It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reasons why I don't believe in the christian god and bible

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: BlackManINC
Well this is what the heathens do all the time, they haven't proven how life arose on earth so they try and divorce themselves from abiogenesis as if its separate from evolution. The link below, however, evaluates some of the more widely used biology textbooks that have been used since 1998 to the present. They are all graded based on how objective the science is presented, and whether or not they present the whole truth, or is the evidence presented in a misleading way.


Specific Evaluation Criterion

In general, an "A" requires full disclosure of the truth, discussion of relevant scientific controversies, and a recognition that Darwin's theory -- like all scientific theories -- might have to be revised or discarded if it doesn't fit the facts. An "F" indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.


Link: www.arn.org...

Every single one of them got either a D or an F for referencing the Miller-Urey experiments as if the experiments proved abiogenesis, or in showing that life can arise from non-living matter.


D = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; but the accompanying text explicitly points out that this was probably not the case (merely listing other gasses, and leaving it to the student to spot the discrepancy, is not sufficient); may leave the student with the impression that the experiment (or some variant of it) demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

F = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.


So you can link as many atheist websites as you wish, the fact of the matter is the science textbooks still teach abiogenesis as a scientific fact and still has everything to do with the general theory of evolution concerning our origins of common descent, from rocks.


Ok first off, nobody evolved from rocks. The fact that you think this (unless you're just being sarcastic) shows how little you understand about evolution or really, science. You also didn't really address anything. How about some links to counter scientific claims instead of links to how textbooks are rated?


While most white coated heathens would not actually come out and state that all life evolved from rocks, that is what is still proposed today by some of them in numerous articles. I'm not being sarcastic at all, just being blunt and straight forward with the facts, and it only shows just how little YOU know about the crap that's taught as science.


"The mystery of how living organisms sprung out of lifeless rock has long puzzled scientists, but we think that the unusual phosphorus chemicals we found could be a precursor to the batteries that now power all life on Earth. But the fact that it developed simply, in conditions similar to the early Earth, suggests this could be the missing link between geology and biology," said Dr Terry Kee, from the University's School of Chemistry, who led the research.


Origin of life: Power behind primordial soup discovered:www.sciencedaily.com...

Just goes to show how hypocritical it is when some of these heathens attempt to divorce the theory of evolution from the origin of life.
edit on 19-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC


While most white coated heathens would not actually come out and state that all life evolved from rocks, that is what is still proposed today by some of them in numerous articles. I'm not being sarcastic at all, just being blunt and straight forward with the facts, and it only shows just how little YOU know about the crap that's taught as science.


This of course is much different then being created from dust, or the rib of a man... Right?




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: BlackManINC


While most white coated heathens would not actually come out and state that all life evolved from rocks, that is what is still proposed today by some of them in numerous articles. I'm not being sarcastic at all, just being blunt and straight forward with the facts, and it only shows just how little YOU know about the crap that's taught as science.


This of course is much different then being created from dust, or the rib of a man... Right?





The source is the same, the method is different. Christians believe that this was a supernatural process, that God created all living creatures as separate creatures from the material of the earth. On the other hand the heathens, be they Hindus or Atheists, would like you to believe that this was an entirely natural upward process of common descent that took place over millions of years through abiogenesis. The difference between the two beliefs is the former is recognized as a religious belief, while the latter is a religious belief that is cloaked in scientific garb like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
edit on 19-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

the heathens eh... geez man

Both are beliefs, but one is based on scientific methods while the other is based on a book written by goat hearders a few thousand years ago...

Neither side can prove anything... but I don't see Atheists or hindu's calling people heathens




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Ok, I was wrong!

So some scientists have an intriguing theory about life springing from rocks.

What's the issue here? God made you from the dirt. Doesn't this help your cause?

Why can't evolution be God in action?

It doesn't show any hypocrisy. It shows that science is always asking questions to answer what they don't know, and that they don't hold onto age old doctrines. This is why we all still don't think the Earth is the flat, center of the universe.

Are you able to change your opinion on something if given solid proof? Or will you attribute it to a satanic agenda and disregard it?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: BlackManINC

the heathens eh... geez man

Both are beliefs, but one is based on scientific methods while the other is based on a book written by goat hearders a few thousand years ago...

Neither side can prove anything... but I don't see Atheists or hindu's calling people heathens



I guess I'm supposed to appreciate my children being brainwashed with old pagan beliefs dressed up as "science" than right? I see that as an act of war, and many Christians don't even realize it.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: BlackManINC

the heathens eh... geez man

Both are beliefs, but one is based on scientific methods while the other is based on a book written by goat hearders a few thousand years ago...

Neither side can prove anything... but I don't see Atheists or hindu's calling people heathens



I guess I'm supposed to appreciate my children being brainwashed with old pagan beliefs dressed up as "science" than right? I see that as an act of war, and many Christians don't even realize it.


Sigh...

its no worse then the brainwashing Christianity throws at its adherents...

IF you don't want your children "brainwashed" by logical science, take them to a Christian school, and lock them away in a tightly knit community of Christians... that way you can live in your little bubble without a hint of distraction from your book


edit on 19-8-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
I guess I'm supposed to appreciate my children being brainwashed with old pagan beliefs dressed up as "science" than right? I see that as an act of war, and many Christians don't even realize it.


How do you feel about Christmas and Easter?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: BlackManINC

Ok, I was wrong!

So some scientists have an intriguing theory about life springing from rocks.

What's the issue here? God made you from the dirt. Doesn't this help your cause?

Why can't evolution be God in action?


Simple, because his word doesn't state that he created life by means of Darwinian evolution, nor would he ever have to if this is really God we're talking about. Even hardcore atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russell expressed the same sentiment.


Religion, in our day, has accommodated itself to the doctrine of evolution, and has even derived new arguments from it. We are told that "through the ages one increasing purpose runs," and that evolution is the unfolding of an idea which has been in the mind of God throughout. It appears that during those ages which so troubled Hugh Miller, when animals were torturing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, Omnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of man, with his still more exquisite powers of torture and his far more widely diffused cruelty. Why the Creator should have preferred to reach His goal by a process, instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do not tell us. Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science



originally posted by: WakeUpBeerIt doesn't show any hypocrisy. It shows that science is always asking questions to answer what they don't know, and that they don't hold onto age old doctrines. This is why we all still don't think the Earth is the flat, center of the universe.

Are you able to change your opinion on something if given solid proof? Or will you attribute it to a satanic agenda and disregard it?


Refer to my previous replies, when Appolyon, the beast from the bottomless pit arrives, he will give you all the "proof" you'll need that our ancestors were apes since this is what you want to believe so badly, because his miracles will be under scientific scrutiny.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior when I was younger, under no pressure from friends or family. For a long time I was a devout Christian, but drifted away as I got older. Thankfully I didn't have hardcore parents and while they indoctrinated me to an extent it wasn't a restrictive or hellfire and brimstone method. I used to feel like you (in some ways at least), that the Bible is the inerrant word of God etc. But independent study of all sorts things I find interesting (religion, mythology, history, language, anthropology, culture etc.) throughout my life (so far) showed me that this cannot be the case. There are a multitude of reasons why I chose to abandon the Bible as nothing but the truth. I am not an atheist though. You don't need to come to the same conclusions as others when it comes to things like evolution, or creationism. Hence why I asked, why can't evolution be God in action? You said it yourself multiple times. God doesn't answer to men, and is capable of doing anything. Who are you to claim the processes God uses? Remember my example of the Earth as the center of the universe? Well who was the most resistant to the scientific research at the time? You guessed it, the church. Galileo was a swiney heathen (using those words because I notice you do when talking about non-Christians) to the church then, just like evolutionists are swiney heathens to you now. You don't have to believe in evolution. I think you should be more open minded to science and not act like it has an agenda against you. Think where we would all be without it.

I'm done here.


edit on 19-8-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: critical typo



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

When I read your posts I picture you hitting yourself. Repeatedly.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: BlackManINC

I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior when I was younger, under no pressure from friends or family. For a long time I was a devout Christian, but drifted away as I got older. Thankfully I didn't have hardcore parents and while they indoctrinated me to an extent it wasn't a restrictive or hellfire and brimstone method. I used to feel like you (in some ways at least), that the Bible is the inerrant word of God etc. But independent study of all sorts things I find interesting (religion, mythology, history, language, anthropology, culture etc.) throughout my life (so far) showed me that this cannot be the case. There are a multitude of reasons why I chose to abandon the Bible as nothing but the truth. I am not an atheist though. You don't need to come to the same conclusions as others when it comes to things like evolution, or creationism. Hence why I asked, why can't evolution be God in action? You said it yourself multiple times. God doesn't answer to men, and is capable of doing anything. Who are you to claim the processes God uses? Remember my example of the Earth as the center of the universe? Well who was the most resistant to the scientific research at the time? You guessed it, the church. Galileo was a swiney heathen (using those words because I notice you do when talking about non-Christians) to the church then, just like evolutionists are swiney heathens to you now. You don't have to believe in evolution. I think you should be more open minded to science and not act like it has an agenda against you. Think where we would all be without it.

I'm done here.



Galileo was never an enemy of the church, the Church in fact loved the guy. His squabble wasn't with the church it was with the other scientists within the Church who accused him of heresy because of a misunderstanding of scripture. While he did end up getting arrested, he was not tortured and thrown in a dungeon and killed for it, he was merely put on house arrest. The alleged persecution of Galileo is a myth spread by the heathen to make it seem like there was a real conflict between religion and science. So you ask who am I to make claim on processes God used? First of all, who are you to spread myths about Galileo? Who are you to question the process God told us he used in his word? You can add and remove words to his book if you wish, just be aware that God considers it a high crime and your name will be taken out of the book of life.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut


Text God created everything in 6 days. For this to be true, humans and dinosaurs would have to have been living at the same time.

A day was from one light to another light and was not measured as your understanding a 24 hours day. This world's sun was not in place to be measuring time in this first generation of generating. This first generation of producing is a unmeasurable era of our understanding. The year 2015 cannot exist till it is brought forth in our measure of time. the first three days are told metaphorically for your understanding. Some philosophers do believe that the world did have a celestial light which the sun replaced and diminished.

As for humans and dinosaurs living in the same period. That is still up for grabs while the scientists argue this very same point. Some do believe they did and some believe they did not.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut




As for humans and dinosaurs living in the same period. That is still up for grabs while the scientists argue this very same point. Some do believe they did and some believe they did not.


If you're talking about the giant dinosaurs such as t. rex, triceratops, etc, which credentialed paleontologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of paleontology anywhere in the world claims that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans (ie. Homo sapiens)? Which credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology anywhere in the world claims that humans (ie. Homo sapiens) lived at the same time as dinosaurs? Are you aware of how long ago dinosaurs lived? Are you aware of when the earliest Homo sapiens appeared? Many millions of years separate the two.

Note: I don't know why this is all showing up as a quote by Seede. I posted the part starting with "If you're talking about..." --Tangerine
edit on 22-8-2014 by Tangerine because: Post shows up as a quote by Seede so I added an something that explained that it's my response to Seede's post.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


Are you aware of when the earliest Homo sapiens appeared? Many millions of years separate the two.

Yes I am aware of the claim by the secular good ole boy network which consists of about 90% atheists who use the parrot grants to publish their propaganda. I am very aware of anyone who professes that 65 million years ago even existed 65 million years ago in this universe. Can you prove 65 million years ago? Can you prove 30 million years ago even existed 30 million years ago? If you can then show us how do you prove unregistered time.

Now if you would be honest and say that you believe that 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were exterminated from this world, then I would consider the rest of your spiel. But to state this as a fact is disingenuous to say the least. A great share of so called science is nothing but a religion the same as you condemn. This applies to both sides of the isle. If we cannot teach honesty then it's not worth time to learn dishonesty.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Tangerine


Are you aware of when the earliest Homo sapiens appeared? Many millions of years separate the two.

Yes I am aware of the claim by the secular good ole boy network which consists of about 90% atheists who use the parrot grants to publish their propaganda. I am very aware of anyone who professes that 65 million years ago even existed 65 million years ago in this universe. Can you prove 65 million years ago? Can you prove 30 million years ago even existed 30 million years ago? If you can then show us how do you prove unregistered time.

Now if you would be honest and say that you believe that 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were exterminated from this world, then I would consider the rest of your spiel. But to state this as a fact is disingenuous to say the least. A great share of so called science is nothing but a religion the same as you condemn. This applies to both sides of the isle. If we cannot teach honesty then it's not worth time to learn dishonesty.


I addressed your claim that some scientists say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I asked which credentialed paleontologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of paleontology anywhere in the world claims that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans (ie. Homo sapiens)? I asked which credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology anywhere in the world claims that humans (ie. Homo sapiens) lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Your utter failure to back up your direct claim speaks for itself.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut


The entire fall from Eden story. God is supposed to be omniscient. why would it create a scenario knowing what would happen and then punish the created for it? If this is true, God is a sadist.

The old teachers are now dead and the new culture of mush minds are not even aware of the answer to your question. The Creator God is omniscient and the reason He created the spirit of disobedience, which we call creating evil, was through necessity in giving the creation choice, or what we call free will.

The creation could not have the knowledge of good without having the knowledge of evil. All creative mods have opposites and If they did not have opposites then you would be as dumb as a rock. Without opposites you could not have choice and without choice you would have no knowledge or at the most very limited programed knowledge. That tree of the knowledge to know good and evil was that lesson and it was given through the created spirit of evil which God had to show.

Without this knowledge of evil it would be impossible for this Adamic creation to gain everlasting life in the celestial realm. By this it is shown that by our choice and our awareness of sin we determine our own demise. Now this also applies to a simple thing such as fire and ice. Both are pleasant if, through knowledge, is used correctly. But if not used correctly would lead to extreme harm. All of our lives are centered around good and evil and the choices we make. Therefore evil is a necessity in life and is the reason God created it and gave us the choice to either embrace it or reject it. All opposites are not death sentences but some choices are against the permissive will of God. God has perfect will and permissive will and through Evil He teaches us His permissive will.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


I addressed your claim that some scientists say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I asked which credentialed paleontologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of paleontology anywhere in the world claims that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans (ie. Homo sapiens)? I asked which credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology anywhere in the world claims that humans (ie. Homo sapiens) lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Your utter failure to back up your direct claim speaks for itself.

You need to relax and not be so defensive. I had hoped to avoid this because have spent so much time on it in another thread. The shortest way to explain this to you would be to do a Google on Dr. Mark Armitage. Dr. Armitage has a lawsuit filed against some of his peers which originated from the very thing that you asked. He has the credentials along with others as to make this a good case. I will hold my last opinion on his lawsuit till after it has gone to trial and has been resolved. You might want to read the various articles of pro and con and then wait for both sides opinions. Dr. Armitage has written his paper and was registered in the peer review. It does no good for me or yourself to argue as a layperson. That will not reveal truth till truth has been revealed.

All I stated is that some scientists agree with the good ole boy atheists network simply for the grants (MONEY) and some do not. There are very few biologists as well as other sciences who are self employed or independent scientists. Most are at the mercy of their benefactors who finance and dictate their work ethics. Now that may step on your toes but is the truth. Don't ask me to prove that either because I have no time for this worn out discussion. Believe as you may because you will regardless.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Tangerine


I addressed your claim that some scientists say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I asked which credentialed paleontologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of paleontology anywhere in the world claims that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans (ie. Homo sapiens)? I asked which credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology anywhere in the world claims that humans (ie. Homo sapiens) lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Your utter failure to back up your direct claim speaks for itself.

You need to relax and not be so defensive. I had hoped to avoid this because have spent so much time on it in another thread. The shortest way to explain this to you would be to do a Google on Dr. Mark Armitage. Dr. Armitage has a lawsuit filed against some of his peers which originated from the very thing that you asked. He has the credentials along with others as to make this a good case. I will hold my last opinion on his lawsuit till after it has gone to trial and has been resolved. You might want to read the various articles of pro and con and then wait for both sides opinions. Dr. Armitage has written his paper and was registered in the peer review. It does no good for me or yourself to argue as a layperson. That will not reveal truth till truth has been revealed.

All I stated is that some scientists agree with the good ole boy atheists network simply for the grants (MONEY) and some do not. There are very few biologists as well as other sciences who are self employed or independent scientists. Most are at the mercy of their benefactors who finance and dictate their work ethics. Now that may step on your toes but is the truth. Don't ask me to prove that either because I have no time for this worn out discussion. Believe as you may because you will regardless.


Not surprisingly, Armitage is not a credentialed biologist or paleontologist. Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology) and an Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there. In other words, he doesn't have a doctorate in anything and is not remotely qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology or paleontology. Nor is he a practicing scientist in any relevant field. I have wasted enough time on you. You have no credibility.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thefarmer
I believe there is a god but I don't believe in a book written by man to oppress us
Dont want to be oppressed by a book.

How does the bible oppress you, what in it do you find oppressive, loving God or loving others.
Just interested what you understand as I see no real oppression, not what you see anyway




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join