A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it. Atheism and Agnosticism and Anti-theism.
Flowcharts make everything easier to understand :P
Batten down the hatches...
...because a shitstorm is coming...
It is funny cause it's true. :)
this is a great chart, exactly what was needed acouple of weeks ago
No worries! We'll probably need it again very shortly >_<
My first thought is that Christianity can be explained with science. While my second though is Evolutionism would be categorized in the faith column.
have any of you ever even considered the idea that *gasp* God Made the universe? to understand science we must explore all aspects/possibilities, not just one idea. also we cannot understand the past by modern experiments, because there is an enormous flaw in such thinking! the flaw is, that everything has been happening at the same rate that we have observed for the past few years. consider this: peter sees his friend john who lives in a near by city, (about 5 miles away) walking at 6am at barley 1mile/hour. assuming that john walked 1mile/hour, and he has been walking from the city, you end up with the hypothesis that he has been walking all night. but that is contradictory to logic which is telling you that nobody walks all night for 5 hours. so either john's car broke down, (which means he has been moving faster at one point) or he had camped at the near by camping site. (which means he started from a closer distance)
A little question?
What exactly has that to do with the scientific method?
And why you cristians bother so much in responding in an ATHEIST group if you guys believe in God?
I had to respond to that picture:) and I'm trying to show how dating anything in science, has flaws because there are assumptions involved. You cannot get a good date if you assume something without any evidence. Christians at least have a well documented historical book which FITS the eveidence.
This comment is currently awaiting admin approval, join now to view.
Most of us were religious at one point and believed in a God...so yes we have considered the possibility of a God creating the universe. I'm afraid you don't get it.
We don't say, "GOD IS NOT REAL", we just point out that the fairy tale books representing God have nothing to back them up and go against current knowledge (which religious people tend to reject in favor of their deity). There are many other ways (and even many we probably haven't thought up yet) that could explain the origin of our universe.
You can't defend a faith-bound argument. It has nothing to justify it. When will you guys understand that?
I think it takes more faith to believe we came from cosmic dust then it takes to believe that God did it:) I still havent seen a contradiction in the bible, niethere have I see the bible contradict with current knowledge. (evolution=/=science)
It doesn't take faith to hold onto what we currently know in our universe to be true. There is no need for faith. Have you actually looked up what faith really means? It means to blindly believe in something, usually without any good reason to do so.
Oh? So I'm sure the Earth is 6,000 years old contradictory to evidence gathered to support that it is billions of years old.... I'm also sure that a magic man poofed out of nowhere, without a cause of his own, created everything from nothing, created a man from dirt and a woman from the man's rib...to which a talking serpent then proceeds to mislead the woman to eat a fruit from a tree that ***** all of humanity up from the very beginning... Hmm...seems legit so far...
And uhh...about the dust part...we actually would come from organic materials (or at least I think that's how abiogenesis works).
Faith=2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Both creation and the big bang theory are based on faith. We both see the same facts and then we interpret the facts to support our beliefs.
God is a spirit He isn't bound to the laws that he created. So saying God created everything is still more legit then saying, "long ago nothing exploded, which really means nothing. And from that nothing everything appeared." so how can something come from nothing without a god? How can all the fine laws we see today come from nothing without a cause? Why did it "explode"? And lastly was the nothing spinning? And if so why do we have different spins in our very own solar system? I trully think that God creating everything is the truth. The snake Could have been satan. As for God making us out of dirt, yes he did, and then he breathe the breath of life into us, making us come alive. He only used the dirt for the shape, after that he simply changed the dirt into living tissue, like he changed the water into the earth at the very beginning.
Elf: Or maybe he was just walking for 5 hours? I don't really know why that has anything to do with anything...
And Christianity cannot be explained with Science. If so, why hasn't it already? Why isn't accepted by Science if it could? You may think it can be explained using Science, but I assure you, it can't.
Evolution has been proven. Two thousand years ago, humans were pretty much uncivilised barbarians with swords and arrows. Now we're uncivilised barbarians with guns and nuclear missles.
That is Evolution.
Yet at the expense of things like, knowledge of herbs:( and the roman empire had a very neat sewage system. Just look at the amazing buildings, with today's tech it would be hard to build a replica of the great pyramid. Lastly, the flood destroyed the advanced civilazation, which lived at that time. Cain build a city and called it Enoch. People were skilled with metals and music, before the flood. The evidence that I see doesn't conflict with evolution. People LOST knowledge after they lost their common speach, because of their pride.
As for why I pointed out the walking example, well the purpose was to point out just how illogical scientific dating methods are. Because they are based on at least 2 assumptions! 1. The rate was the same. 2. The starting point has been x amount.
Look, this is just ridiculous. Christianity CANNOT be proven scientifically, and believe me, they've tried. Your various statements on how Christianity and the Bible can be scientifically proven are invalid, because you simply don't understand the scientific method.
For instance, your claims that things like the Red Sea parting can be scientifically proven just DON'T WORK. It defies physics. It defies gravity. It has no energy backing it, so it defies the law of conservation of energy. It doesn't make sense, it goes against every single established scientific concept. Thus- it's not science. If you say anything on how "God did it", it's not science, it's religion. It's not even pseudoscience. I'm not being closeminded here, I'm just being realistic. Your claims of "evidence", those being from the bestselling fiction novel of all time (which even Christians for the most part believe is not to be taken literally, but you seem to think is a legitimate historical text) and some supposed chariot remains. That makes about as much sense as me finding a volcano and saying LOTR must be real because it looks like Mount Doom. It doesn't make sense.
The problem is that your attempts at proving religion through 'science' just aren't feasible. Even if there are vague forms of 'evidence' that can be scraped together to form a 'theory', they work contrary to everything in established science. It's just like the chart above- religion ignores contrary evidence. In legitimate science, like scientific dating methods, things actually make SENSE; you discover evidence, piece it together, and form dating methods. When you put these dating methods to use, they pull up valid conclusions. The very idea of a law or theory in science is that they aren't fact, but a way to accurately predict future events. This works with scientific dating methods; when you put the methods to work and test them, they actually WORK, they make sense. And if they don't, the method is wrong, and science adjusts itself in search of a better theory. Religion, when trying to prove itself, just blatantly goes "WE ARE UNDENIABLY RIGHT, WE SHALL DENY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE AND ANY OF THE SLIGHTEST, MOST VAGUE, IMPLAUSIBLE SORT OF 'EVIDENCE' WE CAN HUNT DOWN SUPPORTING OUR IDEAS IS OBVIOUS PROOF THAT WE ARE CORRECT."
All I can say is this; your arguments are a lot better off if you just accept that religion isn't science. It's a lot more plausible if you just go "it cannot be proven, because it's faith. We don't need to prove it". It's frustrating to the irreligious, but it's a lot more believable than trying to bend facts and nitpick about aspects of science you just don't understand in an attempt to 'prove' it with 'science'. Not that you should reject science in other fields, but really, in trying to prove religion, it's a bit of a lost cause :/
Sorry if this seems like a really harsh way to put it, I'm not trying to be insulting. But really, it's getting kinda tiring to see your attempts at 'proving' religion, because until you properly understand the science surrounding the ideas you're trying to prove, they just don't make sense.
Once again, sorry if that's a really mean way to put it (and also sorry for this huge wall of text), I prefer more civil debate. But I think this is a point that needs to be expressed towards a lot of the Christians (not all, mind you) who come here, or go to the science page. I'm not opposed to your personal beliefs, I'm not even an atheist (well, agnostic), but this attempt at trying to make religion scientific is just a waste of time. There are far more interesting aspects of religion and science to debate than this or that idiotic evolution vs. creationism argument.
Excelent points, and I suppose your right, we should stop "fighting" each other.
However I should probably mention that since the big bang has not been observed, and neither has it been proven anymore then God then I would categorize the big bang under religion, just like I would categorize a lot of other evolution related theories that seem to bend the evidence, (ie Lucy, and a lot more missing links)
Lastly how would you explain the fact that comets only last about 10 000 years?
Because the Big Bang, unlike religion, has a great deal of evidence backing it up. I'm not saying it's reality; I'm just saying it's the best we've got, because it's got the most evidence. A pretty huge amount really- and as described before, it makes sense when applied (if you study the movements, actions, and age of celestial objects, it matches up with the idea that it all expanded from one point). Evolution is fact, and if you really look into it, you'll notice that almost every person who entirely discredits evolution is, *GASP* a religious fundamentalist- there is a great deal of ignorance and religious bias surrounding it. As for the comets, I don't think I quite get the point behind the question, but I'd imagine it's due to them either running into or being gradually melted by celestial objects.
The only real evidence that I heard of for the big bang is that everything is moving away. Which could also be explained by: (Isaiah 42:5 KJV) (Psalm 104:2 KJV) (psalms are portray by the way) (Isaiah 45:12 KJV) anyways it says things like God streched our the heavens about 10 times. Now there are parts where it compares the heavens to a tent, but it's using a simile. Saying the dog bits as an iron trappers trap. Doesn't mean the dog is a trappers trap.
As for comets I was pointing out how the universe cannot be older then 10000 years because there would be not comets left:) (please don't invent something that has never been observed to defend the idea of an old universe)
The entire point of my previous few comments has been missed. While you're pleasant and civil in your debates, which is far more than can be said for most of the theists and atheists alike, I don't think there's much of a point in even civil debate by now tbh :/
Neither of us can sway the other, there isn't much point in trying.
Then you did not look for enough evidence.
And comets can't be older than 10000 years? You pulled that straight out of your ***. There is no evidence to suggest that to be the case.
OH MY, DO YOU GUYS EVEN KNOW WHAT THE BIG BANG IS???
The pyramids were built by slaves and that took them hundreds of years I believe. What's actually funny is that around the time they built the pyramids is about a hundred or so years (last I heard) after Noah's flood supposedly. I can't even imagine the amount of incest that would have to be done in one hundred years...
ok I beleive in being civil in almost all matters regarding life, faith,and personal chioce. the ONLY execption to this is with creationism. I have no trouble with god, it could exist I don't no I am and always have been an agnostic and sometimes even deist in many ways.
but if you are a creationist you are responsible for the deaths of thousands who didnt have to die, its that simple.
I believe in freedom of religion and the right to choose what you believe, but cannot and willnot except creationism because it is done nothing but cause evil and harm to the human race.
Evil and harm? But because God made us and everything then we should value it and not go murdering little children that haven't even had the chance to breath!! Evolution teaches that we are just an accident, that human life is worthless. So which religion is more harmful?
First, evolution isn't a religion, is a scientific theory, which I would call a -fact-
Also, If you haven't yet noticed, people here don't simply care about your believes, we've heard you a thousand times already, but we still don't see your religion as a fact. Simple as that.
Oh, and evolution doesn't say that we were an accident, not at all: Instead, it says that we evolved through a long and complex process into the race that we are now.
I'd like to leave this here, let us believe in what we want, and we will do the same favor to you, thank you.
no creationism kills, its that simple. evrytime some lets ther child die instead of taking medicine because its "gods will" they are in fact murdering that child. everytime a creationst claims evolution is wrong and a child dies of a new infectious illness (which according to creationists doesnt happen) creationists kill that child. you are murders. evolutionary science save children. everytime a creationist trys to get evolution block in schools, a young person who could save the life from plague instead hears **** and those people will die.
creationists murder them that is the truth and none of your silly ******** or word play can change that. how about you leave now and think about all the children you and your ******** beliefs kill today. mabye "god" can forgive you for this, but i cannot.
I garentee if all the deaths that were cause by creationist ******** were counted up it would put creationists in the same league as other mass murders like Hilter, and stalin, if you do all of creationist history it make you actually worse.
God gave us the wisdom to shearch for new cures. And isnt evolution survival of the fittest? So when someone is "defective" they die.
no evolution has led as to medicne, cures for sickness, and if "defectivness" worked you wouldnt be here.
and creationists are murders, have you thought about the babies you have helped to kill today?
How do Christians(that value LIFE) kill people? It's the most outrageous accusation that I have heard so far. Just because a cult doesn't let the doctor use medicine doesn't mean that I or any other NORMAL christian doesn't. Christians are agianst murdering children that do no even see the sun, yet abortion is so common these days. WHY? it's the most horrible form of murdur available! God was strickly against human sacrifices which supports the fact that he valued human life. So killing children is an abomination to him.
the biblr says life starts a birth, so your argument is irrelivent.also evolution has nothing to do with abortion. its like trying to claim cars & apples are the same thing. its stuipid ********.
theory of evolution has SAVED billions of lives, creationism has saved ZERO, mostly helped in ending innocent lives.and everyone who trys to halt the teacghing of evolution (a theory that has brought on the advancements that save lives) is hindering the saving of life so is there for against the saving of life which means they are EVIL HIPOCRITS WHO BY FIGHTING PROGRESS ARE SHOWING THAT THEY WANT INNOCENT CHILDREN TO DIE HORRIBLY AND PAINFULLY AND DO NOT TRUELY CARE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE, THE ONE AND ONLY THING THEY CARE ABOUT IS SUBJEGATION AND CONTROL OF ALL PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THERE NARROW MINDED DELUSIONAL BELIEFS THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN SCIENCE!!!
I am sick and tired of this how about you leave the athiest group alone and go read about how the earth is flat and 6000yrs old and other crap like that.
nobody is listening to you and nobody really cares.
you just mus like to hear yourselfs talk.
hace a nice day
I looked up the definition of creationism on Google, and the top result was: "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
I assume that this is your understanding of the term "creationism."
My definition is a bit different: (In my own words) God created the universe and everything therein.
Notice the lack of the "...rather than by natural processes such as evolution." part. This is omitted because I don't know how God created life, I merely believe that he did.
I even consider it possible that God created life through natural processes such as evolution.
In my mind, there is no reason that science and Christianity cannot co-exist. (I'd also like to bring up that it seems like most of the arguments here are based on mis-communication: if two people converse using the same words, but don't realize that they may each have very different definitions for those words, then it would be as if they were unwittingly speaking two completely different languages.)
Well, for one science does contradict Christianity. Evolution specifically is targeted by creationists because it teaches a different beginning than the Biblical account. If there is no fall of man, then there is no purpose for Jesus. The whole Bible falls apart when you take it literally.
This is, again, why creationists attack evolution. They know it contradicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible and thus, work to make it out to be stupid.
In my mind, Christianity is forced to adapt to science; otherwise it will have to choose to live a life away from science (not a good choice, obviously). To adapt to science, you might as well throw the whole book in the trash. Evolutionist Christians, like you I assume, deny that the Bible and evolution (which is a part of biology in science) conflicts.
Denying something doesn't make it right. There is only one truth; and no matter what the dumb masses of people choose to believe to be true, it still won't make it true. Am I saying there is no God? No. I'm saying that the Biblical God is very unlikely unless he intended people to interpret everything metaphorically (which I still don't understand what the **** it all would mean). There can be a deist or pantheist God by evolution standards, but even THAT is up to question.
We attack evolution because its nothing more than one of Satan's many lies that the blind and foolish have fallen for. Since he is the enemy, we attack anything that is of him. Plain and simple. Oh, one more thing. There is no evidence that supports evolution. I've read the nonsense and seen the so-called "proof" already so don't bother spouting it to me. The lack of transitional fossils alone is evidence to the contrary. The fact that you can't use the scientific method in it's entirety to support evolution invalidates it even as a theory. Until someone can observe the process of evolution in real time and until someone finds transitional fossils it will remain a sad myth for small people that just can't accept the truth that they are sadly mistaken.
...here comes yuri, king of La LA land ridin on the crazy train. wodered when you would show up.
yep and our poof is nonsense..., if your delusional or on drugs.
because believing jesus road dinosaurs makes more sense.
Eh, what? "Satan's many lies".
You're so afraid of evolution that you immediately say that it was something invented by the red guy with horns? Now that's simply said, ridiculous. I don't really see what is your problem with it, it's science, science is made by men, and it is through science we will gain progress, not through religion.
Also, just to add to this, truth depends on who you ask: You say that your God is the only truth. We say that it isn't. We say that evolution might have some truth in it, you say it doesn't. We've got different views of this world, but you shouldn't try and shove it on people's faces.
Truth is not relative. Truth is absolute.
You are right Yuri truth is abolute, scientific truth that is.
to be truth it has to be right, science is right. its always right, when it is wrong someone comes along and using science show the right answer.
religion doesnt do that, so it can be "truth" just faith because it cannot be proved right.
and i could say satan created messahnic christains to spread false doctirne to hurt mainstream christains and cause hurricanes, but does that make it true? your arguement is the same thing only with less fact and more La La Land and opinion and anger.
I don't think that my understanding of evolution is developed enough that I could call myself an "Evolutionist Christian." I think I'm more of a Philosophical Christian - I'm unsure of many things, and try to look at matters from many different perspectives; from this, I have chosen to follow Christianity.
You say that Christianity and science do conflict, but I am curious as to how. Could you perhaps give me some examples, like a piece of scientific evidence that directly contradicts a verse or section of the Bible?
One last thing: "In my mind, Christianity is forced to adapt to science..." If Christianity is true, then it cannot adapt as it would be perfect, and any change would be a degradation rather than an improvement.
And so, when there is a contradiction between scientific proof and Christianity, I can see only two possible reasons for that contradiction:
1. Either Christianity as a whole is wrong, and we have disproved it...
2. ...our understanding of Christianity is wrong, and we must re-interpret it. If the material simply cannot be logically interpreted in any other way that does not contradict with science, then we are left only with option 1.
thank you finally someone with some sense.
I have never said i dont believe religion and science cant coexist.
Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.
Scientific method versus: GOD DID IT!!!!1!1