The arrogance of the atheists

reply to post by NOTurTypical


that is true, but dinosaur bones disprove the bibles story of how we came about.

Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

that is true, but dinosaur bones disprove the bibles story of how we came about.

No they don't."Science" dates dinosaur bones according to what layer of rock they are found in, and at the same time they date the rock layers by what fossils they contain.

That's circular reasoning. There are thousands of examples of people writing about and creating detailed artwork about dinosaurs prior to the 1830s when the first dino skeleton was discovered. Either these countless examples were all made by clairvoyant people, or man lived with dinosaurs. The Bible also mentions them in Job (Behemoth).

reply to post by NOTurTypical


yeah but we can carbon date back around 60,000 years and that is before the world was created according to the bible and maybe people where just drawing monsters or things they had imagined from finding dinosaur bones in tar pits.
i would like to say that i am atheist and you may think i am arrogant but i would like to argue that religious people are ignorant to the truth.
how can you believe a story that was put together by the people who where against christianity for centuries before they decided to make the catholic church, this same book that has been translated into different languages on many occasions and is about as believable as a flying purple reindeer.

Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

yeah but we can carbon date back around 60,000 years and that is before the world was created according to the bible and maybe people where just drawing monsters or things they had imagined from finding dinosaur bones in tar pits.

Praise the Lord you brought up C14 dating! Contrary to popular misconception, C14 dating strongly supports a young earth. Carbon 14 dating rules out millions of years age for rocks, or fossils,
Four questions need answeedr to assume C14 yields an old earth, they are:

1. Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events?

2. Are there any assumptions involved in the C14 dating method?

3. Are teh dates provided by the C14 dating consistent with what we observe?

4. Do all scientists accept the C14 dating method as reliable and accurate?

It is assumed that the ratio of C14 to C12 has always been the same as it was today. If this assumption is NOT true C14 dating will give incorrect dates. Dr. William libby, founder of C14 dating, was an Evolutionist and assumed this to be a constant. In his original work Dr. Libby noted the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. this greatly troubled Dr. Libby because based on his worldview he believed the world to be billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium.

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state) and attribute it to experimental error. howver this discrepancy has turned out to be VERY real. The ratio of C14 to C12 is not constant.

Other factors determine the levels of C14 being produced, the main one being the magnetic field. The magnetic field is weakining/decaying. The stronger the field, the fewer number of cosmic rays are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of C14 in the atmosphere in the earth's past.

i would like to say that i am atheist and you may think i am arrogant but i would like to argue that religious people are ignorant to the truth.

I'd argue it's very arrogant to arbitrarily define "truth".

this same book that has been translated into different languages on many occasions and is about as believable as a flying purple reindeer.

Are you serious?

However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document. There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

Has the Bible been corrupted?

reply to post by jennybee35


I am sorry this thread devolved in such a manner for you jenny.

But remember, how you decide to act is what matters. Dont get pulled into such nonsense. All of us should strive to stop "re-acting." It was all a test

There are definitely atheists on this board that have some fantastic things to say, but just like every generalized group, most do not know what they speak.

reply to post by jennybee35

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I'm sorry, but where's the evidence of 'callous disregard'?

You yourself have participated in several that contained many examples of disregard for others. Here are some examples from this link

I'm sorry, but this is a thread that contains numerous baseless bigoted attacks on atheists. Now, can you show me a specific instance in which I or any other atheist specifically demonstrate a callous disregard for others?

As arrogant as I find the highly religious moronic

Oh, dear, I cannot keep going.

So one example makes a crowd? It marks the tendency of millions? And a kindly tip, not meant in anything more than a simple suggestion, just provide a citation of the original poster to make it a bit easier.

You know what the sad thing is, as I had to go and read so many "atheism vs christianity threads" to answer you, I came to a realization: each side is just as nasty as the other.

Well, I wouldn't say that most theists on here are nasty. Sure, a few individuals are, but the majority on both sides aren't all that nasty. Oh, we definitely get a bit heated, but not very nasty.

Of course, you said I specifically participated in this, where is an example from me?

What a sad thing that is.There are very, very few members here that can participate in a rational discussion of this subject. On both sideds of the aisle it seems that the irrational, arrogant members scream so loudly that the reasonable cannot be heard.

It tends to come from the extremists and the unexperienced. Those unexperienced with having their view challenged or unexperienced in public discourse are those that derail the discussions, as well as the extremists who put out incredibly diverse arrays of personal attacks. But it's mainly an issue of a lack of experience. Nobody needs a license to use the internet, nor to join ATS, so you'll get an odd grab bag.

But again, where's the evidence of myself demeaning or belittling others?

I must say, though, that THIS thread has had a very different tone. I appreciate each and every one of you that have contributed so far. You have actually added new knowledge for me. For that I am grateful.

Well, I'm happy about that.

Yes, even you, madness!!

Even you have come here and explained your tone to me, and I can see your posts in a different light. Thanks!

I'm happy to help.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Praise the Lord you brought up C14 dating! Contrary to popular misconception, C14 dating strongly supports a young earth. Carbon 14 dating rules out millions of years age for rocks, or fossils,

Quick reply. You cannot use C14 dating on rocks and fossils. Why? Because if you went up to a radiometric dater and asked them to date the fossil with this method they'd say:

"We can't do that, there isn't any carbon in it!"

The same goes for rocks.

Now, C14 dating is but one of many radiometric techniques, each working on a different scale. They're all based on the rate of decay of various different elements, and they're all a great standard.

And it's odd, you keep putting out a number of attacks against science in a thread about atheists.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Quick reply. You cannot use C14 dating on rocks and fossils.

We agree. Showing the absurdity of another's position doesn't mean I agree with their premise. Agreeing hypothetically to take it to it's logical outcome to show it false is not an endorsement of it. Radiometric dating cannot show the age of anything over tens of thousands of years old. Furthermore, it's a crackpot way of determining age of ANYTHING. It's tremendously inaccurate even for dating recently deceased plants or animals.

My argument: C14 proves noting. It rests upon assumed constants that are not constants.

And it's odd, you keep putting out a number of attacks against science in a thread about atheists.

"Science" is a conceptual abstraction. Pointing out poor examples of it is not attacking it as a whole.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Now I think you are misinterpreting my tone with the post you quoted. Did you not realize that the reason I couldn't keep going was just plain despair?

As I dug through so many threads and read what both sides of the argument had to say, I realized that almost all respondents, with a few exceptions, were just rabidly chewing each other's ears off. They are mostly just attacks with no real meaning: and I mean from BOTH sides. One side is equally as vicious as the other.

I have you to thank for forcing me to digest that much needless tripe! I have never gone through and just randomly read threads dealing with atheism vs religion/christianity. I only ever participated in the ones that caught my eye from the recent posts page. I was shocked by those threads, but after ingesting a whole bunch of the same types of posts, I have realized that I don't really wanna associate myself with either side. It's not that I am better or more knowledgeable than the next poster, I just cannot find too much in any of those threads to agree with.

Too much vitriol, despair and plain old meanness to suit me. I do love to debate, but I like it to be reasonable. I also like to learn from them, which is what happened here, thank goodness.

It just took a little longer than I would have thought for me to realize that there are very few people capable of discussing this subject rationally. Everyone has to get personal with it. I understand that belief is a personal subject, but if one can't let a cooler head prevail, then don't participate!

As to the poster that keeps saying that I have been "defeated", I have to agree to certain extent. The stupidity of some leaves me feeling defeated. However, I am very glad that I have learned this much about myself and others in this thread.

I'll thank you once again, madness, for forcing my eyes open, even if that wasn't your intent.

reply to post by jennybee35


Precisely why I refuse to go into the forum. It's nothing more than a circus.

However Madness, I'm still working on making a thread for the forum, it's just not what you're expecting whatsoever.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ok, I'm just going to take this as something else, because you're also unaware of radiometric dating along with speciation and evolution. I'm not going to bother talking to you about evolution or science anymore in this thread because it's not a thread about those topics.

However, I'm going to point to something else: How arrogant is it to assume that the billions of dollars a year that go into fields of science like biology, radiometric dating, etc....are just wrong?

Now, how arrogant is it to accept that scientific reasoning is....correct?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


yeah sure ! that coming from someone not even versed in History well enough to understand the importance of Calculus nor what Isaac Newton brought to science !

reply to post by Rustami

experience, testimony, scriptures, witnesses-

All from Pro religious people & documents ................. Hmmmmmmmm highly independent & Scientific!

As for all external quotes you have inserted into your post - What relevance do they have to the thread title "The arrogance of the atheists"? - The title has been debunked - The OP has walked away from the statement & this thread should be moved to the hoax forum as Atheists are not arrogant on the whole! Proven!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jennybee35

 

Precisely why I refuse to go into the forum. It's nothing more than a circus.

However Madness, I'm still working on making a thread for the forum, it's just not what you're expecting whatsoever.

you go Typ !

madness will also not debate me one on one in the debates section even though I challenged him !

he would rather troll with his 24/7 free time on ATS

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

yeah sure ! that coming from someone not even versed in History well enough to understand the importance of Calculus nor what Isaac Newton brought to science !

I've never said that Isaac Newton or Calculus were unimportant. I'm actually soundly grounded in the idea that calculus education is probably the best way to make it in the physical and natural sciences. Of course, me rejecting his ridiculous statements on atheism means I reject everything, right?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I accepted your challenge and requested we hammer out the details, you didn't do anything except needlessly posture. If you're really interested in debating, I'm all for it. Contact a moderator and set it up.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, I'm looking forward to it, whatever it is. You seem to be open to the ideas of evidence and science, rather than just spewing out personal attacks, repeating statements, etc. You're also level headed, I like that. I strive to be more level-headed and actually look up to those who I disagree with that maintain a level head.

That's what I love about these conversations, you can step away from the keyboard.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
madness will also not debate me one on one in the debates section even though I challenged him !

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I accepted your challenge and requested we hammer out the details

Can I be of assistance here?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I've never said that Isaac Newton or Calculus were unimportant.

you have clearly stated in the topic in which you choose to "bash" Christianity (what has the Catholic Church ever done to you) that Isaac Newton was wrong !

I can not believe I heard that coming from you, a man of science and one who considers Science his Religion... as stated in the (Music as an Expression of Religion) topic.

for someone who is out to defile other people and also contradict himself one more than one and numerous occasions how then are we supposed to take you seriously ?

I do not believe anyone out with your agenda and also ignorance of History is deemed very credible in many of the readers eyes anymore !

I can show you more examples if you like ?

you clearly stated Newton was Wrong !

totally unacceptable...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I would like to see a link to that post, please. If you make the choice to point to what another member said, you should ALWAYS post a link to their words. Common courtesy.

Oh Jenny. Jenny jenny jenny.
for shame. for shaaaaame!!!! -shames you-

Anyhow, I noted on page 3 your calling for militant atheists to chime in about their supposed arrogance.
I guess I somewhat fit into that catagory...sure, why not.

I find religion..structured goto church, pay tithe, have laws giving special rights and tax exempt status to be one of the largest and longest conspiracys of all time. It is a clear tool to herd the masses. I mean, the bible even hints at it "the lord is my shepherd"....only sheep need shepherds. and the lord is as defined...the lord of the land, the kings and queens, the "power"...government.

My atheism is pretty simple. I do not believe in a biblical deity, or any other deity that has come and gone throughout history.
I am fully open to very powerful alien races, interdimensional creatures, etc etc etc..and I am even open to the idea of a greater order in the multiverse beyond the scope of our comprehension...but a box cut magic genie spaceman that made Adam and Eve about 8k years ago, or any other creationist stories that have come along? naa.

As far as the anonomosity towards religion..well, its just a large hoax corporation in my opinion. They might as well be spinning stories about narnia and how narnians need tax exempt status, and how we need to establish narnia explanations of talking lions in science class.
Sounds silly, but that is exactly how I see the religious movements, be it christianity, islam, judism, or anything else.

As far as personal spirituality. I am all for it. Meditate..pray...do whatever it is that makes your days feel better and a unfathomable connection with the universe grow.

The dark ages came from religions first off warring with each other, destroying entire troves of knowledge, then hoarding all knowledge into the few hands of religious zealots to keep the mass ignorant and serving the corporation (church) for generations on end. Enslaving our potential is what happened.

I have no need or desire to immediately jump on someone if they utter something semi religious ("thank God its friday" is typically met with a "yup" from me verses a "God does not create the linear understanding of calender dating, .;..etc") But once they start suggesting everyone should start thanking God its friday...thats when we atheists need to chime in and simply state "nope".

As far as the most arrogant atheists..often a young person will suddenly "discover" the religion hoax through some research, and almost in shock, become more than just an atheist, but rather a anti-religious crusader..These are also the ones that state there is no god.

Its important to watch the language. an atheist does not believe in God. meaning they simply have not seen any evidence that would push them towards a belief in a deity. a ..crusader...will state religiously that there is no God, like they somehow have magical powers to give an absolute.
A atheist will promptly change his mind if presented with hard evidence supporting a deity..and so far, not a single scrap of evidence has ever come forward. This does not mean there is no God, just that for now, there is nothing to suggest there is one in the same way that there is no evidence to suggest there are plant people living on a planet in the orion system...there may be, but no evidence so far..nor anything leading to evidence.

Anyhow, You are a reasonable gal. I am sure you know atheists are pretty much just people like anyone else. Some are generally angry, some are joyous, all sorts of mixes. I personally think an atheist (soft normal one) simply has a greater grasp of science and a curious mind not to accept any simple answer that comes along..a desire to know truth over simply the feeling that you know something to not have to think about it much.

There are some intelligent christians also in todays society (I imagine ) but their logic in regards to "all this" is beyond me.

Hope that helps