religious debate

[Guest]

I think there's further debate here. I cannot prove god to you but I can show you where many of your premises' are faulty. Let's start at the Big Bang.

Edited January 29, 2008 by BoscoRanger

[Guest]

I think there's further debate here. I cannot prove god to you but I can show you where many of your premises' are faulty. Let's start at the Big Bang.

If you'd like to discuss why you believe the Big Bang Theory is faulty, start another thread.

[Guest]

You can’t offer the big bang as proof that creation and or God is false and not allow evaluation of your first assertion. It’s not a change in the overall thread, its starting the discussion at its beginning; at its basic premise. Once began we could then come to logical conclusions and progress to an ending point. The last question answered; is there a God and why would one believe. You’re tying ones hands if you start at the end.

[Guest]

You can’t offer the big bang as proof that creation and or God is false and...

Not only has no one used the Big Bang as proof that God is false, no one has attempted to prove any god can't exist. If you think you can prove why the Big Bang is false, this thread is not the place for it as even doing that would not prove the universe needs a god to exist. It would only prove that you know more than some of the brightest minds in the world about cosmology. Good luck with that, though.

[Guest]

I agree with Martini

however, I'm a bit curious to hear what you have to say, so go ahead and start a new thread for us.

I also agree with Unreality...

This debate is pretty much over, unless someone comes up with something else to talk about, which may or may not happen, then we're done.

This debate had a lot more entry than I anticipated, I thought it'd go on for a few pages and then someone would call me stupid and it'd be done with

I also expected it to wind up locked after we were about 9 pages in

so I'm glad we made it this far

[Guest]

I just jumped back on this to page 14 without reading anything after my last post. Just a quick thought based on the last 3 posts -

The Gensis story can be read as a description of the Big Bang, so they are not mutually exlusive. If you analyze what physicists think happened during the big bang, it goes pretty much hand in hand with the Genesis story - so long as you don't adhere to the belief that the Genesis story took place in 7 24 hour periods of time.

[Guest]

I just jumped back on this to page 14 without reading anything after my last post. Just a quick thought based on the last 3 posts -

How convenient. In posts # 81, 82 and 83 Martini went through the trouble of picking apart some pretty awful arguments you made and made some brilliant rebuttals. You never bothered to respond, but instead simply claimed that continuing is futile. Now you're poking your nose in here again to drop another nugget of wisdom?

The Gensis story can be read as a description of the Big Bang, so they are not mutually exlusive. If you analyze what physicists think happened during the big bang, it goes pretty much hand in hand with the Genesis story - so long as you don't adhere to the belief that the Genesis story took place in 7 24 hour periods of time.

Oh really? Let’s take a closer look at what Genesis actually says.

From the get go there are problems. In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the “let there be light” command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any type of shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

In verse 5 God is separating light from darkness which one might interpret as something in the unfolding of the universe except that the Bible has God calling the light day and the darkness night and then there’s an evening and a morning. This would indicate that this is the Earth rotating and being lit from something other than the Sun (created “Genesis days” or billions of years later) which contradicts the theory of solar system formation which has the Earth and the Sun forming at the same time.

In verse 11 God creates the plants before the creation of the Sun which seems like a huge problem since plants obviously evolved to perform photosynthesis from sunlight.

Also the Bible has trees being created before “swimming creatures.” “Swimming creatures” or marine animals evolved in the oceans long before any life (including trees) began populating the land.

In verse 16 God finally makes the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. But dating of rocks from the Moon shows that the Moon and the Earth are virtually the same age. The Earth is not billions of years (or four “Genesis days”) older than the Moon.

Also all elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

Actually the Genesis chapter one creation story seems more in line with a much older Babylonian creation myth called “Enuma Elish,” at least as far as the order of creation in Genesis and the Enuma Elish’s “generation of gods.” Also similar is the dividing of Tehowm (Genesis waters or “deep”) into two with a sky dome or “firmament” and the slicing of the water snake “Tiamat” (Enuma Elish) into two.

It’s thought that the Genesis version was likely derived either from Enuma Elish or a similar older creation myth.

On the seventh day God rested. Since it seems the days are actually time periods of billions of years, wouldn't God still be resting? According to the Bible, Adam couldn't have been created much more than 6000 years ago. That's right folks, according to the Bible, the first man on Earth was created about 6000 years ago. How stupid scientists must be to not see the accuracy of the Genesis account..

[Guest]

If you analyze what physicists think happened during the big bang, it goes pretty much hand in hand with the Genesis story

Genesis starts with, "First God made heaven & earth". We can really stop right there. It isn't 'til later that stars and the Sun are created according to Genesis. Not hand in hand with any claims made by any physicists I've ever heard of. The very first verse is wrong: Earth is not as old as "the heaven", but is over nine billion years younger than the Universe as a whole. Various parts of "the heaven" are thus much older than Earth; roughly as old as Earth (the Sun, the other planets in the Solar System); or in some cases much younger (the Pleiades star cluster). Genesis 1:16-19 places the creation of the Sun and Moon after the creation of Earth. In fact, Earth and the Sun formed from the same gas cloud and are about the same age; the current best guess for where the Moon came from is that it was thrown off from Earth by a glancing collision with a Mars-size body some tens of millions of years after Earth's formation from the nebula which formed the Sun and Solar System. Genesis 1:11-13 places the creation of plant life on Earth before the creation of the Moon (not to mention the creation of the Sun). The origins of existing life on Earth could not possibly have preceded such an event, which would have made the asteroid or cometary impact at the end of the age of the dinosaurs look like a lovely spring day in the park by comparison; if there was any faint spark of life on the planet before the impact that formed the Moon, it would have had to start all over again after Earth's crust re-solidified from the resultant ocean of molten rock.

There's nothing about the Genesis account of creations that would cause a cosmologist to step back and say, "Wow, the Bible sure got a lot of complicated stuff about what it took us thousands of years to figure out to be true. There must be a god". On the contrary; it's a simplistic story that gets it all wrong.

[Guest]

This is all a subject for another thread. I don't think it's worth starting a thread over though, as I haven't met a religious person yet that doesn't believe in free will. I on the other hand think there's sufficient evidence to show that free will is an illusion. That's also a subject for another thread.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If it is true that God wanted man to "choose obedience rather than disobedience why was "acquisition of knowledge of the alternative" made to BE the alternative (i.e. disobedience itself). How free is the will where the only permissible choice is an uninformed one?

[Guest]

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If it is true that God wanted man to "choose obedience rather than disobedience why was "acquisition of knowledge of the alternative" made to BE the alternative (i.e. disobedience itself). How free is the will where the only permissible choice is an uninformed one?

Don't you know that Christian apologists have an answer for everything?

[Guest]

...the big bang as proof that creation and or God is false ....

why is it that people automatically assume that the "proof" of one negates the other?

what if God said "let there be light" and then a "big bang" occured and everything evolved from there?

oh well, it dont matter, no one will ever be able to prove the existance of God and no one will ever be able to prove that s/he doesnt exist.

the only entity that could eventually do that is God, and it gives me pause to believe in him/her when s/he doesnt seem to have any interest in actually showing us with undoubtable evidence the right way to worship him and make all this stupid world violence stop.

but I still believe in God, for the alternative is unthinkable and very very sad.

[Guest]

and very very sad.

elaborate?

[Guest]

why is it that people automatically assume that the "proof" of one negates the other?

what if God said "let there be light" and then a "big bang" occured and everything evolved from there?

Two things can’t be true. Either macro evolution occurred and the biblical account is false or the biblical account is true when it states God created everything after its kind. I believe micro evolution occurs everyday and is not contradictory to the creation account. There are variances within the kinds. There are hundres of breeds of dogs, but they're

they're still dogs.

Edited January 31, 2008 by BoscoRanger

[Guest]

Two things can’t be true. Either macro evolution occurred and the biblical account is false or the biblical account is true when it states God created everything after its kind.

Wrong. Even evolution not occurring as we know it does not mean the "the biblical account is true". There are many other natural and supernatural possible explanations for the diversity of life on Earth. Scraff and I already provided reasons why the Biblical account of creation can't possibly be true.

I believe micro evolution occurs everyday and is not contradictory to the creation account. There are variances within the kinds. There are hundres of breeds of dogs, but they're

they're still dogs.

Evolution is evolution. The variety of dog breeds we have resulting from wolves have happened in a very short period of time. Why on Earth creationists don't think that over millions and millions of years different species will arise from micro evolution is beyond me. I suppose it's because anything that contradicts their Bible will never sway them. This may interest you but I'm guessing it won't. It seems you're just dying to talk about what nonsense the Big Bang and evolution is, so please, start another thread already and stop bringing it up here. I'll be happy to take some time out and destroy any anti-evolution or anti-Big Bang arguments you've been duped into believing by non-experts in those fields.

[Guest]

elaborate?

I suppose carlosn27 can't deal with the finality of death and might believe that life can't have purpose unless we all live for eternity, and makes decisions on what is reality or fantasy based on what he wishes were true. I think that is very, very sad.

[Guest]

I am answering a post. I respect that you have a different view. The bang is a different topic.

[Guest]

I am answering a post. I respect that you have a different view. The bang is a different topic.

Yes, the Big Bang is a different topic. But it is the Big Bang that carlosn27 was referring to when he said "why is it that people automatically assume that the "proof" of one negates the other?". You are the one that responded with "Two things can’t be true" and then went on to talk about evolution vs. creation which had zero to do with carlosn27's point. But you were still wrong. Even if evolutionary theory as we know it were proven to be false, the Biblical story of creation does not become factually correct by default.

[Guest]

Something I think is interesting.

If I understand what most atheists believe, the world is not here for any purpose. It was 100% chance that it came to be and there is no reason for us to do anything that looks beyond what happens in this life (since there is no 'after-life'). In that case, there is no point in trying to figure out whether or not there is a God or any other matter that is not directly related to your happiness. There is no point in helping others, unless you hope they will help you back, there is no point in giving or helping those with less wealth than you since it is somewhat unlikely that they will ever be able to help you back. In fact, there really isn't much point in living for a lot of people since the happiness that they experience is much less than the pain they experience. If this is true, why don't atheists go out and commit suicide more often, and why do they help out charitable causes? Why do they ever do something that they think will hurt them (for example, telling the truth in a situation where it would be easier to lie).

Something else.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the majority of atheists believe that there are no absolutes of any kind which (excluding the fact that that is in itself an absolute) seems like a ludicrous statement to me. Could someone tell me (if anyone believes this which it is entirely possible that no one does and I have been misinformed) how you can reconcile this to the world that we experience?

[Guest]

It was 100% chance that it came to be and there is no reason for us to do anything that looks beyond what happens in this life (since there is no 'after-life').

Not random chance.

But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, 'well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in' and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? — you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Douglas Adams

In that case, there is no point in trying to figure out whether or not there is a God or any other matter that is not directly related to your happiness. There is no point in helping others, unless you hope they will help you back, there is no point in giving or helping those with less wealth than you since it is somewhat unlikely that they will ever be able to help you back. In fact, there really isn't much point in living for a lot of people since the happiness that they experience is much less than the pain they experience. If this is true, why don't atheists go out and commit suicide more often, and why do they help out charitable causes? Why do they ever do something that they think will hurt them (for example, telling the truth in a situation where it would be easier to lie).

Many religious people do good things because they are either afraid of the stick god wields or are coveting the carrot he offers, eternal life and happy fluffy bunnies and a constant state of orgasm. If you can't be trusted to be a decent human being unless offered a punishment or reward, you aren't a decent human being at all. I guess I should be relieved that you fear your god. To me, being moral is doing the right thing when you think no one is watching. So who's moral, the atheist who doesn't steal because he can empathize with the potential victim, or the theist who fears God's wrath?

Most religious people would probably be just as righteous without their religion. It would seem to me that the vast majority of people, religious and non-religious alike, do good because it gives them pleasure to do so, or because they want to be thought of well by others, or because they fear punishment (from their parents, or the cops, or their God).

I can feel pain both emotionally and physically. I realize that other humans life experience is basically the same as mine so I'd rather not hurt people. I understand that people's properties are important to them and peace of mind is a very strong motivator so I leave others property alone.

It's nice to be nice. I see no reason whatsoever why a god is needed for you to do good.

I don't commit suicide because I like the challenge life gives me, even though it comes with a lot of pain. Even those that suffer much more than I do with life, are programmed to survive at all costs. Our existence is dependent on the fact that all of our forefathers felt the same long enough to procreate, including those that had no concept of a god that would punish them for taking their own lives.

[unreality]

Something else.

Correct me if I am wrong,

okay

but don't the majority of atheists believe that there are no absolutes of any kind which (excluding the fact that that is in itself an absolute) seems like a ludicrous statement to me. Could someone tell me (if anyone believes this which it is entirely possible that no one does and I have been misinformed) how you can reconcile this to the world that we experience?

I have never heard of this. Where did you get that information? There are a lot of things that are absolute. 1+1=2. There are 12 inches in a foot. Bob's name is Bob. pi = (all the digits of pi go here, lol).

Whoever told you that atheists think there are no absolutes is loco.

[Guest]

I suppose carlosn27 can't deal with the finality of death and might believe that life can't have purpose unless we all live for eternity, and makes decisions on what is reality or fantasy based on what he wishes were true. I think that is very, very sad.

I guess it all depends on your point of view.

I mean, if I believe that there is eternity afterwards and it turns out to be nothing more than a fantasy, but I am happy with my own little fantasy and it hurts no one else, then I am happy (not sad).

I guess I should have elaborated that, in my mind, the alternative is sad.

But if you are happy with your own view of the finality of death, then that's your happiness and I wont try to squash; I am simply stating my point of view.

But I do find it difficult to understand why people on either side of the fence try to squash the hopes/beliefs/ideas of the other side. State your point, then listen, then live and let live (I am NOT talking about Martini or anyone else in particular, just to the two sides in general). God (or random creation caused by a cosmic accident) gave us a brainstem to ponder all these questions, so let us ponder away. I guess I am one of the few people that ride the fence and believe in parts of both sides. I guess I wish the fence would disappear altogether and a grey dotted line was drawn on the sand instead, making it easier for people to straddle and/or jump, or at least accept the possibility of the other side (yes, I know, I'm an idealist and a pacifist ).

As stated by someone here, science has not been able to create life from inert substances, which to me could potentially prove the cosmic accident theory. until that point, I will keep on believing that God created amoebas (or straight neanderthals or whatever) and that we have continued to evolve since then, as have all lifeforms on this planet. i also believe in the big bang, but dont think this disproves/discounts the nature of our maker (because I dont believe that the bible is infallible).

[Guest]

But if you are happy with your own view of the finality of death, then that's your happiness and I wont try to squash; I am simply stating my point of view.

Oh, I'd be much happier if I had good reason to believe that I'll see my mother again one day and that I have an eternity of bliss coming my way simply for believing that a god exists, who will forgive me for not being perfect for simply believing His Son/Himself came down and needed to be brutally killed (but only the ones who believe that that happened, of course, will be forgiven. What better way for a cult to recruit members?). But what makes me happy is not how I go about deciding what's true.

But I do find it difficult to understand why people on either side of the fence try to squash the hopes/beliefs/ideas of the other side.

Not all religious people do that. You don't find Hindus, for example, going door to door trying to convert others. It's fairly easy to understand why Christians and Muslims attempt to convert- their holy books tell them to.

Why do many atheists care why other people have religious beliefs? Here's a list of links. Responding to all of these threads is getting exhausting; I may have to retire and stop caring about what other Braindenners think.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2008,Why...chardDawkinsnet

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestio...moteAtheism.htm

State your point, then listen, then live and let live

The atheists are. No atheists are trying to squash religious freedoms. There are plenty of fundamentalist religious folks who want to keep science out of the science classroom, tell gays they shouldn't have the same rights, etc. and some believe they should kill unbelievers and those of other religions because their holy books tell them to. Those are the ones we should be worrying about regarding "live and let live".

Check this out. Yes, thankfully most Christians think these people are nuts. But there are no shortage of Christians in the U.S. that are for teaching I.D. in the science classroom, keeping God in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

As stated by someone here, science has not been able to create life from inert substances, which to me could potentially prove the cosmic accident theory. until that point, I will keep on believing that God created amoebas (or straight neanderthals or whatever) and that we have continued to evolve since then, as have all lifeforms on this planet.

You will believe that a god must have created life unless a human succeeds in doing it? It's unreasonable to believe in a god exists because humans can't replicate in a laboratory what it takes millions of years to occur naturally during a time when Earth's conditions were vastly different. The Miller-Urey experiment, however, is quite compelling.

[Guest]

I suppose carlosn27 can't deal with the finality of death and might believe that life can't have purpose unless we all live for eternity, and makes decisions on what is reality or fantasy based on what he wishes were true. I think that is very, very sad.

Ditto

There is no point in helping others, unless you hope they will help you back, there is no point in giving or helping those with less wealth than you since it is somewhat unlikely that they will ever be able to help you back.

Um... maybe because it's the right thing to do

If someone asks to borrow a pencil, do you think: Oh, I'd better do this, don't want God pissed at me

cuz that sounds LESS noble

In fact, there really isn't much point in living for a lot of people since the happiness that they experience is much less than the pain they experience. If this is true, why don't atheists go out and commit suicide more often,

I am a generally depressed person right now

My girlfriend dumped me, I’m under a lot of stress, I’m not allowed to play my guitar.

So should I just kill myself now?

No

Because things will get better

You don’t need a god to hope

and why do they help out charitable causes? Why do they ever do something that they think will hurt them (for example, telling the truth in a situation where it would be easier to lie).

Why would we donate to charity?

why would we walk for cancer?

Because we CARE

Does not have a religion mean we can't care about other people?

Cuz it sounds like that's what you're saying

I'm atheist

I care about lots of people

you're wrong

I guess it all depends on your point of view.

I mean, if I believe that there is eternity afterwards and it turns out to be nothing more than a fantasy, but I am happy with my own little fantasy and it hurts no one else, then I am happy (not sad).

I guess I should have elaborated that, in my mind, the alternative is sad.

Doesn’t need to be happy

I’d rather the Holocaust never happened, because the alternative is horribly sad

But does that change it to fact?

No

Face it, the truth sucks sometimes.

Hmm. I feel like this might be my first post in a while where I haven’t said anything I regret

Prove me wrong?

[Guest]

One thing that comes into play almost every day in my life is religion, mostly because I'm atheist, and people just won't tolerate it.

I just kinda wanted to start a debate where we all talk about our religions and well, show why we chose that religion, and just kind of talk about religion in general.

Anyone with me?

i'm an atheist too :lol

[Guest]

Hey Mudkip,

welcom to the debate, and, although I can see you've posted plenty times before, the board

Most of us on this debate are atheist as well.