Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziojymi5OYY

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

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''

No the big bang theory is not ridiculous by those terms. The big bang theory does not explain what came before the Universe was created. The theory only goes so far until billionths of a second before the singularity where all of our laws of physics break down and cannot be used to explain what happened prior.

123 LC

bluewolf wrote: »

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

but i see people trying to force atheism on other people everywhere, even on facebook etc, not just atheist websites! i've never seen people on facebook discussing god etc to be honest :L it's because we don't feel the need to!

philologos

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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.

Manuscript evidence backs up the authenticity of the Bible. The very fact we have more consistent manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text.

Historically, there is evidence that the beliefs of Christians were codified long before the Gospels were written. We know this thanks to the early writing of Paul's letters to the Galatians and the Corinthians.

The New Testament itself gives us reasons why we can trust it. I.E - That it isn't written to encourage a personality cult in themselves as Apostles, it encourages questioning and scrutiny throughout its pages.

You clearly didn't read my post properly if you got that conclusion from it.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziojymi5OYY

I don't have an hour to set a side to watch it sorry. Any chance you could summarise what's being said if you have watched it?

smash

123 LC wrote: »

of course it is acceptable to just say god

If someone woke up tomorrow from a 30 year coma, would you explain how the internet and mobile phones worked or would you accept it if they just though it was 'god'?

philologos

smash wrote: »

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

No I haven't stated the things that you claim I have. You very clearly haven't read my posts. I'm not interested in discussing with someone who has no interest in listening what I have to say, as I'll be wasting my time.

smash wrote: »

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

Not really. I've explained this already in numerous posts in the past.

123 LC

shizz wrote: »

No the big bang theory is not ridiculous by those terms. The big bang theory does not explain what came before the Universe was created. The theory only goes so far until billionths of a second before the singularity where all of our laws of physics break down and cannot be used to explain what happened prior.

but the energy or mass or whatever was used in the big bang, we don't no how it was made, so is this ridiculous too? does this mean energy doesn't exist? because we can't prove how it's formed?

Pushtrak

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.

So, on minor issues of whether a friend owns a particular oddity or something you need evidence, but on the matter of life itself you are willing to just say "Oh faith is good enough for me". Sorry, can't respect that.

Questions like how we are here, et cetera are all very important and interesting questions to me, and I can't just go with unsatisfactory answers, or no answers, or just believe it. The evidence for a deity just isn't there to make me inclined to believe it.

To me, though, evidence is always important. I don't want to hold false beliefs. Be it theological or in any other pursuit.

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

If you wish to have a motivator to look in to the big bang model, maybe this will suffice. A catholic priest was central to its discovery. This isn't going to give you answers for before the big bang, but perhaps on looking in to the big bang you'll understand why "before the big bang" is a bit of a problematic thing to discuss.

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)

One thing you'll have to be aware of is conditions of the primordial soup would have been vastly different than they are now. Our planet wasn't the oxygen rich planet it is today. Abiogenesis was tested in experiment.

Opticom wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziojymi5OYY

TLDW: Something that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist has a cause, therefore god. That's the Kalam. You make a rule, and then break it. So, yeah, not a satisfactory explanation.

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

but the energy or mass or whatever was used in the big bang, we don't no how it was made, so is this ridiculous too? does this mean energy doesn't exist? because we can't prove how it's formed?

What? Energy does exist there is evidence that it does and is measurable. So how would an opinion that energy exists be ridiculous?

What would be ridiculous is if someone said how energy came to be specifically without any evidence to back it up.

123 LC

smash wrote: »

If someone woke up tomorrow from a 30 year coma, would you explain how the internet and mobile phones worked or would you accept it if they just though it was 'god'?

no, because phones etc can be explained, we could bring the person to the phone factory, show them how they are made etc....but as i have said, the universe, or cells or energy etc are a completely different matter, they still havn't been explained by anyone properly

smash

philologos wrote: »

Manuscript evidence backs up the authenticity of the Bible. The very fact we have more consistent manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text.

Historically, there is evidence that the beliefs of Christians were codified long before the Gospels were written. We know this thanks to the early writing of Paul's letters to the Galatians and the Corinthians.

The New Testament itself gives us reasons why we can trust it. I.E - That it isn't written to encourage a personality cult in themselves as Apostles, it encourages questioning and scrutiny throughout its pages.

You clearly didn't read my post properly if you got that conclusion from it.

Why does the bible have no mention of ancient species of animals like dinosaurs if they talk about the creation of the world? I mean surely Jesus would have mentioned it all... Oh that's right, sure that kind of stuff was only discovered recently enough by science.

philologos

smash wrote: »

Why does the bible have no mention of ancient species of animals like dinosaurs if they talk about the creation of the world? I mean surely Jesus would have mentioned it all... Oh that's right, sure that kind of stuff was only discovered recently enough by science.

You're assuming what I believe. I'll talk with you when you show an interest in having a discussion. Until then, it's going to be fruitless.

I'm actually a theistic evolutionist, if you'd like to know.

shizz

smash wrote: »

Why does the bible have no mention of ancient species of animals like dinosaurs if they talk about the creation of the world? I mean surely Jesus would have mentioned it all... Oh that's right, sure that kind of stuff was only discovered recently enough by science.

I believe the favoured answer is they are from the great flood as Noah couldn't fit them on the boat as they were too damn big.

shizz

philologos wrote: »

You're assuming what I believe. I'll talk with you when you show an interest in having a discussion. Until then, it's going to be fruitless.

I'm actually a theistic evolutionist, if you'd like to know.

But then how can you believe in what Genesis has to say?

123 LC

shizz wrote: »

What? Energy does exist there is evidence that it does and is measurable. So how would an opinion that energy exists be ridiculous?

What would be ridiculous is if someone said how energy came to be specifically without any evidence to back it up.

that is exactly what i am saying, energy has to exist, but there is no explanation to how it was first formed so by your theory it should be 'ridiculous'. by the same idea you think god can't exist as there is no evidence of how he/she/it formed...see the similarity?

Pushtrak

shizz wrote: »

I believe the favoured answer is they are from the great flood as Noah couldn't fit them on the boat as they were too damn big.

Shoulda built a bigger boat...











/Gets coat.

philologos

shizz wrote: »

But then how can you believe in what Genesis has to say?

Read here and here. It doesn't pose much difficulty given what the Hebrew behind Genesis shows.

The Lord God brought everything into Creation. I fully and wholeheartedly subscribe to that.

Do you see how important it is to ask about what people believe in before assuming?

smash

philologos wrote: »

No I haven't stated the things that you claim I have. You very clearly haven't read my posts. I'm not interested in discussing with someone who has no interest in listening what I have to say, as I'll be wasting my time.

Well I don't have time to go through your post but here's an Adam and Eve example http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58729245

123 LC wrote: »

but as i have said, the universe, or cells or energy etc are a completely different matter, they still havn't been explained by anyone properly

Now you have to be trolling...

123 LC wrote: »

that is exactly what i am saying, energy has to exist, but there is no explanation to how it was first formed so by your theory it should be 'ridiculous'. by the same idea you think god can't exist as there is no evidence of how he/she/it formed...see the similarity?

Ahem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity That's just one form of energy that has been explained

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

Something that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist has a cause, therefore god. That's the Kalam. You make a rule, and then break it. So, yeah, not a satisfactory explanation.

Not surprisingly, you've skipped most of the argument, so yeah not a satisfactory rebuttal.

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

that is exactly what i am saying, energy has to exist, but there is no explanation to how it was first formed so by your theory it should be 'ridiculous'. by the same idea you think god can't exist as there is no evidence of how he/she/it formed...see the similarity?

No that's not what I said at all. I said an opinion which is based on no evidence is ridiculous.

Here:

Energy exists. It is measurable and therefore there is evidence that it exists. It's creation is tied in with the creation of the universe which grew to its current state through the big bang model - This opinion is not ridiculous

Energy exists because it is a fundamental part of the Universe that God created. - this is ridiculous as no evidence is presented or exists to back up the claim.

ciaran67

20.38, during Coronation St, how rude.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

I'll talk with you when you show an interest in having a discussion.

All available evidence suggests that the above claim is false.

123 LC

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, on minor issues of whether a friend owns a particular oddity or something you need evidence, but on the matter of life itself you are willing to just say "Oh faith is good enough for me". Sorry, can't respect that.

Questions like how we are here, et cetera are all very important and interesting questions to me, and I can't just go with unsatisfactory answers, or no answers, or just believe it. The evidence for a deity just isn't there to make me inclined to believe it.

To me, though, evidence is always important. I don't want to hold false beliefs. Be it theological or in any other pursuit.

If you wish to have a motivator to look in to the big bang model, maybe this will suffice. A catholic priest was central to its discovery. This isn't going to give you answers for before the big bang, but perhaps on looking in to the big bang you'll understand why "before the big bang" is a bit of a problematic thing to discuss.

One thing you'll have to be aware of is conditions of the primordial soup would have been vastly different than they are now. Our planet wasn't the oxygen rich planet it is today. Abiogenesis was tested in experiment.

TLDW: Something that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist has a cause, therefore god. That's the Kalam. You make a rule, and then break it. So, yeah, not a satisfactory explanation.

but the whole point is that there is no evidence of how energy etc is formed, so technically how can you believe in it? how is anything formed, maybe none of this is real? we don't know. we will never know until we die. for all we know god could be proven in years to come, so i think atheists should at least keep their minds open to it, even though i know many already do. tbh i don't really want to delve deeper into the universe as i have just completed my LC biology exam and want nothing to do with science for the rest of my life, more of an arts person myself :L

philologos

smash wrote: »

Well I don't have time to go through your post but here's an Adam and Eve example http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58729245

Now you have to be trolling...

I touch on Adam and Eve very clearly in this post.

I don't need to discard Adam and Eve. Bear in mind, that the Biblical text doesn't imply or suggest that they were the only people in existence either (Genesis 4 when Cain fears getting killed would suggest otherwise).

I don't think I can take your accusation of trolling seriously given that you've claimed that I believe in vampires in this thread alone, and you have assumed blindly about what I believe before even asking me.

Let me know when you're up for a proper discussion.

smash

123 LC wrote: »

but the whole point is that there is no evidence of how energy etc is formed, so technically how can you believe in it?

There is clear explanations as to how energy is formed. Do some reading will you.

smash

philologos wrote: »

I touch on Adam and Eve very clearly in this post.

Where you said you would not dismiss it?

philologos wrote: »

I don't think I can take your accusation of trolling seriously given that you've claimed that I believe in vampires in this thread alone, and you have assumed blindly about what I believe before even asking me.

Clearly you can't read. Because I never said you believed in vampires. I mentioned the fact that there was a christian belief in vampires until people got educated.

philologos wrote: »

Let me know when you're up for a proper discussion.

It might happen some day when you take off your blinkers and engage in a proper discussion yourself.

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

but the whole point is that there is no evidence of how energy etc is formed, so technically how can you believe in it? how is anything formed, maybe none of this is real? we don't know. we will never know until we die. for all we know god could be proven in years to come, so i think atheists should at least keep their minds open to it, even though i know many already do. tbh i don't really want to delve deeper into the universe as i have just completed my LC biology exam and want nothing to do with science for the rest of my life, more of an arts person myself :L

Well that explains a lot. I mean why spout all this stuff when you have no interest in science and more than likely have never bothered to read up on what you are claiming there is no evidence for?

Sarky

Also lol at kalam argument. It has about the same validity these days as "rocks don't evolve, so where did they come from? IT MUST BE GOD!"

123 LC

shizz wrote: »

No that's not what I said at all. I said an opinion which is based on no evidence is ridiculous.

Here:

Energy exists. It is measurable and therefore there is evidence that it exists. It's creation is tied in with the creation of the universe which grew to its current state through the big bang model - This opinion is not ridiculous

Energy exists because it is a fundamental part of the Universe that God created. - this is ridiculous as no evidence is presented or exists to back up the claim.

but where do you get the right to claim that an opinion which is based on no evidence is ridiculous? this is more than likely a statement made by a scientist. but the thing is with religion, which atheists don't accept, is that we don't need proof to accept there is a god. i respect people who stick with their own opinion though, i won't be swayed from mine, and i know you won't from yours. all i ask is for atheists to accept that we believe in religion without evidence, and i thinks it's pointless that many seem to spend so much time trying to change peoples minds, ye are often like a cult/religion in your own right (for the record i don't agree with other religions that attempt to convert people either)