Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[alchem1485]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Dude, religion is another type of ideology. Be it rational or not, people still look up justification to defend their belief. It just way of thinking. You should not accuse someone for their way of think, as they should not accuse you too. Be religious or not, it is up to you. You, believe in science, don't you think it is another type of religion, in different way?

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Dude, religion is another type of ideology. Be it rational or not, people still look up justification to defend their belief. It just way of thinking. You should not accuse someone for their way of think, as they should not accuse you too. Be religious or not, it is up to you. You, believe in science, don't you think it is another type of religion, in different way?

Of course it isn't, in no way. Science is not about "believing" in it, nor does people's believe or faith in it affect it one way or the other. Science is not an ideology either...

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Well, that depends on what particular view on the bible you have. The most common view today of at least the larger christian groups is that the bible is by no means meant to be taken literally. The particular view you mention does not apply to the majority of christians as far as I can tell. I get the impression that that particular view of the bible is a problem mostly at the states (although even then it is mostly a particularly loud minority), I have yet to hear about that sort of fundamentalism being such a big issue elsewhere....

I guess so, as I hear that it's mainly US people who get too crazy over this. Dunno if they say this out of bias, but various other sources have stated the same.

The main reason for believing, from what I hear, is because they'd rather be right and go to Heaven than be wrong and go to Hell. Selfishness, IMO.

Dude, religion is another type of ideology. Be it rational or not, people still look up justification to defend their belief. It just way of thinking. You should not accuse someone for their way of think, as they should not accuse you too. Be religious or not, it is up to you. You, believe in science, don't you think it is another type of religion, in different way?

I do not think science is a religion, but people act as it is, and it's pretty dumb. Science is not meant to say "God isn't real" or "fuck your religion, we have proof!" It's supposed to be about discovering things and improving life.

 

[Demonspeed]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

The main reason for believing, from what I hear, is because they'd rather be right and go to Heaven than be wrong and go to Hell. Selfishness, IMO.

It might be seen as selfishness but what is wrong with that? It's not like someone else will accompany you when you will die.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I guess so, as I hear that it's mainly US people who get too crazy over this. Dunno if they say this out of bias, but various other sources have stated the same.

The main reason for believing, from what I hear, is because they'd rather be right and go to Heaven than be wrong and go to Hell. Selfishness, IMO.


I do not think science is a religion, but people act as it is, and it's pretty dumb. Science is not meant to say "God isn't real" or "fuck your religion, we have proof!" It's supposed to be about discovering things and improving life.

Is that what you wanted to write? It kinda seems like the whole thing is a no brainer if you put it like that. I mean, you have "right and go to heaven" compared to "wrong and go to hell". This confused me a bit for some reason, I feel like I missed the point....

Science not only is not meant to say those things, it does not say them at all. Its trolls and people who lack and understanding of science that say that... Although to be fair there are scenarios where you do get to say "fuck your religion, we have proof" in specific things. Evolution, dinosaurs, the world and the universe being billions of years old, etc.... None of those things are opinions or subjective as, saying you believe the world is 6000 years old, that it is hollow, or that dinosaurs were placed there by the devil are by no means valid opinions. In the same way as believing, say, that cars are animals is not a valid opinion.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

It might be seen as selfishness but what is wrong with that? It's not like someone else will accompany you when you will die.

It implies that they don't really believe in God but do it only because they're in it for themselves. That's not true belief.

Is that what you wanted to write? It kinda seems like the whole thing is a no brainer if you put it like that. I mean, you have "right and go to heaven" compared to "wrong and go to hell". This confused me a bit for some reason, I feel like I missed the point....

If you believe in God and live your life in devotion to him, and you're right, God will send you to Heaven.

If I believe God is fake and does not exist, and when I die and find out I'm wrong, I'll be sent to Hell when I could have spent my time praying to him.

Science not only is not meant to say those things, it does not say them at all. Its trolls and people who lack and understanding of science that say that... Although to be fair there are scenarios where you do get to say "fuck your religion, we have proof" in specific things. Evolution, dinosaurs, the world and the universe being billions of years old, etc.... None of those things are opinions or subjective as, saying you believe the world is 6000 years old, that it is hollow, or that dinosaurs were placed there by the devil are by no means valid opinions. In the same way as believing, say, that cars are animals is not a valid opinion.

However, that doesn't really mean "fuck your religion," given that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, but be used as a guide. Religion and science can get along and live together side by side, but the people tend to be jerkoffs about it.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

It implies that they don't really believe in God but do it only because they're in it for themselves. That's not true belief.

If you believe in God and live your life in devotion to him, and you're right, God will send you to Heaven.

If I believe God is fake and does not exist, and when I die and find out I'm wrong, I'll be sent to Hell when I could have spent my time praying to him.

Ahh I see. I thought you were for something like "I'd rather be wrong, as in saying things which I can't rationally back up, and got to heaven than being right, being scientific and all and go to hell". Maybe I don't know what I was thinking when I read what you said.

However, that doesn't really mean "fuck your religion," given that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, but be used as a guide. Religion and science can get along and live together side by side, but the people tend to be jerkoffs about it.

I guess it depends on perspective. Even if you don't literally say that, if you tell someone that there is a vast amount of objective evidence and studies that have been widely and consistently validated through years and independent studies and cross examination it basically amounts to the aforementioned "fuck your religion" at least from that person's perspective. Although we are mixing topics a bit. I was not continuing on what I said earlier about the bible not being literal, rather I was making a different argument that there is a point at which you have to stress that there is no hard evidence to support certain claims and that while everyone is entitled to an opinion that is an entirely different matter from said opinion being valid.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Also, much respect to Urey-Miller for an experiment that created life.

You should type things like that in Google before you post them, please.

Why is atheism so small in numbers, when clearly many people disagree with religious beliefs that worship a higher being? Especially, when science is factual and rational, which has been very useful and progressive for the world, yet people still put hopes in a fallacy that does not depend on rational argument or factual evidence? Why do people enjoy belonging to something or become so hypnotized by the notion that a miracle will save their unfortunate lives, rather then just doing something about it, in order to make change for themselves? Anyways, I hope I did not offend anyone.

Truly insulting, you'd offend less people calling every black man you meet a n*****.

Anyway, Urey did not create life, and that is one of the strongest points in a creationist argument. Miller Urey's experiement created amino acids(very very basic building blocks of life) using elements that scientists believe were not present on early earth. Even if you take a living cell apart and try to put it back together it will never come back to life.

Wouldn't you think, if life could form through naturalistic processes that it wouldn't happen every 5 seconds? That every now and then animals form that have absolutely no genetic connection to any animals before them?

The notion that life could begin through a few amino acids floating in the ocean is about thrice as ridiculous as the story of Noah's Ark. For me it was a deciding factor to believe in young earth creationism. How can I trust the Theory of Evolution when, in atheistic belief, it's grounded on the concept of life forming on its own which obviously didn't happen?

If you actually dig deep into Atheism vs Young Earth Creationism you will find it has nothing to do with hell, faith or family. It is a difference of interpretation of the exact same evidence, while neither side is wrong. Is the cup half empty or half full?

In my opinion, this is another deciding factor for me, I am not trying to end your belief in atheism, but Atheism and Creationism both observe and analyze the past. Darwin developed guesses based on what he observed. He had no way of knowing if any interpretations were absolutely true except by comparing them to observations in the present. Which is an absolutely perfect way of reasoning.

However, Creationists also made observations of the past, and now is it coincidence that ideas developed and written over 2000 years ago happen to correlate with present day scientific theory. The Big Bang Theory basically states that the universe could have been created from nothing. It starts with a tiny, ever-expanding (infinitely dense), ball of light. Sounds like Genesis. Studies show that all human ethnicities are genetically linked. Sounds like Genesis. Studies show that origins of life do not form a tree, but a set of unconnected vertical lines at the Cambrian explosion. Sounds like Genesis. Jesus's body can't be found, but he clearly made a lasting impression all over the Middle East and Europe. Sounds like the New Testament Just to state a few.

What I mean is Darwin compared his observations to observations present. Creationists compare our observations to the record of someone who was there. It is not an nonfactual, irrational hypnosis.I'd say the cup is half full.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Ahh I see. I thought you were for something like "I'd rather be wrong, as in saying things which I can't rationally back up, and got to heaven than being right, being scientific and all and go to hell". Maybe I don't know what I was thinking when I read what you said.

Nope. Nothin related to science, just beliefs.

I guess it depends on perspective. Even if you don't literally say that, if you tell someone that there is a vast amount of objective evidence and studies that have been widely and consistently validated through years and independent studies and cross examination it basically amounts to the aforementioned "fuck your religion" at least from that person's perspective. Although we are mixing topics a bit. I was not continuing on what I said earlier about the bible not being literal, rather I was making a different argument that there is a point at which you have to stress that there is no hard evidence to support certain claims and that while everyone is entitled to an opinion that is an entirely different matter from said opinion being valid.

How does it, though? I've said this before, but there's no reason to say "EVOLUTION IS REAL GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!11" Like, why couldn't God have created the first animals, stood back, and let nature handle itself?

Certain things may not have hard evidence, but it's not like all the scientific facts are 100% accurate. There could always be that one little thing that disproves the fact a bit or completely. Personally, I don't care about disproving God or Jesus's magical powers, I just don't want to be annoyed by people shoving their beliefs down my throat.

You should type things like that in Google before you post them, please.

I have, and I've read a textbook dedicated to that... though it was a short passage, but still.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Truly insulting, you'd offend less people calling every black man you meet a n*****.

Hyperbole much?

Faith isn't comparable to who someone is on an intrinsic level. This comparison is horribly insensitive and in bad taste.

The notion that life could begin through a few amino acids floating in the ocean is about thrice as ridiculous as the story of Noah's Ark. For me it was a deciding factor to believe in young earth creationism. How can I trust the Theory of Evolution when, in atheistic belief, it's grounded on the concept of life forming on its own which obviously didn't happen?

So then you think that the Earth was created somewhere between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago?

Also, "life forming on it's own" is such a broad, convenient way to phrase it. Isn't it?

If you actually dig deep into Atheism vs Young Earth Creationism you will find it has nothing to do with hell, faith or family. It is a difference of interpretation of the exact same evidence, while neither side is wrong. Is the cup half empty or half full?

That's the entire point, isn't it? The fact is, science can be proven to be wrong but it can also be proven right, that's the point of it in the first place. Faith can't be proven wrong or right in realistic terms, that's why it's called FAITH.

Atheism says nothing about the origin of life, that's the job of science. Young Earth Creationism has everything to do with faith. I'm not sure where you got the impression that it wasn't. It's basis is in religious scripture, so no, Evolution and Young Earth Creationism are not simply two different interpretations of the same evidence, that's ludicrous.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

@xi0

1. Are you sticking up for his uncalled for stereotype of religious believers by attacking my analogy? Calling it a hyperbole is a hyperbole.

2. You do realize the rocks used to find the age of the earth as 4.5 billion were from outer-space? And there are numerous dating methods which will each give different dates on the same object.

3. Faith can't be proven wrong? If you have faith in your legs to keep you standing and your legs suddenly stop working isn't your faith in your legs to keep you standing gone? Has it not been disproven?

Webster defines it as "strong belief or trust in someone or something". You might need to talk to her about that. By definition you put faith in science.

Science is not about what can and can't be proven right. Webster defines science as "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation." The word science is not synonymous with "experiment" which is based on the doubt in the reality of a hypothesis

I seriously just talked to M3J about typing things in on Google.

My post actually had factual evidence including logos and ethos rhetoric and you're not only pretending like it isn't there, but that you don't have to use it either. You've done nothing but state a claim and pretend like it backed up a conclusion. All I'm seeing is: There's nothing wrong with my evidence, you just don't, personally, like my claims.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

@xi0

1. Are you sticking up for his uncalled for stereotype of religious believers by attacking my analogy? Calling it a hyperbole is a hyperbole.

2. You do realize the rocks used to find the age of the earth as 4.5 billion were from outer-space? And there are numerous dating methods which will each give different dates on the same object.

3. Faith can't be proven wrong? If you have faith in your legs to keep you standing and your legs suddenly stop working isn't your faith in your legs to keep you standing gone? Has it not been disproven?

Webster defines it as "strong belief or trust in someone or something". You might need to talk to her about that. By definition you put faith in science.

Science is not about what can and can't be proven right. Webster defines science as "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation." The word science is not synonymous with "experiment" which is based on the doubt in the reality of a hypothesis

I seriously just talked to M3J about typing things in on Google.

My post actually had factual evidence including logos and ethos rhetoric and you're not only pretending like it isn't there, but that you don't have to use it either. You've done nothing but state a claim and pretend like it backed up a conclusion. All I'm seeing is: There's nothing wrong with my evidence, you just don't, personally, like my claims.

1. It's his opinion, you don't have to like it. Suggesting that it's tantamount to using racial slurs is silly and disruptive to the conversation. The topic of this thread is Atheism in contrast with other religions.

2. What rocks? I don't seem to understand why the scientific community would go years accepting something like carbon-dating as reliable when it isn't. That goes against the point of science in the first place.

3. I meant religious faith. Faith in God, faith in a divine creator. There's no amount of scientific method that can be used to prove or deny his existence.

No, some people might put faith in science, because they value the scientific method. But there are actual people who use science to PROVE things. They're called scientists.

How the hell is science not synonymous with experimentation? Experimentation is a part of the scientific method!

"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

You still didn't answer my question about whether you believe the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old, because the suggestion that this is true is easily prove false with mathematics. If the Earth was that young, we wouldn't see anywhere near the amount of stars and other cosmic bodies in the night sky. Why? Because the speed of light is constant. You can't argue against math.

----

Where was the factual evidence? It's your OPINION that life popping out of "thin air" (grossly mischaracterized in the first place) is thrice as ridiculous as the story of Noah's Arc. Relating everything else back to Genesis is the definition of confirmation bias.

To simply accept something as fact because there's no scientific answer for it is fine, but your reasoning is fundamentally flawed if you think that is logical reasoning and not a matter of faith. Just like believing in Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

1. It's his opinion, you don't have to like it. Suggesting that it's tantamount to using racial slurs is silly and disruptive to the conversation. The topic of this thread is Atheism in contrast with other religions.

2. What rocks? I don't seem to understand why the scientific community would go years accepting something like carbon-dating as reliable when it isn't. That goes against the point of science in the first place.

3. I meant religious faith. Faith in God, faith in a divine creator. There's no amount of scientific method that can be used to prove or deny his existence.

No, some people might put faith in science, because they value the scientific method. But there are actual people who use science to PROVE things. They're called scientists.

How the hell is science not synonymous with experimentation? Experimentation is a part of the scientific method!

"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

You still didn't answer my question about whether you believe the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old, because the suggestion that this is true is easily prove false with mathematics. If the Earth was that young, we wouldn't see anywhere near the amount of stars and other cosmic bodies in the night sky? Why? Because the speed of light is constant. You can't argue against math.

----

Where was the factual evidence? It's your OPINION that life popping out of "thin air" (grossly mischaracterized in the first place) is thrice as ridiculous as the story of Noah's Arc. Relating everything else back to Genesis is the definition of confirmation bias.

To simply accept something as fact because there's no scientific answer for it is fine, but your reasoning is fundamentally flawed if you think that is logical reasoning and not a matter of faith.

1. Forum rules state he's not allowed to make an opinion like that, just so you know. I'm only saying it because nearly every atheist speaking out against creationism can't find a professional way to voice his opinion and I'm tired of it. Simply judging someone for his beliefs contributed to the development of the Holocaust. It's not okay.

2. Faith in a Creator is testable. *cough* watchmaker argument *cough*

3. The word Synonym directly translates from the Greek words for "Together Name" meaning the same name for the same definition. Science is the study, experimentation is what is being studied. Like "Less" and "Fewer" they are not always interchangeable.

4. The concept of life forming by natural processes breaks every rule in the observational science used to support Darwin's theory. I am not trying to disprove atheism (if you read my post you'd know that), yet for some reason the opposite seems to be your goal.

You know why birth is a miracle? Because with all the things that could go wrong it's mathematically phenomenal that anyone survives birth. The Earth's ability to sustain life is a miracle, because math and statistics say it should never have happened.

I could explain to you how the concept of and almighty God bending the laws of Physics does not defy creationist belief as does the concept of life forming through naturalistic processes defy observational science, but I'm not here to convert you.

- But your position on light is a very good example a different interpretation. You've even interpreted my words much differently than intended. My connections to genesis and the New Testament are to say, if claims are made by these people who wrote the bible then we should see evidence of that, and we do.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

How does it, though? I've said this before, but there's no reason to say "EVOLUTION IS REAL GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!11" Like, why couldn't God have created the first animals, stood back, and let nature handle itself?

Certain things may not have hard evidence, but it's not like all the scientific facts are 100% accurate. There could always be that one little thing that disproves the fact a bit or completely. Personally, I don't care about disproving God or Jesus's magical powers, I just don't want to be annoyed by people shoving their beliefs down my throat.

My point was not about that in the least, if anything I haven't said anything contrary to that. Science can't prove or disprove god, no scientific theory can ever do that. I was talking about more specific things, as in claims of a young earth. God creating the world, universe and everything through natural processes is at large irrelevant to science because you can't observe, measure and make testable predictions on said actions. The issue I am pointing at is using religion to make actual scientific claims (which as I have said earlier is every bit as bad as using science to make religious claims). Saying god created the universe does not really generate conflict with science. Saying the earth is hollow does.

Well, no, they are not meant to be that either. What we have as scientific theories today is meant to be replaced by more accurate theories tomorrow. Science being that way, theories and models being discarded and improved upon, is one of its greatest merits. Science is by no means ever "final".

---------- Post added September 13, 2014 at 12:25 AM ---------- Previous post was September 12, 2014 at 11:58 PM ----------

1. Forum rules state he's not allowed to make an opinion like that, just so you know. I'm only saying it because nearly every atheist speaking out against creationism can't find a professional way to voice his opinion and I'm tired of it. Simply judging someone for their beliefs contributed to the development of the Holocaust. It's not okay.

2. Faith in a Creator is testable. *cough* watchmaker argument *cough*

3. The word Synonym directly translates from the Greek words for "Together Name" meaning the same name for the same definition. Science is the study, experimentation is what is being studied. Like "Less" and "Fewer" they are not always interchangeable.

4. The concept of life forming by natural processes breaks every rule in the observational science used to support Darwin's theory. I am not trying to disprove atheism (if you read my post you'd know that), yet for some reason the opposite seems to be your goal.

You know why birth is a miracle? Because with all the things that could go wrong it's mathematically phenomenal that anyone survives birth. The Earth's ability to sustain life is a miracle, because math and statistics say it should never have happened.

I could explain to you how the concept of and almighty God bending the laws of Physics does not defy creationist belief as does the concept of life forming through naturalistic processes defy observational science, but I'm not here to convert you.

- But your position on light is a very good example a different interpretation. You've even interpreted my words much differently than intended. My connections to genesis and the New Testament are to say, if claims are made by these people who wrote the bible then we should see evidence of that, and we do.

Watchmaker argument? That's irrelevant... the watchmaker argument is at best an assumption and at worst sophistry and plainly a bad analogy. Even assuming none of those things were the case, there is no test, experiment or prediction you can make on that.

There is literally no reason to think birth or any of the things you mention are statistically or mathematically impossible. Looking at the statistics and math around the subject (which looking at everyone around you) pretty much suggest that the whole thing is more than reasonably statistically and mathematically possible.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Watchmaker argument? That's irrelevant... the watchmaker argument is at best an assumption and at worst sophistry and plainly a bad analogy. Even assuming none of those things were the case, there is no test, experiment or prediction you can make on that.

There is no real math or statistics that back up that sort of claims about life, the universe and everything.... Also, statistics by definition can't say what you claim, its a conceptual impossibility. Statistics rely on gathering data to obtain information from said data. The statistic you suggest, that birth should be improbable or impossible, cannot exist because birth is rather common. The only way for such a statistic to exist, within the context you describe, is that there virtually hadn't been any births. The statistic you mention cannot plausibly exist and whatever math you are talking about probably relied on the impossible statistics you mention or some bad math.

What I see is a series of different interpretations. Am I wrong? Or is there just another way of looking at things? Another perspective?

It depends on what context you interpret the word statistics. Are we looking for statistics of births occurring. Or the probability of a birth of a random mother being successful with no fatal or developmentally compromising deformities.

Pathogens
STDs
Nutrition of Pregnant Woman
Drugs processed by the Pregnant Woman's body
Stress put on the Pregnant Woman's body
Verbal and Physical Violence in the Pregnant Woman's Environment
A twin may kill the other child.
Cancers that develop shortly after and during infancy
Decision to abort.

Just to name a few, can hinder a birth. It's a very pessimistic view, yes, but it's not wrong. If a survey was taken of every attempted conception from every human being on earth for 1 year, statistics of births occurring would strongly lean towards failure.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

What I see is a series of different interpretations. Am I wrong? Or is there just another way of looking at things? Another perspective?

It depends on what context you interpret the word statistics. Are we looking for statistics of births occurring. Or the probability of a birth of a random mother being successful with no fatal or developmentally compromising deformities.

Not sure what you are talking about.... Interpretations?

Either one.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

1. Forum rules state he's not allowed to make an opinion like that, just so you know. I'm only saying it because nearly every atheist speaking out against creationism can't find a professional way to voice his opinion and I'm tired of it. Simply judging someone for his beliefs contributed to the development of the Holocaust. It's not okay.

I hope you're not acting as if religious people are completely innocent when many are even worse.

4. The concept of life forming by natural processes breaks every rule in the observational science used to support Darwin's theory. I am not trying to disprove atheism (if you read my post you'd know that), yet for some reason the opposite seems to be your goal.

Life did form by natural processes, as the Urey-Miller experiment showed. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by natural processes?

You know why birth is a miracle? Because with all the things that could go wrong it's mathematically phenomenal that anyone survives birth. The Earth's ability to sustain life is a miracle, because math and statistics say it should never have happened.

Birth is seen as a miracle because it's basically creating a new life. I doubt anyone thinks about the probability of surviving birth, especially given how populated the world is right now.

- But your position on light is a very good example a different interpretation. You've even interpreted my words much differently than intended. My connections to genesis and the New Testament are to say, if claims are made by these people who wrote the bible then we should see evidence of that, and we do.

What evidence?

My point was not about that in the least, if anything I haven't said anything contrary to that. Science can't prove or disprove god, no scientific theory can ever do that. I was talking about more specific things, as in claims of a young earth. God creating the world, universe and everything through natural processes is at large irrelevant to science because you can't observe, measure and make testable predictions on said actions. The issue I am pointing at is using religion to make actual scientific claims (which as I have said earlier is every bit as bad as using science to make religious claims). Saying god created the universe does not really generate conflict with science. Saying the earth is hollow does.

It is somewhat possible to disprove God, but I don't want to explain it because it's confusing as hell in my mind, and it'd probably be worse if I typed it out.

Well, no, they are not meant to be that either. What we have as scientific theories today is meant to be replaced by more accurate theories tomorrow. Science being that way, theories and models being discarded and improved upon, is one of its greatest merits. Science is by no means ever "final".

I agree. Great thing about science is that it's never set in stone, it's constantly evolving. Religion however, seems to devolve. It went from coexisting with science to vilifying science out of fear to criticizing science, forcing people to read the Bible and pray, and hating on homosexuals and anything that they did not like.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

1. Forum rules state he's not allowed to make an opinion like that, just so you know. I'm only saying it because nearly every atheist speaking out against creationism can't find a professional way to voice his opinion and I'm tired of it. Simply judging someone for his beliefs contributed to the development of the Holocaust. It's not okay.

Neither is offensive hyperbole. Thanks, I'm aware of the rules of the forum.

Now please, stick to the actual topic and end this train of thought and the Godwin's law here. Take it to PM if you have an issue with it not being deleted.

The concept of life forming by natural processes breaks every rule in the observational science used to support Darwin's theory. I am not trying to disprove atheism (if you read my post you'd know that), yet for some reason the opposite seems to be your goal.

You know why birth is a miracle? Because with all the things that could go wrong it's mathematically phenomenal that anyone survives birth. The Earth's ability to sustain life is a miracle, because math and statistics say it should never have happened.

I could explain to you how the concept of and almighty God bending the laws of Physics does not defy creationist belief as does the concept of life forming through naturalistic processes defy observational science, but I'm not here to convert you.

- But your position on light is a very good example a different interpretation. You've even interpreted my words much differently than intended. My connections to genesis and the New Testament are to say, if claims are made by these people who wrote the bible then we should see evidence of that, and we do.

I'm not trying to disprove creationism. I'd have to put effort into disproving something that was provable in the first place. That's been my point the whole time. I'm not even atheist!

It's not my position on light. It's called a universal constant for a reason.

Birth isn't a miracle... "A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws". Going on definition alone (which you seem to enjoy doing), birth is the OPPOSITE of a miracle.

I'll just leave this here. (longer version here)

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I'm curious, "Introspective".... Do you think evolution claims men came from monkeys/evolved from monkeys?

 

[Demonspeed]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

It implies that they don't really believe in God but do it only because they're in it for themselves. That's not true belief.

Personally I am Muslim and I don't think I know a lot about my religion so what I will say might be different for the Christians but from what I know, it is acknowledged that nobody or almost nobody in this current era would be religious without Heaven and Hell. In Islam, the conditions to be considered as someone with the faith changed from what they were at the beginning. At the beginning you would be considered as a believer just by accepting that there is only one God, the five prayers a day weren't necessary for example. Nowadays to be considered as a believer, you must follow the Five Pillars of Islam.

Since it is necessary to believe that Muhammad is God's messenger, it automatically means that you believe in Heaven and Hell, and you will have to follow the 4 other Pillars. That's impossible to achieve unless you really believe it.