Would the world be better off without religion?

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
Christians believe that God created the physical universe.

In your version of creation, do you claim that the universe erupted from a 'singularity' in an event known as the Big Bang?

If so, what evidence do you have of the existence of this 'singularity'? Where did it come from and how did it get there? Of what was it composed, and how do you know (you have evidence, right?) that this is so?

Unanswered questions does not make your mythology valid. We know there is a lot we don't know but what we do know is the Bible is WRONG! And you can't give any evidence to support your mythology.

So you've got no evidence, eh?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
Christians believe that God created the physical universe.

In your version of creation, do you claim that the universe erupted from a 'singularity' in an event known as the Big Bang?

If so, what evidence do you have of the existence of this 'singularity'? Where did it come from and how did it get there? Of what was it composed, and how do you know (you have evidence, right?) that this is so?

Unanswered questions does not make your mythology valid. We know there is a lot we don't know but what we do know is the Bible is WRONG! And you can't give any evidence to support your mythology.

So you've got no evidence, eh?

http://www.leyada.jlm.k12.il/proj/black/evidence.htm

Try showing me some evidence for you mythology.

Let's see, on the third day God created herbs and fruit trees (Gen 1:12-13).
On the fourth day he created the stars, sun and moon (Gen1:14-19).
On the fifth day he created animals (Gen1:20-23).

Mind you the fruit trees were created before the insects and the sun.
The stars were created after the earth.

OK, your turn. Present evidence to support your Bible. If you say no evidence exist then we can conclude that the Bible is wrong, God didn't know what he was talking about and therefore the God is false.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Try showing me some evidence for you mythology.

Let's see, on the third day God created herbs and fruit trees (Gen 1:12-13).
On the fourth day he created the stars, sun and moon (Gen1:14-19).
On the fifth day he created animals (Gen1:20-23).

Mind you the fruit trees were created before the insects and the sun.
The stars were created after the earth.

OK, your turn. Present evidence to support your Bible. If you say no evidence exist then we can conclude that the Bible is wrong, God didn't know what he was talking about and therefore the God is false.

Since light was created on the first day, we can only assume that the 'darkness over the watery deep' mentioned in verse 2 prevented the sun from being visible on the earth. The wording is sufficient to explain how the process may have appeared to a human observer.

The bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It is an explanation of why we have death and misery and what God intends to do about it.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

xingu wrote:
Try showing me some evidence for you mythology.

Let's see, on the third day God created herbs and fruit trees (Gen 1:12-13).
On the fourth day he created the stars, sun and moon (Gen1:14-19).
On the fifth day he created animals (Gen1:20-23).

Mind you the fruit trees were created before the insects and the sun.
The stars were created after the earth.

OK, your turn. Present evidence to support your Bible. If you say no evidence exist then we can conclude that the Bible is wrong, God didn't know what he was talking about and therefore the God is false.
Since light was created on the first day, we can only assume that the 'darkness over the watery deep' mentioned in verse 2 prevented the sun from being visible on the earth. The wording is sufficient to explain how the process may have appeared to a human observer.

The bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It is an explanation of why we have death and misery and what God intends to do about it.

Where did the light come from. Not the sun, moon or stars, They were created after the plants.

What pollinated the flowers? No animals of any type appeared prior to the fruit trees.

Quote:

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars

They were "made" Neo. No clouds were parted so they could be seen. All this happened after the grasses and fruit trees were created. Did they live in the dark?

And your right, this is not science. It's a myth, the Creation Story is a myth, the apple tree story is a myth, a myth unsupported by any science what so ever.

Genesis should be taken as seriously as a Harry Potter story, amusing to read but not resembling anything close to reality.

0 Replies

Would the world be better off without religion? Certainly. None of them are anything but artificial constructs, exploiting man's ignorance for the benefit of ruling elites.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The moral judgement, stated:

"All moral judgements are subjective."

is an absolute statement denying the existence of moral absolutes.

Kind of slow, ain'tcha?

It's a subjective statement denying the existence of moral absolutes.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
The moral judgement, stated:

"All moral judgements are subjective."

is an absolute statement denying the existence of moral absolutes.

Kind of slow, ain'tcha?

It's a subjective statement denying the existence of moral absolutes.

Mornin', Set. Are you absolutely sure of that?

0 Replies

No, i have rendered a subjective judgment on the topic.

I need some coffee.

0 Replies

And it stopped bein' mornin' here a couple of hours ago . . .

0 Replies

So what is a moral absolute. Is it a moral principle that absolutely every culture that ever existed has embraced? Or is it something each culture or religion makes up?

One definition I came across is this;

Quote:

moral absolutism
Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.

http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-absolutism?method=26&initiator=answertip:continue

If there are those who believe in moral absolution and others who embrace moral relativism than both are subjective and nothing, in terms of morals, is absolute. What is moral is in the eyes of the beholder for that particular time they live in.

Real wrote:

To assert 'there are no moral absolutes, i.e. all things are morally permissible' is a judgement of what is and is not moral.

That is wrong. To say there are no moral absolutes is not the same as saying all things are morally permissible. One may say there are no moral absolutes but we believe cannibalism is morally wrong. Obviously those who practiced cannibalism did not thing it was morally wrong so it is not absolute, unless you want to take the holier than thou attitude of my morals are better than yours.

Let me give you an example in pictures.

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Edwds1890-1915/beauties.jpg

These bathing suits were what was permissible to wear on the beach around 1920.

Do you think this would have been morally acceptable in 1920?

http://www.girlsinbikinis.org/.images/teen_kelly_steppin___it.jpg

0 Replies

Nice examples Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Nice examples

What do you expect from a dirty old man?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
Christians believe that God created the physical universe.

In your version of creation, do you claim that the universe erupted from a 'singularity' in an event known as the Big Bang?

If so, what evidence do you have of the existence of this 'singularity'? Where did it come from and how did it get there? Of what was it composed, and how do you know (you have evidence, right?) that this is so?

Unanswered questions does not make your mythology valid. We know there is a lot we don't know but what we do know is the Bible is WRONG! And you can't give any evidence to support your mythology.

So you've got no evidence, eh?

http://www.leyada.jlm.k12.il/proj/black/evidence.htm

Try showing me some evidence for you mythology.

Let's see, on the third day God created herbs and fruit trees (Gen 1:12-13).
On the fourth day he created the stars, sun and moon (Gen1:14-19).
On the fifth day he created animals (Gen1:20-23).

Mind you the fruit trees were created before the insects and the sun.
The stars were created after the earth.

OK, your turn. Present evidence to support your Bible. If you say no evidence exist then we can conclude that the Bible is wrong, God didn't know what he was talking about and therefore the God is false.

Are you saying all trees would have died after 1 day without sun? What causes you to draw that conclusion?

You claim that your position is scientific and that mine is not. So, based on your version of the creation, or beginning, of the universe show some real evidence of the singularity that you postulate:

What was it composed of?

Where did it come from?

How did it get here?

How do you know?

If you claim that this singularity was not bound by scientific laws as we know them today, isn't that just another way of saying it is 'super'natural, i.e. outside the bounds of the natural universe?

0 Replies

Real wrote:

What was it composed of?

Where did it come from?

How did it get here?

How do you know?

Can you answer these and give any evidence to support your answer. If you can't your in the same boat as I.

Real wrote:

Are you saying all trees would have died after 1 day without sun?

So your saying the earth was created in six 24 hour days.

Now give me evidence to back up your assertion.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Real wrote:
What was it composed of?

Where did it come from?

How did it get here?

How do you know?

Can you answer these and give any evidence to support your answer. If you can't your in the same boat as I.

My point exactly.

Neither creation, nor the Big Bang were observed.

They both have circumstantial evidence which may be interpreted as supporting them, but neither is 'scientific' in the strict sense of the word.

Both postulate the existence of something(someone) outside of, and separate from the universe, and hence not bound by the physical laws of the universe, as the Cause that brought the universe into existence. This something(someone) is therefore by definition 'supernatural'.

Quote:

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

supernatural

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

Congrats.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Neither creation, nor the Big Bang were observed.

They both have circumstantial evidence which may be interpreted as supporting them

Please give a specific example of evidence which can be interpreted to support Creationism.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Neither creation, nor the Big Bang were observed.

They both have circumstantial evidence which may be interpreted as supporting them

Please give a specific example of evidence which can be interpreted to support Creationism.

ANY evidence can be interpreted as supporting Creation, as you have admitted in the past, ros.

The problem the evolutionist constantly faces is 'what evidence can ONLY evolution explain?' and there is none.

The so called 'Cambrian explosion' is a good place to start. Major phlya appear with little or no 'ancestry', fully formed and functioning with diverse and unique features, systems, organs, etc. Just what you would expect with creation.

The only answer the evolutionist has to it is the so called dating methods which are riddled with inconsistencies and unproven presuppositions.

Specimens submitted to dating laboratories come back with huge differences in the 'established dates', depending on what method was used and what assumptions were made about it.

Evolutionists, including Darwin, 'assume evolution' in order to 'prove' evolution.

Does anyone seriously think that the beaks of Darwin's finches are 'proof' of evolution?

Are people with different sized noses or mouths 'proof' that one human is 'more evolved' than another?

How about large hands versus small, or large biceps versus small?

Are men with large strong hands 'more evolved' than men with smaller weaker ones?

They would certainly have an advantage wouldn't they?

Why are they not considered 'more evolved'?

0 Replies

Also, ros, do you agree that the 'singularity' as postulated by the BB theorists, is by definition 'supernatural'?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Neither creation, nor the Big Bang were observed.

They both have circumstantial evidence which may be interpreted as supporting them

Please give a specific example of evidence which can be interpreted to support Creationism.

ANY evidence can be interpreted as supporting Creation

Ok, so just name one.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
Real wrote:
What was it composed of?

Where did it come from?

How did it get here?

How do you know?

Can you answer these and give any evidence to support your answer. If you can't your in the same boat as I.

My point exactly.

Neither creation, nor the Big Bang were observed.

They both have circumstantial evidence which may be interpreted as supporting them, but neither is 'scientific' in the strict sense of the word.

Both postulate the existence of something(someone) outside of, and separate from the universe, and hence not bound by the physical laws of the universe, as the Cause that brought the universe into existence. This something(someone) is therefore by definition 'supernatural'.

Quote:
from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

supernatural

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

Congrats.

Real
Your response, like all your responses, is nonsense. You take the premise that if something is unknown today it will be unknown forever. You ask questions you know there may be no answer for as yet, and if there is an answer you ignore it. You assign to the supernatural anything you or what you think science can't answer.

You thrive on ignorance. You do everything possible to trash anything that provides evidence reveals your mythology to be nothing more than an Alice in Wonderland fairy tale.

Providing you with evidence or proof is a waste of time because ignorance is your religion. You will ignore it. You can't provide one iota of evidence for what you believe in but demand evidence for the science that contradicts your fairy tales. Like your God you are a hypocrite with double standards.

What you believe in is empty and bankrupt. It has no foundation other than ancient myths created by ignorant people. I'll choose science any day over religious fairy tales because I know there is a sincere pursuit of truth in science. That can't be said for religion. In your religion fraud, lies and dishonesty are the tools used to defend a primitive religious dogma. There is nothing honorable or honest about Creationism or ID.

0 Replies

Would the world be better off without religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know