Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is Atheism a religion?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Huhu huh huh.... :pac:
Since you previously said atheism is a religion because atheists believe there is no God do you, by that very same logic, think believing the Earth revolves around the sun is a religion? Do you believe waiting on a bus is a religion? Do think believing in the ineptitude of politicians is a religion?
Because, frankly, that's a load of bollocks.
You clearly don't see the definition of the word faith. I have based on past outcomes, there are things in the bible that have been fulfilled, for example, in Isiah, Yahweh says that a man called Cyrus would free the jews from babylonian captivity and defined the manner in which it would happen, and around 200 years later (Isiah was dead by this time) a man called cyrus diverted the euphrates river and literally walked in through the gates of babylon (which for some reason had been left open) and took Babylon down. Yahweh actually spoke the name of the man cyrus who freed the Hebrews. There is another prophecy in the bible which speaks of religion being turned upon (the woman in revelation who sits on the waters and the nations is false religion) when a woman is used in a figurative sense in the bible, It means a religion. It also tells us who will turn on religion, and no, it's not the Atheism Alliance, or the United Atheists, but the United Nations will turn on religion. I do not know when this will happen, but everything is in place for this to happen, the members of various churches have become wary of the burden that their church bestows upon them, for example, some churches who insist on tithing and say that you're "stealing god's money." One wonders what would an all powerful being need with mere money, others still cover up various forms of abuses and other crimes, if you cover for a criminal, then you are as guilty as the criminal. this is even in law in a lot of countries. It's called Aiding and Abetting, or being an accessory to a crime. Still others order their members to murder those who are not of their faith, these are all false religions, because God is Love, and it doesn't show love to kill your neighbour, merely because they don't accept your beliefs as their own. So it is no wonder that lots of people have no trust in churches, because all they see is hypocrisy in the churches. But it also says that god "will put it into their hearts" to do this.
Personally I read the bible, and I understand what it says, I have read other religious texts, and even atheist texts and for me the bible is what makes sense.
If you don't agree with me, that is your business and I am not one to judge, because that is not my place to do that, only God can judge, and I am not God. I am an imperfect man like everyone else on the earth.
May God bless you all.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Sigh,
When will people ever learn? Such is the nature of science that a publication is outdated well before it's actually published. It's the most depressing fact that something you could spend 5 years on in a struggle to get published will most likely be outdated by yourself or others before its actually published. Scientists are obsolete. 0 -
Sigh,
When will people ever learn? Such is the nature of science that a publication is outdated well before it's actually published. It's the most depressing fact that something you could spend 5 years on in a struggle to get published will most likely be outdated by yourself or others before its actually published. Scientists are obsolete.
So eventually will the theory of evolution considered to be obsolete?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The current understanding of it is already is, but I think you're misunderstanding me on this. So just to clarify, I'm saying that current understanding is obsolete because either one of two things has happened :
(i) the theory is refined even further.
or
(ii) it is falsified.
Well, there is the idea that a lot of scientist will bend their perception to fit with macro-evolution. This is not scientific and goes against the four tiered scientific method.
So I am not surprised when such psudeoscience is spoken of as truth.
Here's a fond look back at some lies taught as truth until they were debunked.
1. The piltdown man shown in 1912, believed to be real until 1953 when it was shown to be a fabrication. Why would a scientist, someone who claims to search for the truth, make this up?
2. Nebraska Man from 1922
3. Orce Man from 1892 (Skull of a donkey)
4. That one brontosaurus that was found without a head in 1879, though a matching head from an apatosaurus was found around 3 miles away.
5. 1996, Sinosauropteryx, A supposed transition between a
dinosaur and a bird. Scientists now dispute that there are
actual feathers on the back of this “feathered dinosaur”
6. 1999, Archaeoraptor, Another supposedly “Feathered
Dinosaur” published in National Geographic proven to be a
fraud.
Then there is the idea that life arose from non-life, this goes against the fact that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, nothing can come from nothing.
If this were true, why isn't it being repeated all over the place, after all, things evolve to suit their conditions, don't they?
Lets look at Animal Homology.
What would discredit the Darwinian Evolutionary Model of
Homology?
Identical anatomical (homologous) features in animals that coincidentally appear in different evolutionary lines, you know they were not inherited from one another.
Look at the eye for example, lets look at the eye of a human, and the eye of an octopus, they are both very similar in structure, but is the octopus from the same evolutionary line as humans?
Or what about animals that fly, is there a relation between birds and bats or flying reptiles or insects, or do they have an different evolutionary line.
If limbs are similar due to Darwinian evolution, then why are there no
homologous genes that code for similar structures in supposed descendents?
Maybe you are aware that scientifcally, a tuna is closer to a rabbit than it is to a dogfish?
Or that a crocodiles blood is more homologous to a chicken than it is to a viper?
Only 5.6% homology with Viper, But 17.5% but with the Chicken
Because of this, there would have to be a common designer rather than a common ancestor, because of the way that the analogous limbs don't carry on throughout the descendants, but they appear to come and go, and the fact that they appear through different evolutionary lines.
Lets quickly look at embryolgy
Anyone heard of Ernst Heinrich Haeckel and his embryos?
His ideas were universally panned as being fraudulent.
Yet it still taught at colleges to biology students?
Why is this still being taught in our schools?
I remember hearing about the peppered moth and how it proves evolution, well it doesn't, it only proves variation within the kind, it does no prove macro-evolution, like darwins finches, the peppered moth remains a peppered moth, would you say that speckled and spotted sheep would evolve into something else, or would they create a new sheep that looks a bit different. Would that still be a sheep?
The peppered moth just shows survival of the fittest, but not evolution in progress.
There are some discrepancies in the moth studies
A) Dark moths in many unpolluted areas increased in proportion just as those in polluted areas had.
Dark moths continued to increase in proportion after pollution controls were in place and light colored camouflage returned to the trees.
C) In one area, dark colored moths began decreasing in proportion before the light colored lichen returned to the trees.
D) Staged photographs
A 2003 review of science textbooks being considered by the Texas State Board of
Education found six of eleven textbooks to contain the disproved peppered moth
doctrine as proof of Darwinian Evolution.
Natural selection and variation within an animal kind (aka natural adaptation or ‘survival of the fittest’) ≠ Darwinian evolution
Lets have a look at horses.
Evolutionists admit the horse history is better represented as a “bush” rather
than a “tree.”
WHY?
Evolutionists admit that all but Hyracotherium were contemporary to each other!
(Existed at the same time) If all three lived contemporaneously, then they
did not evolve from one another.
Variations Within an Animal Kind (i.e.,Microevolution) Do Not Prove Descent
from a Common Ancestor (Macroevolution)
And finally, if we look at the poodle, we can see it's a pedigree dog, now evolution says that the strongest genes survive to the next generation, yet the poodle as a lot of genetic degeneracy for example, lots of eye issues, retinal atrophy, glaucoma, retinal detachment, congential deafness, prone to epilepsy and narcolepsy.
But look at the Grey wolf, It stays within the grey wolf pedigree and does not suffer with these maladys, can someone explain that?
Sorry for the long post, here's a flower @-}
0 -
-
-
I love being concise.spannerotoole wrote: »Well, there is the idea that a lot of scientist will bend their perception to fit with macro-evolution. This is not scientific and goes against the four tiered scientific method.
Four tiered? What on earth is this? There is no set formula for science.
So I am not surprised when such psudeoscience is spoken of as truth.
That said, it is definitely clear what isn't science e.g A game of hurling and Creationism.
Here's a fond look back at some lies taught as truth until they were debunked.
Alas, if only taught science could be 100% reliable however due to every undulating nature of science it isn't.
1. The piltdown man shown in 1912, believed to be real until 1953 when it was shown to be a fabrication. Why would a scientist, someone who claims to search for the truth, make this up?
2. Nebraska Man from 1922
3. Orce Man from 1892 (Skull of a donkey)
4. That one brontosaurus that was found without a head in 1879, though a matching head from an apatosaurus was found around 3 miles away.
5. 1996, Sinosauropteryx, A supposed transition between a
dinosaur and a bird. Scientists now dispute that there are
actual feathers on the back of this “feathered dinosaur”
6. 1999, Archaeoraptor, Another supposedly “Feathered
Dinosaur” published in National Geographic proven to be a
fraud.
Then there is the idea that life arose from non-life, this goes against the fact that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, Since when is this a fact? It's an all too common assumption that is broken more often than you think. nothing can come from nothing. Great, an analytic statement. Analytic's are useless because well what the point in saying all bald men have no hair? Are you trying to make a point here?
If this were true, why isn't it being repeated all over the place, after all, things evolve to suit their conditions, don't they?
This isn't a fair assessment, if the sun dies tomorrow, we all die, there's little chance of adaption. Not everything can adapt.
Lets look at Animal Homology.
What would discredit the Darwinian Evolutionary Model of
Homology?
A Crocoduck, no seriously!
Identical anatomical (homologous) features in animals that coincidentally appear in different evolutionary lines, you know they were not inherited from one another.
Look at the eye for example, lets look at the eye of a human, and the eye of an octopus, they are both very similar in structure, but is the octopus from the same evolutionary line as humans?
Or what about animals that fly, is there a relation between birds and bats or flying reptiles or insects, or do they have an different evolutionary line.
If limbs are similar due to Darwinian evolution, then why are there no
homologous genes that code for similar structures in supposed descendents?
Maybe you are aware that scientifcally, a tuna is closer to a rabbit than it is to a dogfish?
Or that a crocodiles blood is more homologous to a chicken than it is to a viper?
Only 5.6% homology with Viper, But 17.5% but with the Chicken
Because of this, there would have to be a common designer rather than a common ancestor, because of the way that the analogous limbs don't carry on throughout the descendants, but they appear to come and go, and the fact that they appear through different evolutionary lines.
I'm assuming on good faith that your facts are correct. Even if they are how exactly does this disprove evolution via common descent? More so, how the heck is a common designer ruled out by evolution?
Lets quickly look at embryolgy
Anyone heard of Ernst Heinrich Haeckel and his embryos?
His ideas were universally panned as being fraudulent.
Yet it still taught at colleges to biology students?
Why is this still being taught in our schools?
Why are Newton's law still taught? Yes, I'm being dead serious, they're fricking wrong! Something even the wrong stuff have utility. I'm not a biologist so I don't know but I assume there is some use to teaching them.
I remember hearing about the peppered moth and how it proves evolution, well it doesn't, it only proves variation within the kind, it does no prove macro-evolution, like darwins finches, the peppered moth remains a peppered moth, would you say that speckled and spotted sheep would evolve into something else, or would they create a new sheep that looks a bit different. Would that still be a sheep?
The peppered moth just shows survival of the fittest, but not evolution in progress.
There are some discrepancies in the moth studies
A) Dark moths in many unpolluted areas increased in proportion just as those in polluted areas had. Dark moths continued to increase in proportion after pollution controls were in place and light colored camouflage returned to the trees.
C) In one area, dark colored moths began decreasing in proportion before the light colored lichen returned to the trees.
D) Staged photographs
Variation would be naturally expected would it not. After all not every human on earth is the same.
A 2003 review of science textbooks being considered by the Texas State Board of
Education found six of eleven textbooks to contain the disproved peppered moth
doctrine as proof of Darwinian Evolution.
Excuse me doctrine?
Natural selection and variation within an animal kind (aka natural adaptation or ‘survival of the fittest’) ≠ Darwinian evolution
Lets have a look at horses.
Evolutionists admit the horse history is better represented as a “bush” rather
than a “tree.”
WHY?
I'd take a guess that horses were heavily influenced by artificial selection.
Evolutionists admit that all but Hyracotherium were contemporary to each other!
(Existed at the same time) If all three lived contemporaneously, then they
did not evolve from one another.
Variations Within an Animal Kind (i.e.,Microevolution) Do Not Prove Descent
from a Common Ancestor (Macroevolution)
What exactly is a 'Kind'? Is this a taxonomical (I'm not sure that's even a word) trick?
And finally, if we look at the poodle, we can see it's a pedigree dog, now evolution says that the strongest genes survive to the next generation, yet the poodle as a lot of genetic degeneracy for example, lots of eye issues, retinal atrophy, glaucoma, retinal detachment, congential deafness, prone to epilepsy and narcolepsy.
Evolution doesn't say that the strongest survive. Being the fittest doesn't always necessary mean the strongest. And then we have statistical variation too. Think about it.
But look at the Grey wolf, It stays within the grey wolf pedigree and does not suffer with these maladys, can someone explain that?
Sorry for the long post, here's a flower @-}
No problem, it was your effort. Mine was significantly less perhaps just pick a single point and focus esoterically on that one. Then move onto the next. Btw, my reply, took .. 7 minutes. How long that take to type? If you want a more constructive discussion here it would be a lot more fruitful to just pick one point. Provide a source to back up your claims and please dear Lord avoid the shotgun approach. It does not help anyone.
K thanks.
Have a nice day.0 -
Care to define what you mean by "kind"? I assume you mean that all descendants of some prior animal are all still able to mate and reproduce with each other and are therefore not a different species?
Please keep the definition as clear as it can be but still somewhat concise. I don't want to read a novel here.
Aww, I just got started on my manuscript (well resumed it after months of hiatus due to ill health.) It's on 'Life' too. Are you sure you don't want to read? I promise my best to try to make it interesting. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Aw why so negative?Any more talk of creationism can go in the pit of despair with all the other crazies.
Otherwise we'll have to shut this abomination of a thread down and would that be a disaster...
Call it the pit of hope. As long as there's dialogue there's hope. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
. 
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement