what really annoys me about this religion vs non religious article

[97 bulls]

For the same reason we accept what a detective says happened at the scene of a crime. You don't have to be there to know what happened. The behavior of matter and energy in nature conforms to certain laws. We are constantly testing these laws of nature and subsequently we can use our findings to both explain and predict what has happened in the past.

For instance we understand how geological strata are formed and we also know that animals living in the past will leave there remains in the strata that was at the top layer during their time period. We therefore can look at a fossil found in a particular layer and tell how old it is. We can accept their claims now because they also have a predictive value. Which is we shouldn't find fossils from animals in the wrong strata. If geological theory is correct then we won't find a horse buried next to a t-Rex or a wolf next to an Iguanodon. This is important because it means that geologists and paleontologists can be proven wrong (which hasn't happened in the few hundred years they've been around). Those sayings from men thousands of years ago can't be.
Why? As a poster stated earlier. The Bible doesn't contradict the scientific claim that man came after animals.

This applies to all of science though. Science is by no means perfect and it does change over time. This is actually a very good thing. What generally happens is that science is constantly throwing out bad ideas and in doing so is always moving towards the truth. It may never get there but it will always be inching nearer. Discrepancies and disagreements happen, but they more or less occur because of outside political or corporate influence rather than a problem with the scientific method. Also the media has a part to play as well. So many times they will report a medical or health story by taking one line from a paper out of context and claim it is exactly what the paper says.
These are excuses bro.

I should just add, the authors of the bible are far less reliable than modern scientists. A lot of them didn't even write what occurred until a generation or two after the events at the earliest.
Again, you questioning the validity of the bibles authors based on a record of historical happenings that occured a few generations prior to their life, but then fall in line with the beliefs of men that attempt to answer questions about things that happened 40 million years ago?
You should watch this video on the History of God if you are interested in seeing how your bible and god came into existence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

Ill watch the vid when I vet the opportunity

In response to your detective scenario, not the same thing. They dont just go off faith. They need witnesse, DNA, motive, a weapon, timeline, as well as a crime scene.

[ILLsmak]

can't simply blame the internet.. I searched for Jesus for years and found the truth back in 96 (before the explosion of internet websites).. I read many books that had the info that is now displayed on the internet. Internet just makes that much easier to find

did you search for Jesus on google tho?

I think it's funny that people say nothing supernatural happens on earth, but plenty of shit that doesn't really make sense happens. People think that if you can explain something after the fact that it's not supernatural.

But in the same way people can say "lol, secret rocks" when describing the walk on water story, you can pretty much ninja in some explanation with your imagination.

I think it's just cool now to not be religious. It's like you gotta be either smart or religious. Again, kind of funny. I don't consider myself religious, per se, but I def believe in God. As I've said in these threads before, I feel like people who 'only' believe in what they see are missing out on a large part of the world.

As for all of that stuff like... creation story, Santa Claus, virgin birth... if you look at the idea of religion, you realize it doesn't hinge on any of that stuff. Even the religion of Christianity doesn't hinge on the actual existence of Christ. The idea of being a Christian, as well as I can understand, is being "Christ-like" and it's something we are all capable of and there is much information regarding what that would take. I don't think anyone who goes out of their way to be similar to Christ as described in the Bible would be a person that I wouldn't want to hang out with... other than the fact it might make me feel a bit guilty from time to time.

The strong hatred of religion, specifically Christianity, is warranted because there are so many pretend religious people that are like lol btw ur going 2 hell. And it's sad that people want to put that on GOD. It's like dudes got so mad in grade school when someone told them they were going to hell that they made it their life's goal to disprove God.

Mind-blowing.

-Smak

[97 bulls]

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...f-of-Bible.php



http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...racts_tbiatos/

Id like for you to give your opinion on these links im sending you

[Godzuki]

did you search for Jesus on google tho?

I think it's funny that people say nothing supernatural happens on earth, but plenty of shit that doesn't really make sense happens. People think that if you can explain something after the fact that it's not supernatural.

But in the same way people can say "lol, secret rocks" when describing the walk on water story, you can pretty much ninja in some explanation with your imagination.

I think it's just cool now to not be religious. It's like you gotta be either smart or religious. Again, kind of funny. I don't consider myself religious, per se, but I def believe in God. As I've said in these threads before, I feel like people who 'only' believe in what they see are missing out on a large part of the world.

As for all of that stuff like... creation story, Santa Claus, virgin birth... if you look at the idea of religion, you realize it doesn't hinge on any of that stuff. Even the religion of Christianity doesn't hinge on the actual existence of Christ. The idea of being a Christian, as well as I can understand, is being "Christ-like" and it's something we are all capable of and there is much information regarding what that would take. I don't think anyone who goes out of their way to be similar to Christ as described in the Bible would be a person that I wouldn't want to hang out with... other than the fact it might make me feel a bit guilty from time to time.

The strong hatred of religion, specifically Christianity, is warranted because there are so many pretend religious people that are like lol btw ur going 2 hell. And it's sad that people want to put that on GOD. It's like dudes got so mad in grade school when someone told them they were going to hell that they made it their life's goal to disprove God.

Mind-blowing.

-Smak

its more that people want the bottom line truth instead of smoke and mirrors. I think most people who argue against religion with science lets say probably feel most religious people aren't realistic, and believe in stuff mainly based on being raised a certain way, but not truly based on reason or facts. Its not that people are out to get religion just to spite you all, more that people feel its a mass lie perpetrated over thousands of years based on books written by man, supposedly passed down from God. That is difficult for a realist to accept. It doesn't help many religious people will say stuff like "religion and science can coexist fine" when it just can't if you have studied both.


You also have to wonder with your whole belief in the supernatural, why you haven't seen it more often then. How many times in your lifetime have you seen the supernatural you were sure was the supernatural? I have maybe once and that was apparently explained by Sleep Paralysis. I'm still not sure if i even buy the Sleep Paralysis theory since it seemed so real but i can at least agree the mind can play tricks on people based on their condition.

Basically what i'm saying is why are there so few cases in most peoples lives of seeing the supernatural, if the supernatural does in fact exist? if magic exists why can't anyone do magic? why do the laws of science always hold true and is everywhere, and the complete opposite of someone able to fly lets say? There is just really nothing in this world over thousands of years that is so unexplainable and blatantly other worldly magical or supernatural, and you would think over that span SOMETHING would have had us scratching our heads on a world scale, right? Something that would at least corroborate the supernatural on some level truly exists that leaves scientists befuddled. Maybe someone born who can fly? maybe someone born who had psychic powers to really move stuff? maybe someone born who can directly prove to you they talk to God, and can prove it by predicting what is going to happen every 5 seconds? Something like that...

Like i said i've always wanted to believe there was something but at this point and over so many years of reading everything that suggested it was supernatural, it all just feels like one big hoax, scam, lighting effect, or something along those lines from somebody. If not their minds manipulating people into seeing things for whatever reasons(sleep paralysis, wanting to believe in something, etc)). I just feel if it existed at all there would be more obvious supernatural events that occur like laws of physics where we see that every day. If its a truth then it has to happen with more regularity i figure, and be seen/proven by this point but it never is.

[Godzuki]

I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. Except.for the part where you mention dinosaurs and the bible. Can you elaborate?

you know the other thing that bothers me about how people interpret religious texts these days to suit their lives? Its that being religious was never easy. Nobody in any Bible lesson pretended to adapt what was written and remake it like people do today to fit whats acceptable to today's standards. Being faithful to God was VERY difficult, it was always a constant test of temptations, and living your life in a very moral way. Many of the apostles went through so much to prove their faith to God where they were persecuted, while many people of today who call themselves religious are basically sinning constantly, then always using 'God forgives' as their fall back.

Its just a completely different religious reality than what the Bible preaches and tells through its lessons/stories than how people pretend to be so religious today. Its like sinning first and all of the time, then using one line to make it easy and excuse it all that 'God forgives'. I just cna't take it seriously, mostly when people have the audacity to think they can adapt scripture, or rather Gods book to man, to their own as they go 'interpretations' to make it all convenient. The whole idea of that even if i believed in a almighty being is ridiculous.

[miller-time]

Ill watch the vid when I vet the opportunity

In response to your detective scenario, not the same thing. They dont just go off faith. They need witnesse, DNA, motive, a weapon, timeline, as well as a crime scene.

You don't need all of those things all of the time. Cases can be solved without any number of those things present. Plenty of crimes don't have witnesses, if I murdered you in a room and no one else was there does there need to be a witness for me to be found guilty? Can other evidence be used? Motive implys intent and while there might not be a conscious intent behind the events in nature nature is always constantly trying to find an equalibrium. The reason things happened in the past (from continental drift to a specific organic chemical reaction) is because the physical laws of the universe "prefer" changes in state. So we have motive in a sense. DNA is just a piece of natural evidence like anything else - rocks, fossils, chemical reactions, physical reactions etc. A weapon is crime specific but again it is just a piece of evidence. Timelines are very relevant to scientific discovery. Every single thing in science is tied to a timeline because nearly everything in science relates to change over time in some way. The crime scene is the same as a dig, or a chemical reaction in a lab, or light from a star hitting a telescopic mirror, it is just the event that is being studied.

So to tick off the boxes. Witness? Not necessary but happens for all modern experiments. Motive? Check - nature finding equalibrium. DNA? Check - piece of evidence. Weapon? Check - piece of evidence. Timeline? Check - time is everything. Crime scene? Check - the event being studied.

[rufuspaul]

LOL wtf?

Make a ****ing logical argument instead of pretending like someone who works a job is automatically right about everything because he works that job, without reasonable explanation.


This is one of the dumbest replies i've ever seen. Way to quote people who aren't explaining anything to say they're right because of their job titles that both can coexist. i mean could you at least post their explanations on how they make it all fit, or your explanation of what i said to counter how they contradict each other? Thats really the bottom line here.

I mean if you have even the tiniest bit of logic in your head you could see that a theory on evolution contradicts that God created Adam and Eve first. Or the many other things written in Genesis that does not correlate with science.

Furthermore there are 'new age religious people' these days who make shit up to fit in terms of whats accepted today. Whether thats gays being accepted by God, or fitting in evolution or dinosaurs, or the Big Bang with religion. they adapt the bible so much from its original tenets that is funny to me they can even pretend they're speaking for God in how they pretend to adapt it to today's standards/reason. They call the fundamentalists crazy but at least the fundamentalists are adhering to original texts, and not man adapted watered down versions.

This is Godzuki's way of saying TL,DR. Or in his case TLRPTSTU (too long, read part, too stupid to understand).

Your Adam and Eve comparison to evolution shows how stupid you really are. You of all people should not be taking a literal interpretation of the bible any more than a religious person should reject science because he doesn't understand. Dumb, dumb dumb. But I wouldn't expect any less from you at this point.

[Godzuki]

This is Godzuki's way of saying TL,DR. Or in his case TLRPTSTU (too long, read part, too stupid to understand).

Your Adam and Eve comparison to evolution shows how stupid you really are. You of all people should not be taking a literal interpretation of the bible any more than a religious person should reject science because he doesn't understand. Dumb, dumb dumb. But I wouldn't expect any less from you at this point.

You have to be one of the biggest poosies on this forum. Not even talking about all the arguing and beefing that goes on here but in terms of you giving a real opinion. Like actually cover some bases, making a real argument like i asked earlier. all you do is talk in these obscure generalities because youre a poosy.

call me dumb i don't care, all i know is you're a straight up poosy. Scared to throw your argument out there in fear of getting ridiculed and shot down so you respond with garbage like this all of the time lol.

[97 bulls]

You don't need all of those things all of the time. Cases can be solved without any number of those things present. Plenty of crimes don't have witnesses, if I murdered you in a room and no one else was there does there need to be a witness for me to be found guilty? Can other evidence be used? Motive implys intent and while there might not be a conscious intent behind the events in nature nature is always constantly trying to find an equalibrium. The reason things happened in the past (from continental drift to a specific organic chemical reaction) is because the physical laws of the universe "prefer" changes in state. So we have motive in a sense. DNA is just a piece of natural evidence like anything else - rocks, fossils, chemical reactions, physical reactions etc. A weapon is crime specific but again it is just a piece of evidence. Timelines are very relevant to scientific discovery. Every single thing in science is tied to a timeline because nearly everything in science relates to change over time in some way. The crime scene is the same as a dig, or a chemical reaction in a lab, or light from a star hitting a telescopic mirror, it is just the event that is being studied.

So to tick off the boxes. Witness? Not necessary but happens for all modern experiments. Motive? Check - nature finding equalibrium. DNA? Check - piece of evidence. Weapon? Check - piece of evidence. Timeline? Check - time is everything. Crime scene? Check - the event being studied.

My point was to show in response to your detective scenario, that in order to get a conviction, you need irrefutable evidence.

I refute your scientific claim because they base their findings of what happened in the past largely on whats happening today. As if there is a constant.

I don't profess to follow science past what I learned in highschool and a little in college and ive forgotten most of it. But lets take for instance how scientists determine the age of the earth. Scientists estimate (which by definition isnt exact) that the earth is 4 billion years old or however old based on the decay of radioactivty in rocks. As if those rocks see the exact same conditions year in and out. And mind you the estimated age of the earth has changed many times.

I liken it to baking a cake. Even if you apply the exact same ingredients every time (likened to the rock), the outcome depends largely on the temperature of the oven being used and the time (which is tantamount to the weather and climate). How do scientists know how.the weather and climate was on a daily basis over 4 million years ago? Hell some scientists today feel our climate has changed greatly based on what man has done.

And as I stated earlier in another post. Science is fallible. I remember when scientists claimed that it was healthy to eat plenty of red meat. That's no longer true. Or that it was healthy to drink raw eggs.

You even admit that science isnt infallible when you stated in another post that it.constantly changes.

[miller-time]

My point was to show in response to your detective scenario, that in order to get a conviction, you need irrefutable evidence.

I refute your scientific claim because they base their findings of what happened in the past largely on whats happening today. As if there is a constant.

So you are basically (for no other reason than to dismiss scientific evidence) saying that the laws of the universe were different in the past than they are today? OK so shoot, what evidence do you have that one single law existing today was different in the past?

[Dunaprenti]

And as I stated earlier in another post. Science is fallible. I remember when scientists claimed that it was healthy to eat plenty of red meat. That's no longer true. Or that it was healthy to drink raw eggs.

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.
This is the definiton from the Oxford dictionary.
No religion questions or modifies itself. It's the absolute truth from the get go.
Have you ever changed your opinion on something based on new facts you discovered? If you haven't I question your sanity.

Also, who are the "scientists" who claimed those things? Please link me.

[97 bulls]

So you are basically (for no other reason than to dismiss scientific evidence) saying that the laws of the universe were different in the past than they are today? OK so shoot, what evidence do you have that one single law existing today was different in the past?

Lol. Things do change Miller. For you to argue such is a direct contradiction to your own belief. Don't you feel mankind evolves? Why wouldn't everything else do the same?

[97 bulls]

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.
This is the definiton from the Oxford dictionary.
No religion questions or modifies itself. It's the absolute truth from the get go.
Have you ever changed your opinion on something based on new facts you discovered? If you haven't I question your sanity.

Also, who are the "scientists" who claimed those things? Please link me.

Lol. Do the research yourself. I just did a couple Google searches and it brought up plenty of info on the good and bad points of eating eggs. As with all studies, some Doctors feel eating a limited amount of eggs are ok because they are high in protien. But other doctors say not to because they are also high in cholesterol. Even going so far as to say only eat the whites.

As far as red meat, I remember watching "the Brady Bunch movie". It was about family that was stuck in the seventies even though it was the late 90s. In one scene, the mother was doing some shopping for the family at a butcher's meat store. She orders a bunch of red meat and one of her neighbors comments on how thats not healthy. She replies that she needs it because it is.

Im 40 years old. I remember back when I was a kid how it was encouraged to eat red meat. Then as I became a teenager and then young adult, it no longer was considered a good idea to eat red meat.

[97 bulls]

Have you ever changed your opinion on something based on new facts you discovered? If you haven't I question your sanity.

Off course I have. But you can't compare this to God. God is perfect and thus has no reason to change. We as men aren't. So we are constantly updating our stance on all facets of life.

[miller-time]

Lol. Things do change Miller. For you to argue such is a direct contradiction to your own belief. Don't you feel mankind evolves? Why wouldn't everything else do the same?

Those are changes within a system which are influenced by the laws of the universe. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the universal constants, the laws themself. The speed of light, the attractive force of gravity, the effect of heat and pressure on an object. Those things have remained constant and scientists can use those constants to figure out what exactly happened in the past. Even if they have changed within Earths history (of 4.3 billion years) the possible difference wouldn't have been dramatic enough to create a significant difference in how things behaved back then compared to now. If they were orders of magnitude different then the entire system would break down and we wouldn't even be here.