Why do people now adays not believe in God and the BIBLE!?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#101
Report 16 years ago
#101
(Original post by piginapoke)
I can't really be bothered to dig out the material, but there is very strong evidence for the biblical flood. In fact, there definitely was a massive flood. The dates are a little uncertain however, but it was a very long time ago in our history.
This is correct. All old testament biblical tales are either old stories from other civilsations or tales with some truth and some BS. Unsurprisingly the ones closer to the truth are the less dramatic ones.
0
aaarrrggh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 16 years ago
#102
How exactly can you explain the fossil records by the 'biblical flood'? Appart from the fact that the flood in question did not actually happen (and there is no geological evidence for it), the fossils in question were not just dead human bodies, but fossils that differ in structure to the human form we have today, and can be shown to have evolved into our present human form. Here are some direct links to some articles on the subject, including photographs of some of the fossils found:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

quote from the above article:

The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.
Another good one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

A list of all the most prominent hominid fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html




and the carbon dating of the mount etna eruption which showed the freshly hardened rock was over 100,000 years old.
This despite the fact that most creationists argue that the earth was created 6000 years ago? Scientists generally agree that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, by the way. There is evidence for this too.

Creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with truthful scientific enqiury. Science starts with no answers, makes observations, creates a theory then has to provide ample evidence for that theory. Creationism starts with the answer 'god made the world' and then tries to bend all evidence to fit this answer. The only reason creationists are interested in this subject is purely because evolution contradicts the biblical account of creation in genesis. The only reason science is so opposed to religious ideas is because it tries to find out what is actually true, which was always going to result in observations that would contradict the bible.

If you have any honesty about you, you will be open to evidence and open to accept any idea that can quite simply be proven and demonstrated to be true. If you are only interested in the truth, creationism has no place for you.
0
aaarrrggh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 16 years ago
#103
The bible says it covered the entire planet. We know there was no flood that covered the entire planet. Also, according to the bible, the flood was supposed to wipe out all life except that carried on board the ark by noah. What about the fish? What about the ducks?

Also, have you ever actually considered the logic of a man, by the way, who according to the bible was 500 years old when he started building the ark ("Genesis 5:32: And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah
begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth."), could not only build an ark the size required, but actually manage to get two of every single animal on planet earth to join him on his travels. There are still new animals, even occaisonally new species of animals being discovered to this day. But Noah, a 500 year old man in a wooden ark, managed to get two of each of them. Where, exactly, did he store the food for this great voyage? Not to mention the fact that some animals need to be stored in drastically different conditions. I doubt a penguin would survive long in conditions required to support an iguana.

Not to mention the fact that the bible tells us that god created rainbows as an apology for the flood. The human beings that created christianity did not know that a rainbow 'is sunlight spread out into its spectrum of colors and diverted to the eye of the observer by water droplets'.

For a proper explanation of what a rainbow actually is, have at these links:

http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/blynds/rnbw.html
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/Rainbow/rainbow.html

The above quote was taken from the first article.

The fact is, if I had lived 2000 or so years ago, I would have probably seen a rainbow as compelling evidence for the existence of god. Nowadays however, we have science, and science has managed to work out exactly what a rainbow is. There is no excuse for such ignorance today.

Nowadays, religion is a hiding place for the weak and the stupid.
0
MuniE
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 16 years ago
#104
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
So, who is more of the nut, those who beleive in the bible, or someone who beleives evolution, the odds of which are less than winning the lottery at the same time as being hit by lightning and a metorite at the exact same moment as a massive comet hits the earth, ect.

Well you get the point. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that evolutionists frequenctly change their story in order to remove any outdated evidence or include some new evidence. At least the bible is consistant.

On another point, did you know that darwin actively encouraged the slaughter of aborigines and pigmes, just to try and get some evidence for the missing link.

Nice premise for an ideal, slaughter and genocide.
This is factually false, darwin did not publically support this, only social darwins did, they are two very different things. Darwin did his scientific studies to prove evolution the social darwins then manipulated these findings to justify the extermination of what they considered less evolved beings
0
wiwarin_mir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 16 years ago
#105
If you would care to do a bit a research, darwin openly asked for specimins to help him support his theory, which does seem a little barbaric.

and you ask where I got my info from, a creation magazine.
0
aaarrrggh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 16 years ago
#106
Munie is absolutely correct. Darwin, Huxley and wallace all went to great lengths to point out that human beings have culture, and are therefore not bound by any abstract 'laws' of the animal kingdom.

Social darwinism was a perversion of darwinism which wrongly tried to apply Darwins biological ideas with the realm of the social. The most influencial social Darwinist was Herbert Spencer. It was actually Spencer who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest', although Darwin himself approved of it. Within the context of Darwins biological theory, the term 'survival of the fittest' worked fine. However, when applied to the realm of the social, the term 'fittest' could easily be interpreted as 'best'. Spencer was an elitist who used social Darwinism to legitimate an elitist ideology. He believed for example that there should be no compulsory education, and no poor laws or help for the needy.

Darwinism, and evolution, are scientific, biological, theories and have no hidden agenda, social or otherwise. Social Darwinism is a perversion of this, either through misinterpretation, or through deliberate manipulation of the original theory to support a particular ideology. Don't confuse the two.
0
MuniE
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report 16 years ago
#107
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
If you would care to do a bit a research, darwin openly asked for specimins to help him support his theory, which does seem a little barbaric.

and you ask where I got my info from, a creation magazine.
again this thread proves my point that arguing with religous people is pointless because any facts that athesists state can be dismissed because the bible says so or some priest was told by god
0
Infinity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#108
Report 16 years ago
#108
(Original post by MuniE)
again this thread proves my point that arguing with religous people is pointless because any facts that athesists state can be dismissed because the bible says so or some priest was told by god
So why not just agree to disagree. Let the religious have their religions and the non religious have their science, and leave each other to believe what we want to.
0
aaarrrggh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 16 years ago
#109
Well you get the point. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that evolutionists frequenctly change their story in order to remove any outdated evidence or include some new evidence. At least the bible is consistant.
I agree with you on this point. This is one of sciences greatest strengths. Please read my above post regarding evolution where I explain to you properly the significance of this.
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#110
Report 16 years ago
#110
(Original post by Infinity)
So why not just agree to disagree. Let the religious have their religions and the non religious have their science, and leave each other to believe what we want to.
Indeed. That is the essence of all religions, all a crock of sh*t which the ancientss use to try to understand the understandable but today the morals they protray are often still very relevent for todays society which makes most religions still valid for that reason alone.
0
MuniE
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 16 years ago
#111
(Original post by Joey_Johns)
Indeed. That is the essence of all religions, all a crock of sh*t which the ancientss use to try to understand the understandable but today the morals they protray are often still very relevent for todays society which makes most religions still valid for that reason alone.
I, the most devout atheist possible, will even agree with this point. Some of the ideals are ok but the thing i dont get is that some of the worst members of society ie. gangster rappers and what not all wear crosses but dont have any of the qualities of their so called religion
0
wiwarin_mir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 16 years ago
#112
anothe good point is where did the sense of good and evil develop from if we simply evolved from apes.

Surely we would have no sense of morality, and therefore any action would be considered just and right.
0
Infinity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#113
Report 16 years ago
#113
(Original post by Joey_Johns)
Indeed. That is the essence of all religions, all a crock of sh*t which the ancientss use to try to understand the understandable but today the morals they protray are often still very relevent for todays society which makes most religions still valid for that reason alone.
That's your oppinion fine, but I don't feel that my religion is a crock of ****.
0
aaarrrggh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#114
Report 16 years ago
#114
So why not just agree to disagree. Let the religious have their religions and the non religious have their science, and leave each other to believe what we want to.
Because unfortunately, religious people are scared of coming into contact with reality at any point and try their damndest to make sure nobody else has to either.

Infamous 'scopes' trial in America in 1925 - where the religious zealots and morons managed to prevent the teaching of evolution in a large number of American public schools:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...pes/scopes.htm

Right now, it's only the religious fundamentalist moronic hordes that are trying to prevent stem cell research. Stem cell research could one day save millions of lives and provide hope for people with degenerative brain diseases such as parkinsons. Who tries to prevent such abonimable research? Morons:

http://www.thelabrat.com/review/geron120399.shtml
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science

The US has cut funding for stem cell research based on what these dangerous ******s have argued. Religion is more than just a pain. It causes war, hatred, ignorance and superstition, and prevents progress.

Religion is a dangerous thing.
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#115
Report 16 years ago
#115
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
anothe good point is where did the sense of good and evil develop from if we simply evolved from apes.

Surely we would have no sense of morality, and therefore any action would be considered just and right.

Lol, thats rubbish. Its just what is acceptable in society which determines how we act.
0
Infinity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#116
Report 16 years ago
#116
(Original post by MuniE)
I, the most devout atheist possible, will even agree with this point. Some of the ideals are ok but the thing i dont get is that some of the worst members of society ie. gangster rappers and what not all wear crosses but dont have any of the qualities of their so called religion
No because they wear them as a fashion statement or for publicity.
0
MuniE
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report 16 years ago
#117
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
anothe good point is where did the sense of good and evil develop from if we simply evolved from apes.

Surely we would have no sense of morality, and therefore any action would be considered just and right.
This is an ignorant comment. I do not disagree with the morals of religion other then the ones that say or suppose that there is a divine being or a creator. And sorry to be the one who tells you this but some people have no sense of morality and look at the history books many of these actions verify that
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#118
Report 16 years ago
#118
(Original post by Infinity)
That's your oppinion fine, but I don't feel that my religion is a crock of ****.
I didnt mean it like that. I meant the idea of 'god' is, I am a Roman Catholic I went to a Roman Catholic boarding school, I try to live my life by catholic morals, I just dont believe for one second that the walls of Jericho fell due to god etc, its BS, blatently an earthquake and the fact that people thought it was god proves the fact that god was a means of explaining the unexplainable in the past. There isnt a god and never has been.
0
wiwarin_mir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#119
Report 16 years ago
#119
ok then, so you do not think that embryos are alive, and therefore it is acceptable to kill them.

This is almost exactly the same thinking as the nazis, they thought jews were subhuman, so doing all kinds of research on them was fine, and, killing them en masse.
0
aaarrrggh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#120
Report 16 years ago
#120
This is almost exactly the same thinking as the nazis, they thought jews were subhuman, so doing all kinds of research on them was fine, and, killing them en masse.
Wiwarin. Seriously, sit down, chill out, relax. And then totally and utterly rethink your life.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (3)
5.77%
Confident (7)
13.46%
Indifferent (5)
9.62%
Unsure (10)
19.23%
Worried (27)
51.92%

Watched Threads

View All