What's the deal with the super religious freaks?.

reply to post by lacrimaererum


So vitamin D-3 is snake oil?

reply to post by CrazyRaccoon


if you are taking vitamin d-3 find out the source of the raw materials that are used to make the product.

Originally posted by Ozvaldo

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by XLR8R

 

People who couldn't find direction in their lives and found solice in the bible and fell in with the wrong crowed. Those who are like minded tend to join together.

I think you meant "crowd," not "crowed." That being said, I have to agree, I think it is Fear myself, that drives the herds to Christianity.
After all, they always attempt to scare us, am I wrong here? "Come to Christ or Burn in Hell." Saw that on a bumper sticker a few days ago. Who do these people think they are to judge us?

Ozvaldo, I understood what you meant with your comment. You said 5 years old, that simply shows the utter stupidity of believing the world is only a few thousand years old, when in truth Earth is a few billion years old.

Like I said, I believe fear to be the common denominator here, you can smell the fear in some of the religious posts here.

I thought there would be someone out there that knew what i meant

Yes it is scientifically proven the Earth is millions/billions of years old.
*waits in trepidation for the god Squad to arrive.........

As someone who used to use science as a way to justify non-belief I will give you the weaknesses of science. First of all naturalism is assumed apriori. But if there is a supernatural, the assumption that everything is natural falls apart, and science fails. So we have to always argue that reality can be described in terms of physical properties. Now my question is, if God can create Adam as a man, is it not possible He can create not only men to appear fully aged, but create a universe that appears fully aged? It's a silly to assume naturalism then to use that assumption as proof of naturalism. Science assumes that only material things determine everything. And even if one cannot accept that, surely he can accept if something happened that no one is taking into account nor can will change the results of his theory where he assumes only natural conditions: surely if the supernatural can influence the natural, his theory can have mistakes. But if he does not see he is presuming naturalism, then he cannot see why his experiments and tests can fail.

Secondly, people will try to refute Christianity by claiming that God is a non-falsifiable claim and cannot be scientific. But science fails at discovering truth wherever it is non-falsifiable. Simply because something is non-falsifiable does not make it false. You can only accept the claims of a subclass of truth in science: only truths that fulfill a certain criteria. Thus science cannot find all truths. We have to dogmatically assert that only falsifiable truths exist to follow the naive belief that science will reveal all truths.

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by Ozvaldo

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by XLR8R

 

People who couldn't find direction in their lives and found solice in the bible and fell in with the wrong crowed. Those who are like minded tend to join together.

I think you meant "crowd," not "crowed." That being said, I have to agree, I think it is Fear myself, that drives the herds to Christianity.
After all, they always attempt to scare us, am I wrong here? "Come to Christ or Burn in Hell." Saw that on a bumper sticker a few days ago. Who do these people think they are to judge us?

Ozvaldo, I understood what you meant with your comment. You said 5 years old, that simply shows the utter stupidity of believing the world is only a few thousand years old, when in truth Earth is a few billion years old.

Like I said, I believe fear to be the common denominator here, you can smell the fear in some of the religious posts here.

I thought there would be someone out there that knew what i meant

Yes it is scientifically proven the Earth is millions/billions of years old.
*waits in trepidation for the god Squad to arrive.........

As someone who used to use science as a way to justify non-belief I will give you the weaknesses of science. First of all naturalism is assumed apriori. But if there is a supernatural, the assumption that everything is natural falls apart, and science fails. So we have to always argue that reality can be described in terms of physical properties. Now my question is, if God can create Adam as a man, is it not possible He can create not only men to appear fully aged, but create a universe that appears fully aged? It's a silly to assume naturalism then to use that assumption as proof of naturalism. Science assumes that only material things determine everything. And even if one cannot accept that, surely he can accept if something happened that no one is taking into account nor can will change the results of his theory where he assumes only natural conditions: surely if the supernatural can influence the natural, his theory can have mistakes. But if he does not see he is presuming naturalism, then he cannot see why his experiments and tests can fail.

Secondly, people will try to refute Christianity by claiming that God is a non-falsifiable claim and cannot be scientific. But science fails at discovering truth wherever it is non-falsifiable. Simply because something is non-falsifiable does not make it false. You can only accept the claims of a subclass of truth in science: only truths that fulfill a certain criteria. Thus science cannot find all truths. We have to dogmatically assert that only falsifiable truths exist to follow the naive belief that science will reveal all truths.

edit on 27-1-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

I didn't say that science was infallible, I just said it is scientifically proven that the Earth is over 5000 years old.
Anyone who believes otherwise are disagreeing with some the worlds most intelligent people/scientists.

Did you purposely make your post that hard to read??

It's not hard to read. Read it again. Scientists presume naturalism, and then use that assumption as basis for understanding the universe. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If your assumptions are wrong there is no guarantee you will come to truth.

reply to post by 547000


Hummmm but wait – if you are going to use ‘supernatural’ to try and explain away why the universe looks older then 5000 old then why can I not say “the flying spaghetti monster used supernatural means to make it look like bible god made it look like the earth was billions of years old”?

reply to post by racasan


Covered in point 2. Just because an idea is non-falsifiable doesn't mean it cant be the truth.

reply to post by CrazyRaccoon


If you think going to Church makes you a Christian then you are very deceived. Science is also not exclusive to atheists only. There are thousands of very clever Christian Scientists out their in a wide range of scientific fields. It would be very ignorant to assume a Christian has not studied astronomy or scientific claims... As a Christian I am actually very interested in astronomy, its amazing to view the astral bodies in the sky which has God created for us to marvel as a testimony to Creation .

To be saved by going to church is contrary to what the Bible says. Romans 10:9 - "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Atheist's are actually some of the most crazy religious people out there... Atheism is like its own religious sect. They are normally so hateful and vile they attack and scoff at anyone that does not fit with there ultra big ego's.

I am talking about those "worship jesus or you burn" kind of people..i actually encountered few today, oh yeah they were waving their magical book of ABSOLUTE truth..

The Bible tells us that God “prepared” hell for the devil and the fallen angels after they rebelled against Him (Matthew 25:41). Those who refuse God’s offer of forgiveness will suffer the same eternal destiny of the devil and the fallen angels.

And Yes I am someone that believes in the true biblical account of Genesis. The world being created in 6 literal days. So yes I believe the world to be around 6000 years, and no I'm not crazy. I've looked at the evidence and in my opinion there is much stronger evidence to support a young earth then there is an old earth. All common sense is thrown out the window when the evolutionist tries to manipulate evidence to suggest the earth is billions of years old.

Originally posted by CrazyRaccoon
I can't really label my self as a Christian because i do not go to church... but even i have brains to actually study astronomy and scientific claims...etc.

I am talking about those "worship jesus or you burn" kind of people..i actually encountered few today, oh yeah they were waving their magical book of ABSOLUTE truth..nothing in their bible is wrong it is 1000% correct... and when i asked them very important question like "do you believe in life else where in the universe?" i got a response like this
"young kid, there is no evidence in the bible that god created life anywhere else but on earth..accept Jesus into your heart". My friend is an atheist and when i told him what i encountered he really laughed..

I also bet they (crazy religious people) don't know about their own history and even whats on most of their bible.

Just so you know I find those people crazy that think that everything that scientist claim as fact are indeed actual provable facts.

Science has not proven the earth is over 6,000 years old. Their conclusions are based on a number of assumptions. Assumptions are not facts.

Evolution is basically the theory of assumptions with absolutely no answer for origins.

It is not crazy to believe God over man’s assumptions. I did not come to my conclusion on faith but actually several years of reading and researching both sides. Since man failed to prove his theories I decided God was more likely to be right.

I consider myself a young earth creationist, and I don’t believe I am crazy. As far as running around condemning everyone to hell. Jesus says plainly not to do that. I am not the judge and I do not know what is in a man’s heart. I leave all the judging to God, and I stick to the loving.

With love from the non crazy young earth creationist.

reply to post by 547000


the weakness of using ‘the supernatural’ to make you god hypothesis work is that someone else can come along later and use ‘the supernatural’ to make another superior claim above that

If you say ‘my god done it’ then someone else says ‘yes but actually my god done it and just made it temporally look like your god did it using some supernatural thingy’

reply to post by racasan


Again, suppose that were the truth. Does being non-falsifiable make it wrong? Nope You have to presume that truth is always falsifiable to subscribe to scientism,.

reply to post by 547000


Well let me ask you this – why would anybody bother with the extra and unnecessary supernatural/magical step, the universe looks like it works without the need to add it

In fact the only people who would need to do this pointless act are the religious who have to try and fix the difficulty of their faith not lining-up with what the universe actually shows


Also
You have the problem that if you can use supernatural/magic to make your god ‘right’ then so can anybody else who with a god – therefore magic is a useless way of proving your god is right - so why should anybody pick your beliefs over the many others available?



One more thing:
You say your god made the universe and you realise that the bible is wrong in its claims about the the age of the universe – ok

But the universe is the one thing which cannot be counterfeited by man; a book on the other hand can be written by man

So shouldn’t the actual state of the universe be the final word in deciding the truth of what your god did?

By way of explanation (in case I’m not clear)
If you read a book on Beethoven’s music (which the writer says it’s the final word on the subject) and the book says that Beethoven used synthesisers to create his music, but on listening to the music you don’t hear any synthesisers – then the book is wrong and the author lied – the genuine article of Beethoven’s music is the deciding fact not some book written about it

And what you are saying is - no no no the book is correct and the Beethoven did use synth’s but magically between Beethoven doing that and now the synths have vanished to be replaced by traditional musical instruments

reply to post by racasan


I add that extra step because I know God exists. I know this personally, and as far as I can see that negates the presumed naturalism. If naturalism is false, many of the thing we believe to be true based on it are invalidated.

Logically, this is the argument being used:

If N then A
Because A therefore N

But N has not been proved. Let N be "Naturalism is true" and A be any scientific claim. Logically this argument is inappropriate.

This is for the op, I think it is inappropriate to call anyone you disagree with "crazy" and "freak". If you have an argument against a set of beliefs then make it.

Please be respectful.

you do realise you’re not the referee of everybody else’s view on reality?

I don’t know you so your word is of no value to me, so when you write

Originally posted by 547000
I add that extra step because I know God exists. I know this personally

So what?


There are many people with a faith – to who their god(s) is just as real as yours is to you, so what in your mind is it that singles your point of view out for the honour of picking out what’s true for everybody else in the universe?

reply to post by racasan


You're missing the point. That science ASSUMES the universe in only rooted in naturalism can lead to false conclusions. Non-falsifiability =/= untrue. You can bring up flying spaghetti monsters all you want to ridicule people, but even you can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Just because something seem ridiculous doesn't mean it's wrong. People often talk about how science is logical, but people don't seem to have a grasp of logic.

reply to post by 547000


I understand what you are saying but then the universe could be a lot of things

It could be that the universe is the screen saver on Zeus’s laptop

It could be that a game on Cthulhu’s Playstation-infinity has gone into demo mode

It could be that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and we should live in perpetual fear of the time of 'The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief'

The list is endless, but I think that if someone wanted to use this line of reasoning as an argument to support their beliefs, then it just highlights the weakness of the belief


If someone wrote:
“if you find a difference between what the universe does and what my Bronze Age book says the universe does then the reason is a wizard changed the universe”

Would you think the writer was silly or not?

And yes I realise the a wizard could have changed the universe but by far the most likely explanation is that the Bronze Age book is just wrong and I have no reason to take the wizard explanation seriously

reply to post by racasan


If we are talking pure logic, there's nothing logical about scientism, There are presumptions that, if they are wrong, could explain why our scientific knowledge is wrong. Many people brush that away and then claim science is logical. It is not purely logical, as a student of logic can easily tell. There no "logical reason" to believe in scientific claims. Maybe there are "rational reasons" but logic doesn't prove science is true but shows possible errors.

reply to post by racasan

. . . I have no reason to take the wizard explanation seriously

Jesus said something like, 'The kingdom is not something you can look for and see . . .'
The universe is a big thing and is not going to change in an observable manner.
We have to change, ourselves, but of course with God's help.

reply to post by 547000


Ok I understand all that but you need to recognise that there is nothing about the universe that commends your belief as the convincing answer to where the universe came from, yours is just one more in a very long list of equally possible solutions to the question of where the universe came from


On a side note:
Do you feel any kind of shame in using the internet and a computer (one of sciences ‘Seven Wonders of the World’) to attack science?