Coal. Supposed to take 100,000,000 years to form. Carbon-14 gave it a date of 1,680 years.
So, if radiometric dating didn't give us the geologic record, what did? Well, the geologic periods are named entirely with the theory of evolution in mind. The animals present in a specific one are what should be there if evolution was true.
Basically, they made the geologic chart without any evidence whatsoever!
Is there ever any agreement between the fossil record and radiometric dating? NO. They contradict each other more than you think the Bible contradicts itself!
Is radiometric dating itself reliable? NO. It can change due to multiple variables.
I'll make another post later than explains why the earth is only about 5,000 years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
d3ad1te
I was reading earlier posts saying that religion was not the cause of war. In some cases yes, it was the TOOL, to get soldiers to believe in what they were fighting for. Much like Marines instill brotherhood and "duty to country" in their training(basically brainwashing). And in many of cases those "people" have started their own WARS based SOLELY on religion. Crusades. Spanish Inquisition. Salem Witch Hunts.
I believe the bible actually describes REAL events. Ancient ruins keep popping up in the most unlikely places. Like 40 ft underwater in the Mediterranean sea. The best part is these ancient cities actually predate the Sumerians, which are thought to be the oldest civilization by 6000 years. That doubles our "civilized" human history.
The crusades were an attempt to take the wealth of the Middle East. The Middle East had ALL of the major trade routes, because it connected Africa, Europe, and Asia together. The Silk Road, the Royal Road, etc. were all major trade routes, and European leaders wanted the money, so they took advantage of people and started the Crusades. It was not a religious war, religion was the cover story!
The Spanish Inquisition was a political play to try to remove Jewish and Muslim influence from the country. It was almost identical to the current situation of illegal Mexican immigrants. The only difference was that they discriminated by religion while it is currently done by race or nationality.
The Salem Witch Hunts only killed 20 people, and were not wars of any sort. Originally (i.e., hundreds of years before), people were accused of witchcraft and executed for political reasons. Political leaders used it to take out rivals. Then, common people started using it as a means to steal people's stuff (accuse them of witchcraft, and then lay claim to their stuff after they die). When this came to America, it reached Salem. It started off the exact same way, but then children started to play pranks on people and that was when the hysteria began...
Re: Debate #2 (Religion/God)
Not to go offtopic here, but Myth, isn't heat not energy, but energy transfer? Either way, total Energy E = Kinetic + Internal + Potential energy, where Internal is thermal energy. At least that's how I learned it. On a Macroscopic scale though, in number of moles, you might be talking Microscopic, where Internal has little value.
Just the only chance I may have at proving Myth wrong xD