Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

123 LC

the only thing that bothers me about atheism, is how do ye think the world even began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i don't see how god could can be thought off any less than science?

smash

Opticom wrote: »

I did, but disappointingly, it just yet another angry shouty atheist making yet more inaccurate claims.

I'm pretty sure he knows more about the bile than you, or anyone else on boards for that matter.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

Oh ye of little faith.

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22former+atheist+turned+pastor%22&oq=%22former+atheist+turned+pastor%22&aq=f&aqi=g-bK1&aql=1&gs_l=serp.3..0i8i30.8375.8542.3.8938.2.2.0.0.0.0.121.204.1j1.2.0.eish.1.0.0.ALJ74FIF7D8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7eb960a348b01593&biw=1024&bih=626

Also one of the mods in the Christianity forum, PDN is a former atheist and is now full time Christian minister.

I was asking for one not ridiculing. And that was pretty lazy considering you said you could get one specifically.

smash

123 LC wrote: »

the only thing that bothers me about atheism, is how do ye think the world even began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i don't see how god could can be thought off any less than science?

Science gathers evidence from conclusive tests based around theories. Religion gathers claims based around Chinese whispers and centuries old fairy tales.

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

the only thing that bothers me about atheism, is how do ye think the world even began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i don't see how god could can be thought off any less than science?

That is a personal matter. There isn't a set thing that Atheists "believe" in. As has been said millions of times, atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity. Not a belief in anything.

There are many theories involved in the creation of the Universe. Have a look for them. At least they work on evidence.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that the reality is that no one knows how it started. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or plainly believes something with no evidence. ie. Faith

Pushtrak

123 LC wrote: »

the only thing that bothers me about atheism, is how do ye think the world even began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i don't see how god could can be thought off any less than science?

What do we know of reality? We know about evolution, we know about abiogenesis, we know about the big bang. None of these things came from religion, and have a not insubstantial amount of religious people point to their books even today saying that "No, despite that evidence that isn't what happened" (Edit: Or "the evidence doesn't exist.")

I think the issue is whether one wants to have an answer or is interested in finding the right answer. Presupposing god started everything just jumps the question back one. Who created it? Nothing? Turtles all the way down.

123 LC

but i don't see how you need to have evidence to believe in something. all the scientific evidence just seems pointless to me, if people have yet not worked out any plausible scientific evidence for the beginning of the world...or the universe, or anything for that matter. science seems to not be based on any hard facts at all when you think about it

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

You trolling? He's a biblical scholar. What claims did he make that are inaccurate?

He's been taken to pieces by Craig and many others

"Scholarly Bart knows that the text of the New Testament has been established in 99 percent accuracy," said Craig during the Jan. 11 lecture at Azusa Pacific University.


"Popular Bart misrepresents this to unsuspecting laymen through innuendo and implication to make them think that the text of the New Testament is highly uncertain."


http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

Pushtrak

123 LC wrote: »

but i don't see how you need to have evidence to believe in something.

You need evidence to believe in things all the time. Say you were in a court case as a juror. Would you throw out the need for evidence? Say a friend tells you they own something rare (I don't know, I'm not good at coming up with these hypotheticals) you'd ask to see it. Evidence is important. If you want to believe in things that are true, and not in things that aren't.

Any time you need verification/evidence for something, try and think back to this and ask yourself why you need evidence to believe in something.

if people have yet not worked out any plausible scientific evidence for the beginning of the world...or the universe, or anything for that matter.

I'm thinking you don't understand big bang cosmology. You don't really get what has and what hasn't been answered. The Big Bang model took a long time to establish itself. A good video on the topic:

science seems to not be based on any hard facts at all when you think about it

Exactly what "science" are you referring to here? In what areas are hard facts lacking?

(I know you are most likely a troll, but the questions are a general invite to anyone who might feel they are actually worth discussing.)

philologos

smash wrote: »

Opticom wrote: »

smash wrote: »

philologos, this probably goes against everything you believe but it's scientific fact. You should take a look.

Good video, but nothing that contradicts mainstream Christianity.

I never mentioned mainstream Christianity, I recommended philologos watch it to prove a point about evolution, the Adam and eve theory and the whole god created the world in 7 days bs. Which he believes in.

Why don't you ask me about what I believe rather than assuming it?

It'd be nice to have a discussion about it rather than you telling me what I believe.

What makes you think I reject modern science or that I need to do this to be a Bible believing Christian.

shizz

philologos wrote: »

Why don't you ask me about what I believe rather than assuming it?

It'd be nice to have a discussion about it rather than you telling me what I believe.

Well IIRC you are always backing up Genesis, so this to me qualifies as believing in it which is what he said.

Ghost Buster

123 LC wrote: »

the only thing that bothers me about atheism, is how do ye think the world even began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i don't see how god could can be thought off any less than science?

the only thing that bothers me about god, is how do ye think god began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i dont see how the universe can be thought off any less than religion?

coffee_cake

123 LC wrote: »

the only thing that bothers me about atheism, is how do ye think the world even began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i don't see how god could can be thought off any less than science?

every time i think it's time to put away the sig...

Pushtrak

Opticom wrote: »

He's been taken to pieces by Craig and many others

"Scholarly Bart knows that the text of the New Testament has been established in 99 percent accuracy," said Craig during the Jan. 11 lecture at Azusa Pacific University.


"Popular Bart misrepresents this to unsuspecting laymen through innuendo and implication to make them think that the text of the New Testament is highly uncertain."


http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

Rather than reading that, I'll do one better. I'll see what they both have to say to the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA

Wibbs

Pushtrak wrote: »

Presupposing god started everything just jumps the question back one. Who created it? Nothing? Turtles all the way down.

Not necessarily P. If we take it from the other direction for a moment and imagine a deity/creative force actually exists. Such an entity, could be of the nature of two possibilities.

1) it exists outside and before the universe. Now "outside" and "before" as concepts themselves are of this universe and it's laws. Outside can't exist from within the universe, ditto for before. The turtle upon turtle stops at that horizon. An "external" entity may or not be corralled by the laws of this universe. It may be corralled by the laws of another, even similar universe however. EG if some hyper species of beings in another universe seeded our own. 1b) Maybe this universe is a simulation. Not that daft an idea, or at least some heavy duty physicists have contemplated the possibility. In that case "god" is in the rules of the "game" and the programmers of same.

2) It is the universe. It came from "nothing" and grew and expanded and the Gaia principle that might be applied to earth might be applied universally on an unimaginable scale. Look at the vast truly unimaginable information content of the universe. It might be possible that this information attained a level of self awareness beyond anything we can possibly imagine. In a similar way one of your blood cells couldn't begin to comprehend what it is to be Pushtrak the collective "mind' of all your cells.

philologos

Pushtrak: I find it amusing that you continue to post about the New Testament being dubious when there is plenty of evidence to show that the New Testament is the most authentic ancient text we have in the world.

If the New Testament is doubtful, then you're essentially saying that we should give up on ancient history.

shizz wrote: »

Well IIRC you are always backing up Genesis, so this to me qualifies as believing in it which is what he said.

You clearly don't know very much about what I've been arguing at all then. If you read some of the posts where I discuss Genesis, you'd find out what I believe.

I'm more than happy to get into a discussion with others, but they must be willing to listen to what I have to say. Otherwise the discussion is not worth having.

Wibbs: Do you not see the logical difficulty in the universe creating itself though? It means, that the universe existed before it existed. That doesn't make all that much sense.

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

Rather than reading that, I'll do one better. I'll see what they both have to say to the other.

I would still be inclined to do a bit of reading as well as just watching videos.

but here's two others from Craig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5u1dKk_sVM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ

123 LC

Pushtrak wrote: »

You need evidence to believe in things all the time. Say you were in a court case as a juror. Would you throw out the need for evidence? Say a friend tells you they own something rare (I don't know, I'm not good at coming up with these hypotheticals) you'd ask to see it. Evidence is important. If you want to believe in things that are true, and not in things that aren't.

Any time you need verification/evidence for something, try and think back to this and ask yourself why you need evidence to believe in something.

I'm thinking you don't understand big bang cosmology. You don't really get what has and what hasn't been answered. The Big Bang model took a long time to establish itself. A good video on the topic:

Exactly what "science" are you referring to here? In what areas are hard facts lacking?

(I know you are most likely a troll, but the questions are a general invite to anyone who might feel they are actually worth discussing.)

you may need evidence to believe in everything, but i don't. i'm just capable of believing in a god, no hard facts needed. of course you need evidence for other things, but not faith, for me anyway.

the video still doesn't answer my question ''the universe began in a hot dense state'', where did this hot dense state come from? while we'll on the subject of the universe, what's outside the universe? nothing, or more universes? the whole thing gives me a headache thinking of it :L

no i mean the basic principles of science, like all cells derive from pre existing cells and what not, where did the 1st cell come from? i find science very interesting though, like evolution etc...
(ps i'm really not a troll :L)

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

Pushtrak: I find it amusing that you continue to post about the New Testament being dubious when there is plenty of evidence to show that the New Testament is the most authentic ancient text we have in the world.

If the New Testament is doubtful, then you're essentially saying that we should give up on ancient history.



You clearly don't know very much about what I've been arguing at all then. If you read some of the posts where I discuss Genesis, you'd find out what I believe.

I'm more than happy to get into a discussion with others, but they must be willing to listen to what I have to say. Otherwise the discussion is not worth having.

Wibbs: Do you not see the logical difficulty in the universe creating itself though? It means, that the universe existed before it existed. That doesn't make all that much sense.

Your proof for the authenticity of the bible consists of passages from the bible and then a few historically accurate points scattered amongst tales of walking dead and assorted other such impossible stories.
The Da Vinci Code did similar.

Ghost Buster

123 LC wrote: »

''the universe began in a hot dense state'', where did this hot dense state come from? while we'll on the subject of the universe, what's outside the universe? nothing, or more universes? the whole thing gives me a headache thinking of it :L

no i mean the basic principles of science, like all cells derive from pre existing cells and what not, where did the 1st cell come from? i find science very interesting though, like evolution etc...
(ps i'm really not a troll :L)

So if we dont yet have an answer it is acceptable to just say "God".
Gotcha;)

123 LC

Ghost Buster wrote: »

the only thing that bothers me about god, is how do ye think god began in the 1st place? did it just appear from nowhere? if so, i dont see how the universe can be thought off any less than religion?

lol that's exactly my point! i don't see how religion can be thought of any less then science. the only difference is only a small minority of religous people make threads and make a fuss etc about atheists...while tbh most atheists seem to be very into proving their way is the only way, belittling religious people.

smash

philologos wrote: »

Why don't you ask me about what I believe rather than assuming it?

It'd be nice to have a discussion about it rather than you telling me what I believe.

I'm not assuming or telling you what you believe. You've stated it numerous times in the past.

philologos wrote: »

What makes you think I reject modern science or that I need to do this to be a Bible believing Christian.

Well if you believe in the bible, then of course you're going to throw away science, they're completely contradictory.

coffee_cake

123 LC wrote: »

lol that's exactly my point! i don't see how religion can be thought of any less then science. the only difference is only a small minority of religous people make threads and make a fuss etc about atheists...while tbh most atheists seem to be very into proving their way is the only way, belittling religious people.

that's on boards.ie, with a lot of self selection
go to many religious places talking about how awful atheists are and you'll soon see diffierent

if you are genuinely interested in the early universe, go read up on it; the world itself is fascinating enough without needing to bring any theology into it

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

you may need evidence to believe in everything, but i don't. i'm just capable of believing in a god, no hard facts needed. of course you need evidence for other things, but not faith, for me anyway.

the video still doesn't answer my question ''the universe began in a hot dense state'', where did this hot dense state come from? while we'll on the subject of the universe, what's outside the universe? nothing, or more universes? the whole thing gives me a headache thinking of it :L

no i mean the basic principles of science, like all cells derive from pre existing cells and what not, where did the 1st cell come from? i find science very interesting though, like evolution etc...
(ps i'm really not a troll :L)

Why do you not need evidence to believe something? You do realise that makes you a con artist's ideal target?

Being capable of believing in something on faith isn't something to be proud of, it shows lack of knowledge more than anything, yet you speak of it as if it is.

Have you tried reading up on explanations to what you are asking? It's ok if you find it hard at first, I mean everyone does, but there are plenty of popular science books which aim to make it "simple" and reachable for the average person.

Ghost Buster

123 LC wrote: »

lol that's exactly my point! i don't see how religion can be thought of any less then science. the only difference is only a small minority of religous people make threads and make a fuss etc about atheists...while tbh most atheists seem to be very into proving their way is the only way, belittling religious people.

So what you are saying is, if you dont yet know the origins of something just fill the void with 'God diddit!"
If the answer to the unexplained existance of something is to replace it with something equally outlandish with no explained origin then it must be a very silly question!

123 LC

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So if we dont yet have an answer it is acceptable to just say "God".
Gotcha;)

of course it is acceptable to just say god, but i'm not trying to say everyone should! that's just what i believe, i'm just trying to point out my view is not as ridiculous as many would think, and that in this society we should all be accepted, which is why threads like 'Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?' are pointless, who cares in the end how many people believe one thing or another?

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

of course it is acceptable to just say god, but i'm not trying to say everyone should! that's just what i believe, i'm just trying to point out my view is not as ridiculous as many would think, and that in this society we should all be accepted, which is why threads like 'Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?' are pointless, who cares in the end how many people believe one thing or another?

How is it acceptable to just say god? If we did that we would still be in the dark ages.

I'm sorry to point out to you, but any opinion that isn't backed up by evidence isn't worth anything and therefore can be classed as ridiculous.

123 LC

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So what you are saying is, if you dont yet know the origins of something just fill the void with 'God diddit!"
If the answer to the unexplained existance of something is to replace it with something equally outlandish with no explained origin then it must be a very silly question!

there is no void for me, i've always believed in god. i think it's as good an explanation as any tbh

coffee_cake

123 LC wrote: »

there is no void for me, i've always believed in god. i think it's as good an explanation as any tbh

it's not an explanation though

it's "i don't know so i'll stop there"

it doesn't explain anything

123 LC

shizz wrote: »

How is it acceptable to just say god? If we did that we would still be in the dark ages.

I'm sorry to point out to you, but any opinion that isn't backed up by evidence isn't worth anything and therefore can be classed as ridiculous.

because in this day and age we all have freedom of speech. there is still completely no evidence of how anything was ever formed (i'm talking before the big bang), so if we were going by your opinion that ''any opinion that isn't backed up by evidence isn't worth anything and therefore can be classed as ridiculous'' then the big bang theory is ''ridiculous''