What Chuck said. You don't have to believe in god to use a very common expression. When I say "god bless you" after you sneeze its not because I want god to get the evil demons out of your body, I say it because it is common courtesy. When Science bless you, and Science damn it become common expressions I'll use them.
pacmonster has a fantastic point for once, "bless you" is the perfect example of phrases based on belief becoming mere expressions.
There are multiple issues with what you say here. One, those two issues are completely unrelated in the context of what you are attempting to point out. They are related in a sense, because I am saying I'm not upset because of the fact that these people are like this. However, unless you're making a generalization that people who makes generalizations are always upset, which is a ridiculous proposition, there is no reason why me posting a "false generalization" would necessarily suggest I'm upset. Poor logic. Two, I did not make a generalization. I did not support myself with any factual data, sure, and if you want to look at it that way, go ahead, but it's my belief in any case. A generalization means that every member of a group has been labeled as something. Instead, what I was attempting to portray was that the group as whole, on average, is the most closed-minded group of people you will find. Three, unless you have data backing yourself up, to actually label something I said as fact or not fact by stating it as "false" is simply irresponsible while considering logical discussion. I'm assuming this is a joke considering some of the posts by atheists that have clearly indicated that they believe Christians are closed-minded and inferior intellectually to themselves. By the way, who are you people, do you have PhD's in Theology? How about in Biology? Geology? Astronomy? Chemistry? Physics? Hell, even Philosophy? For people stating that there is irrefutable evidence against Christianity and the Bible, I don't really see a lot of scholars in here that have done the work that proves this themselves. I will not contend I'm 100% right except to myself, so I'm curious as to who you people are that you actually believe you have the qualifications to tell other people what to believe and how they should think. I can't respect an opinion that clearly doesn't know the assumptions associated with Carbon Dating. There are 3 major ones, when you come back with those and the data that turns these assumptions into evidence-supported theories, I'll listen to what you have to say. Carbon Dating is shown to work 1m times out of 1m times within a time frame that does not conflict with Christianity. Dating back further than a couple thousand years is inaccurate, to say the least. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Charles Darwin, 'On the imperfection of the geological record', chapter X, The Origin of the Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp 292-293. As for Evolution, as time goes on and the imperfections of the theory are continuously questioned and answered with "in time," the less likely the idea is correct. No form of Evolution has been discovered that conflicts with Christianity or the Bible, and Darwin himself would likely question his theory if he saw the vast geological record we have today. The book is not open for interpretation, man just likes to think it is. I care not for your queries into the mind of God. Sin is the cause of pain amongst mankind, not God. Man has sinned, the penalty for this sin is death, God then sent his only son to Earth to die for your sins so that you may be saved through his grace. In any case, you've clearly been listening to many Christians that have no idea what they're talking about in terms of the bible if you believe some of these things. There is no Hell where you're eternally tormented, for example. You will burn and die, and be eternally vanquished, but you will not be tormented forever. Although the idea is strikingly humorous. Not the torture, of course, but instead your assertion that you would suffer eternal torment before accepting minor tragedies in history. This points to why I disregarded your post before, which I actually did read. I looked at what you wrote and felt that you were not open-minded, as you had suggested, but instead passive in your opinions. There is a total difference. Not forcing your opinions on others is passive, not open-minded. As you have just shown yourself, you would never worship "God," such a statement shows closed-mindedness in its extremity. Thanks for playing though.
that entire post was just reactive and had zilch to do with what was said. what i inferred was: 'i don't hate athiests, but all you athiest ****ers are wrong and have no merit' i will add: 1. carbon dating is accurate up to a good 300 million years (but not after 1950 with all the nuclear testing). this is down to the nature of radioactivity. if you want to argue with radioactivity theory, then read the millions of books about it and witness how we treat and diagnose cancer. 2. If the bible cannot be interpreted, then the bible is naught. There is so much in there to be found that is contradictory and evil. The psalms and passages disagree with each other, large sections of the bible are degrading to women, abusive to children and anti-semitic.
im sorry i happen to disagree with you most of the time? overreact much? you're not one for fantastic points as we all know.
A book is not open for interpretation. There are not hundreds of different versions of Christianity which derived from different interpretations of the same book. Mine is right -- all others are wrong.
"Two, I did not make a generalization. I did not support myself with any factual data, sure, and if you want to look at it that way, go ahead, but it's my belief in any case. A generalization means that every member of a group has been labeled as something. Instead, what I was attempting to portray was that the group as whole, on average, is the most closed-minded group of people you will find. Three, unless you have data backing yourself up, to actually label something I said as fact or not fact by stating it as "false" is simply irresponsible while considering logical discussion." Uhhh... Hypocritical much?
The very idea of my post being reactive would mean that I reacted to what was said. I must have missed my vulgarity in the midst of typing as well. More importantly, I don't recall saying I don't hate atheists, although I do not, and I also don't particularly remember saying anything about them having no merit. What I instead suggested that theories such as Evolution or Carbon Dating are based on assumptions that have yet to be verified, and that atheists seem to ignore these assumptions, as you subsequently did when you claimed that Carbon Dating is accurate in dating things up to millions of years. There are no contradictions in the bible, end of story. Apparent contradictions only arise when one has misinterpreted the scripture. In addition, I would like some verses if you want to contend you know anything about the bible. No, considering I didn't say what I labeled was fact. Pay attention or don't interrupt. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Obviously I believe my own religion is the correct one, or I would not be practicing it. What a silly suggestion. Perhaps my religion isn't correct, but one of them is or none of them are. There is only one interpretation that matters, and that is the correct one.
hahaha get the **** out of this thread. All the disciples accounts are contradictory. Many statements and events are refuted by other peoples accounts. You're holy book is an amalgamation of verses from illiterate peasants and epileptics. St Paul was an epileptic. Mohammad was probably epileptic, if he ever existed. The crucifixion was witnessed by illiterate women. Their accounts are not even considered believable in modern day Jewish and Muslim courts, so why the **** should we trust the opinion of these kinds of people 2000 years ago? If you think this was all part of God's plan, then it wasn't a very good one was it? Let 95% of the species on Earth die, then send a saviour to the least developed and literate backwater town of the Middle-East. Not to China, where they could already read and write, and already had modern day philosophical morality. 'Do not do to others what you would not have done to yourself' pre-dates Christianity. So can you really say morals derive from a celestial authority without sounding like a moron? And for once in this thread, you ARE right. There are not hundreds of different versions of Christianity at all. There are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity. And the Catholic church has the gall to say that only their church is the path to salvation. It's honestly miserable that i have to educate you believers on your own scripture.
Please, I'd like you to refute all of these contradictions. You're in this thread, preaching about 'assumptions,' without citing any sort of evidence to prove that carbon dating uses any of these such assumptions. On top of that, you're guilty of making huge assumptions yourself; by believing the Bible. Religion is an assumption. Assumptions are the root of faith. So before you start ranting about carbon dating again, I'd like you to cite some evidence that shows the inaccuracies of the dating system. Along with that, I'd like you to disprove all other forms of geological dating.
Why would a God so powerful make it so only one interpretation is correct but make it so you HAVE to interpret it? Isn't that kind of dooming people from the start? Do you also believe in pre-destiny?
And yet you can't counter his last point at all, instead just falling back on this singular quote, rather than even pointing to a single scientific study condemning the accuracy of the process, from a scientist from over 100 years ago. I get that you're trying to pull on the evolutionary theorist's heart strings by touting something from the hero of the field, but some of the greatest scientists ever in their field have said some really stupid **** about another. If you're going to try and dismiss entire schools of study which form the basis of large amounts of scientific understanding, and even call out those who support them as ignoring the facts, then please try to actually provide these facts. Pulling a single, obscure quote out of your ass, albeit one from a convenient source in rhetorical terms, does not constitute 'fact,' so I'd advise you shape up your own approach to debate before calling out others. Sorry, you're kidding right? There are no contradictions as long as you interpret it right? As an assertion, that not only shows a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the bible, but frankly a poor grasp on wider logic.
Haha, I agree and thanks for correcting me. I don't mind. My post was in response to the guy above me.
First, the beginning of that statement makes no sense. This is what you started out your post with. Upset meaning disappointed with, angry with, sad, annoyed at, etc and the fact that you said "not" implies you are none of those things, the "remotely" is an unnecessary but strong enhancer to that "not". This was the second part, which starts with a plural statement of "Atheists". It doesn't get any more "generalized" than that. You didn't say, "most atheists I know" or "on average Atheists seem" (which by the way is still a generalization) you started with a definite plural implying all of this group is that way. You then follow with a bunch of insults to those kind of people's characters which shows, "disappointment, anger, annoyance" all the factors of someone that is upset with something, which goes against your first sentence. If you would like what you said broken down into even simpler terms I can do that for you Supporting oneself with factual data does not make a generalization. Says sweeping statements about a large group of people is a generalization, which is what your statement was. Saying "its your belief" doesn't change the definition of the word or how you used it. Please don't guess what the definitions of words are if you don't know how to use them properly. One does not need "data" to claim a point of view as faulty if the reasoning behind it is sound. In my case I just gave point by point analysis of why what you said was crap so I can safely say you were false. I could link you to dictionary.com or oxford dictionary if you would like. While I cannot speak for all atheists in this thread (nor am I an atheist), I can say that the definition of "close-minded" implies unwilling to change one's mind despite reasonable evidence to the contrary. For an atheist, "reasonable evidence to the contrary" would imply evidence of the existence of god. As such cannot be found scientifically, empirically, inadvertently etc that is why atheists are "close-minded" when it comes to religion. To say they are close-minded in general is a wrong generalization as an atheist might for example believe in a certain scientific theory and upon seeing evidence that strongly supports another view point they might change their mind. Religious people on the other hand (not just generalizing to Christians) close-minded implies they will not ever give up their belief in their deity regardless of what proof or evidence there is to the contrary. To give up their belief which is either a strongly woven part of that person's personality and culture brought on by either years of growing up in that environment or hundreds of years of cultural pressure (or for people that just decide a religion is for them they usually derive some important feature from it like a comfort that there life meant something and that they will go somewhere when they die) so "close-mindedness" is as much a feature to religious people as it is atheists. ...I'm confused whether you don't believe that carbon atoms don't decay over time and that this decay doesn't give up a time measurable radiation or that because carbon dating is not as accurate for more modern time frames it is not a viable thing? Are you one of those people that believe men and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time because they pay no mind to archeological evidence? lol is my only response to all of that.
I only need to provide evidence once evidence has been suggested that conflicts with Christianity, which none has. Anyone with even a "poor grasp on wider logic" would know that if I'm not attempting to prove Christianity or disprove Evolution or anything else, then all I need to do is defend against evidence that would contradict the former. As such, since no one has provided me with a study that contradicts Christianity, I need not provide any evidence by any means. Those attempting to disprove Christianity are the ones with the burden of proof, because they are actually attempting to assert something, all I'm attempting to do is say that any theory could be correct. Admittedly I am doing so forcefully, but from the poor arguments I've seen, why not? In addition, I've called people out much less than I've been called out so far, the only difference has been that I have given responses, such as this one, that are logically sound and remain consistent with my overall opinions.
You are less offensive than most but i still have to disagree with this point on this closed-mindedness. Atheists are not closed minded whatsoever. Atheists are the only group here that are using all of the information available to come to their conclusion. You can try say i have a closed mind because i will not relate to the faith aspect of Christianity. Well i'm sorry but that's complete horse ****. I think i've said this 4 times so far but i'll make it a 5th. THE DEITY ARGUEMENT IS IRRESOLVABLE, yes. You can't say you know there isn't a God, you can only say that so far there has been no evidence to allude to or require one. But for your Christian God arguement, you are saying that there is a God and you know his intentions personally, and he has a plan for you. You are saying that you have a source of information that i can not achieve without believing. This is outright ****ing absurd. Nobody has access to more information than me. Not you, not the Pope. I don't have to prove this to be the case. I know this to be the case. This is exactly what it means to have extraordinary claims and no evidence. And this is exactly why the faith point of view should not be trusted. Also To those religious, i hope you read the King James Bible. If you read any other form, then you get another laugh from me for your idiocy. The King James is one of the greatest literary works ever produced and is a solemn requirement to understand Shakespearian literature and poetry. It is the foundation of the English language.
Close-minded, completely ignore and dismiss evidence, selectively choose what's important? Please tell me you're an atheist plant pretending to be a moron. I'd love to refute evidence, if only you had brought some. Bother. "The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable", and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Evolution So maybe remove those inverted commas, "genius". And you know that the carbon dating is inaccurate, BECAUSE it conflicts with Christianity. It's great that we have a historical record, every word of which is true, or else we wouldn't know about the great flood, or that the earth was created in 6 days, and that either man and dinosaur lived as one, or all dinosaur bones are fake, or god put them in the ground to test us or something. So many transitional fossils have been discovered since 1879 that I think Darwin would be thrilled to see that he was right, especially considering all the new tools we have now, like DNA sequencing, that further prove evolution.
...that's exactly what my point was talking about, you read what I said and still made this statement, lol.
Sorry to diverge from the topic (carbon dating is about as solid a theory as it gets, FYI - I'm sure if you search deep enough you can find SOMEONE who says it doesn't work out of the millions who know it does and use it in their line of work), but this has always bothered me...I have a strong background in the Old Testament, my parents being religiously Jewish, and I've read the Bible quite a few times myself, found some personal meaning in a good book of metaphors and some stories, some history, threw away some of it as extra space or outdated. That said, lets be blunt...God deals with a lot of ****, and he puts up with it just fine. Sure he gets angry and kills thousands of people, but in the end its all about love and stuff, right? (PLUR<3) so why is it that after the Old Testament that God suddenly decided to change his mind and go with this Jesus guy, and then switch things up completely? He completely flakes out on the Jews and is like "well, screw this, we've had a good run, but... now for something completely different, lets make some new rules!". Like yeah, I'm sure Jesus was (is, if you believe in him, I suppose) a fantastic guy, but what's to say that he's worth dropping all of the work of the Old Testament? And lets be honest, Jesus doesn't seem all that cool to me. He makes trees shrivel up, he takes oil from poor people... as far as his personality, I'm unimpressed. I have no real desire to worship this guy, if I was going to, Moses seems a lot more down to earth, right? Moses came from a mom, with a normal birth. Jesus was born from a virgin, which kinda freaks me out, man. Why does Jesus get this weird birth, and Moses doesn't? Does that make any sense? Isn't Moses pretty much the focus of the Bible to begin with? So why is all of that suddenly dropped and we're changing pace completely? Again, I ask this in all respect, it's something I've wondered how it's thought about in Christian circles and never got a satisfactory answer...if atheists know why, feel free to let me know as well, I'm not trying to attack the faith, at the moment at least