INvasion was not bad? ... Seriously? A community has problems in their own country and moves to another place hoping for improved living conditions - that's understandable.
A community has bad living condition moves- to invade another country, kills of the natives there, snatche and steals their lands , destroys their civilization and establishes their own by transfering their own bad conditions of living to the natives ...
Religion or no religion, I don't see how it is not bad.
Fair game I say. When Japan attacked the USA in WW2 it was fair game. Same goes with this IMO. But I can see how some say it is bad because of what they did.
Great dont judge homosexuals, atheists and every other people, they are under God and he shall judge them . . . unless ur athourity is greater than God's.
:flaw:
I am not judging if they are going to hell or not. If you read the chapter in the bible it is obvious that Jesus was refering too judging if someone was going to hell or heaven, not if they are doing something bad.
Science? . . . do u mean the obsolete, partially represented, selectively chosen and usually misunderstood science which are paraded about by some people who study specifically to prove the Christian origin story correct when there are other religious texts and their proofs to consider?
Horizen problem shows the flaw in the big bang theory and for a 6,000 year universe. Although a theory has been proposed to fix this problem but it has not been proven correct. Which is why more tests need to be done to better understand light. There might be some sort of time dilation which can explain the problems encountered.
___
You must be registered for see links
Chimp Y chromosomes are so much different than human Y chromosomes that those scientists claim that our Y chromosomes evolved faster than the chimps. They do not even put doubt in evolution even with such a huge difference.
___
You must be registered for see links
Scientists have also found soft tissue in T-rex findings. Even with the best preserving methods known you cannot preserve soft tissue for the claimed 65-68 million years let alone a few thousand years.
I'm sorry, but assuming I haven't already learned about how DNA works, if I wanted to know, I certainly wouldn't read anything you've ever said about it. I guess you missed the part where I said you are lost when it comes to science facts.
Not everything is in there but everything it has mentioned could happen soon, has happened recently or is happening.
For some reason you and a few other posters in this thread keep insisting that the people who wrote the bible ~4000 years ago had some sort of magical powers and could predict the future.
'There will be more natural disasters and diseases in the future' is not a prediction. It's a guess with no basis in fact ESPECIALLY when most people back then didn't even have a kindergarten education level, much less the capability of recording and keeping accurate records world wide.
In order to quantify the number of diseases around back in the day, you have to have an understanding of germ theory (science) and have the tools to be able to tell the difference between specific diseases. The germ theory of disease wasn't proposed until 1546 and then proven until the late 1900s, so I highly doubt that the original authors of the bible had any clue about the differences between the common cold and say, the plague.
On top of that, the major method of recording back then was through writing things down, which was ironic since most people couldn't read or write. So when a natural disaster or a disease came along and wiped out a bunch of people, assuming there was anyone left alive who could record the event, what are the chances that the survivors were even capable of reading and writing?
Furthermore, someone who comes along to discover all these dead people would just as soon conclude that it was the hand of an angry god who killed them all for sinning or some other hokum, before they would ever conclude that it was X disease or Y natural disaster.
Lastly, the populated world was much smaller back then, with most people centralized around northern Africa/Southern Europe/Western Asia. So if an earthquake happened in North America at the time, how would one of these illiterate desert dwelling people of the Mediterranean record it? I highly doubt the native Americans would tweet about the earthquake to all his buddies or post the event on facebook.
This is why your 'there were more natural disasters/diseases' claim is bullshit. You have absolutely zero evidence to support the differential between those things back then and those things now. And even if you did have evidence to support the claim, you would still have to then provide additional evidence to support the 'supernatural powers' these people had in order to make predictions.
So as I said before, there isn't a single 'prediction' within the bible or the quran that couldn't be made on a whim by some random ass person with an imagination back then. Have you ever seen Star Trek? They had personal communicators long before cell phones were invented. Why aren't you claiming Gene Roddenberry as a prophet who foretold cell phone technology in his Star Trek show?
I'll tell you why. It's because your understanding of science, reality, and the bible is tragic and misinformed. You see 'magic' in vague generalizations that can be made by anyone, and then you jump to the conclusion that it's god, neglecting to come up with even the tiniest shred of evidence. I'm not even religious and I know the bible better than you.
I'm pretty sure that at some point in the future man will live in space colonies. Get on your knees and worship me!
Horizen problem shows the flaw in the big bang theory and for a 6,000 year universe. Although a theory has been proposed to fix this problem but it has not been proven correct. Which is why more tests need to be done to better understand light. There might be some sort of time dilation which can explain the problems encountered.
Inflation theory explains the Horizon problem, and it's generally accepted amongst science that the Big Bang factually happened. Just because we don't have a 100% complete and accurate understanding of the Big Bang doesn't mean it never happened.
It's like walking out to your car in the morning on your way to work, and seeing that someone vandalized it. You know that it happened because there is evidence to suggest as much, but you might not be able to draw a 100% complete and accurate timeline of events between the time your car was not vandalized and the time you walked out and found it.
But we know that the big bang happened in the same way we know your car was vandalized. We have the evidence to suggest as much, though we still don't have a full understanding of the event or all of the evidence that could exist.
Conversely, there is absolutely zero evidence that the genesis account of the bible is true. It's basically like a passerby who's never seen your car before, walking by to find it vandalized. He has no frame of reference to your car in any other condition and might guess that you got into an accident or that a natural disaster occurred and totaled your car.
Chimp Y chromosomes are so much different than human Y chromosomes that those scientists claim that our Y chromosomes evolved faster than the chimps. They do not even put doubt in evolution even with such a huge difference.
Chimp and human chromosomes are different because they are different species that have evolved in different environments at different rates. This is no different than any other species, and again, your understanding of science is tragically skewed. If everything evolved at the same rate in the same way, then there would only be one species of life on earth.
Also, just because a science experiment/research yields different results than expected, doesn't mean we throw out all science and start going to church instead. In fact, it's expected to get different results than you want, that's how we falsify a theory. If nothing was ever falsifiable, then we wouldn't have any science to begin with.
Scientists have also found soft tissue in T-rex findings. Even with the best preserving methods known you cannot preserve soft tissue for the claimed 65-68 million years let alone a few thousand years.
You should do a better job of reading your articles:
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
The fact of the matter is that the findings do not change previous discoveries about dinosaurs, they only change the way science thinks about fossils and the data they may contain. The fossils are still tens of millions of years old, and I'll trust what a microbiologist/paleontologist has to say on the issue before I'll trust something you have to say.
For some reason you and a few other posters in this thread keep insisting that the people who wrote the bible ~4000 years ago had some sort of magical powers and could predict the future.
What's the difference? They might as well have been on drugs and come up with their predictions that way. You still have zero evidence that they were actually shown the future and the predictions that were made are on the level of a TV psychic. If these are your reasons for believing in god, I have a bridge between planets for sale cheap, wanna buy it?
Personally, i kinda believe in god, but i dont at the same time.
I don't believe in the Bible or of religion. Nor do i approve.
I also ask myself this one question...if god exists, why does he exist?
the only thing hes ever created (if he exists) is a bunch of *******s trying to run the world based on fear. i mean, he supposedly exists but why? to help us? what does he "help" us with? lol
plus, im a person who likes to believe that you have control over your own life. the choices you make and the actions you take define who you are.
Personally, i kinda believe in god, but i dont at the same time.
I don't believe in the Bible or of religion. Nor do i approve.
I also ask myself this one question...if god exists, why does he exist?
the only thing hes ever created (if he exists) is a bunch of *******s trying to run the world based on fear. i mean, he supposedly exists but why? to help us? what does he "help" us with? lol
plus, im a person who likes to believe that you have control over your own life. the choices you make and the actions you take define who you are.
I am an Atheist since there is very little evidence for an allmighty creator, and if there is then he is not mighty at all...just look how ****ed up everything is. And if we are talking about the God of the story book called Bible then we are in some serious trouble if he exists cuz that dude is the biggest ******* I have ever seen
Hmm heres something I used in a debate with a friend of mine from the US on FB:
I don't know weather this is the place to post it but what the hell
___________________________________________________________________________
...
Atheism is the rejection of the idea that there are gods or supernatural beings in the world of any kind, even the rejection of the idea that there might be supernatural beings at some early point in the universe.
I am by definition an atheist but I don't like the term because it implies that there is something that is worth denying the existence from, I prefer the term naturalist which means that I believe that the universe is a realm of natural law where the concepts of physics and chemistry apply and describe what there is in this universe.
Agnosticism is a a point of view where you dont really know weather there are supernatural beings and it seems to me to be kinda weird fence-sitting kind of view, because the question at stake here is one about rationality.
The intellectual respectability of a claim that there are gods (say the gods of Olympus, …) seems to be on par with the intellectual respectability of fairies on your garden, belief in fairies was very widespread until the late 19th century, people believed that the fairies were much more present in their lives than god was. The comparison here is not a weird one and if you think that the reasons you have to think that there are fairies are very poor reasons, that they are irrational to think that there are such things then belief into supernatural beings in natural is irrational in that way.
We have an extremely powerful theory about how appearance of design and organization in the universe – Darwinian theory. If you take the thought that there was a designer seriously the designing would be particularly incompetent because there are so many ways in which the universe could be better. Ones human body is a mess of bad design features. You can say god works in mysterious ways. But: if you invoke the notion of a omnipotent eternal being. Absolutely anything whatever follows so that nothing whatever counts is counter evidence of existence of god. If a theory explains everything, if everything is consistent with the truth of the claim than its emty and it doesn't explain anything at all.
Well, science at its normal best is a public, testable and challengeable project always having to maintain respectability by saying what would count as counter evidence against it and people put forward views in science they put it so that other people contest them. Science theoretically is an idea that the universe is a place which can be understood if we have the right concepts, procedures and instruments we might be able to increase our understanding of it.
Firstly it is to ignore the fact that in the antique in the classical tradition their deep rich thoughts about the nature of morality, the foundation of ethics, the nature of good which isn't connected to any spirit monarch in the sky and its rewards and punishments. All the best and deepest thinking about ethics is come from non religious traditions. But also to suggest that it is not possible to have an ethics unless there is this rewarder and punisher, and by the way there is a logical fallacy involved there that its right to do something because someone will beat you up if you don't, the idea that you need an enforcer for morality …, all those people who act as they do towards others as a desire to respect others and the society is premissed solely on their liking of fellow human beings, you could not say that that it is not ethic solely because they dont believe in god. And on the contrary, people whos morality comes from religious ideas as opposed to those who have thought about it for themselves, and it seems to me that the latter are many times more moral than the former.
I think death is gratefully final. Its no different to us than the time before we were born. The average human life is less than 1000 months which is a very good reason for not wasting time. It also means that the things you want to achieve must be achieved here. It also means that at the end there will be a kind of wonderful rest from it all. And according to science we will in a way survive since our matter will go on to become other things, we return to the elements and become a part of nature, the conservation of energy, … There is no evidence on life after death, except anecdotal and only suggest that there is life that follows death. I don't know about anyone else but the though of eternity seems tiresome to me.
I'm still of the belief that atheism is a belief which comes from the feeling that one is too good for religion. I think westerners and europeans in general want to believe that they are better than religious people.
You look at religious people (the orthodox ones) and in general you see the high level of moralilty among them.
I am an Atheist since there is very little evidence for an allmighty creator, and if there is then he is not mighty at all...just look how ****ed up everything is. And if we are talking about the God of the story book called Bible then we are in some serious trouble if he exists cuz that dude is the biggest ******* I have ever seen
His example on left and right arm was just :rofl: Saying free will is not real or an illusion with what is currently known about the brain is jumping to conclusions.
His example on left and right arm was just :rofl: Saying free will is not real or an illusion with what is currently known about the brain is jumping to conclusions.
You obviously didn't pay much attention to the content of the video, which is not surprising.
His example was to have you think of someone you know. The first person you think of when you do that, is done completely subconsciously, you have zero control over it. So when he asks you who that person was and why you picked them, you cannot explain why. If you really had free will, you would be able to choose who you picked in that exercise and come up with a logical conclusion as to why you made that choice.
The point is that you have zero conscious control over what you actually choose, which means that you don't have free will. I suggest you watch the video a couple more times and try really hard to understand what he's saying.
You obviously didn't pay much attention to the content of the video, which is not surprising.
His example was to have you think of someone you know. The first person you think of when you do that, is done completely subconsciously, you have zero control over it. So when he asks you who that person was and why you picked them, you cannot explain why. If you really had free will, you would be able to choose who you picked in that exercise and come up with a logical conclusion as to why you made that choice.
The point is that you have zero conscious control over what you actually choose, which means that you don't have free will. I suggest you watch the video a couple more times and try really hard to understand what he's saying.
I chose who I wanted to think of actually. I can't say the same for other people though. I asked someone else to do that and they told me they did what that guy said but me? Nah I choose who I think of.
I chose who I wanted to think of actually. I can't say the same for other people though. I asked someone else to do that and they told me they did what that guy said but me? Nah I choose who I think of.
No, you came to that conclusion because you don't understand the problem. You are basically looking at the person you thought of as a conscious choice you made even though you factually didn't make the choice to pick that person. The point is that your consciousness is a steady stream of thoughts that arise without any conscious effort on your part to cause them.
Most of those thoughts reflect your perceptions within the real world, whether they are conscious or subconscious perceptions. Some of those thoughts are baited by your perceptions into your consciousness, based on the mind state that you are currently in and the direction it's going.
The parameters you are being given may not have been specific enough to discount personal bias when accounting for recent events, so it's perfectly possible that you thought of someone who was already on your mind at the time.
Let's change the parameters slightly, and I suggest for you to think of a city in the world you've never been to, any city, that you might want to visit.
I chose who I wanted to think of actually. I can't say the same for other people though. I asked someone else to do that and they told me they did what that guy said but me? Nah I choose who I think of.
^You are an idiot if you think you could choose the first thing that pops in your head. You would have to think of more than one thing to contemplate which thing you want to think about and that would suggest that you didn't actually think of that thing first.
In my opinion due to my experience with religious people I have come to suggest that religion is the epitome of hypocrisy. I haven't met a non-hypocritical religious person. I am not saying all of them are hypocritical but all the ones I have come across have been. All the religious people I have met have been self righteous bigots who do the exact opposite of what their "god" informs them to do. I also do not see any logic in believing in a magical perfect being who lives in the clouds and watches everyone in the world at once and judges whether or not the have been good or bad so that he/she can determine whether or not you will be spending your eternity in pure bliss or pure agony.
LOL this debate is still on...I've been following it for a while and what I see is that many of the religious people here have incorrect knowledge on science,evolution, theories, etc...It just confirmed me that faith really needs people to biased...I wouldnt call it ignorance, thats not always the case, just people misinterpret things because they want to believe and/or they were raised in a religious family/society.
The fundamental fact is that if someone can't even interpret and understand science correctly, then how can they have a good understanding of their own religion?
