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.

 

Atheists: A hypothetical question

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

1. Indeed, it tells me that the age old science motto of "If the Data don't fit, change the rules a bit" still apply by so-called "professionals" today. If you go under the assumption that the world is 4 BYO, then you will search for data based that this theory is correct. Other evidence that strongly and clearly states that the world isn't older than X TYO (thousand), is thrown out. I could post more links, if you want.


Huh? We have scientific data that can be reproduced in COUNTLESS disciplines by a myriad of different testing methodologies. I'm not "ignoring evidence". Meanwhile, the ONLY "evidence" that the earth is 13,000 years old comes either wholly or in part from the circumstantial evidence contained in the written version of a nomadic peoples oral tradition from thousands of years ago. However, if we take into account circumstantial evidence from other cultures, they frequently place the earth at MUCH older than 13,000 years.



2. Don't try the "argument from authority". I shouldn't have to explain why that is always utter crap. I don't claim "the Earth is 13,000 years old because GOD says so." I believe the Earth is 13,000 years old because of what research has been done to prove this AND falsify all claims that the Earth could possibly be OLDER than a few certain years. You think I don't consider ALL possible "Time Clocks"? Do you? The sun, the receding moon, the magnetic field, Niagra falls, helium/lead in zircon, etc?


Just as I don't claim the earth is somewhere to the north of 4 billion yrs old "because scientists say so". However, it is the norm in both inductive and deductive reasoning to conclude in accordance with the evidence. Likewise, physical evidence normally takes precedence over circumstantial. Think about a murder trial...which is regarded as more reliable...hearsay, videotape, or DNA evidence? It's always a bit debatable depending on the specifics, however in most circumstances those security cameras are a little fuzzy and preference is given to the DNA evidence which puts the accused on the scene rather than a somewhat imperfect video or just plain old gossip, right? In fact, hearsay is often not admissible EVEN WHEN it agrees with the physical evidence on the basis that hearsay is inherently not reliable in and of itself. When an experiment or a set of experiments can be reproduced with the same or similar results tens of thousands of times, a rational person concludes that they tests themselves are probably pretty accurate.
Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the tests can be inaccurate for one reason or another. Hell...water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level but only 86 degrees Celsius at 14,000 feet. Of course, there is a REASON for this. Namely...air pressure. The higher the elevation, the lower the air pressure. The less air pressure, the easier it is for convection to occur. Simple.
Furthermore, we can REPEAT these findings at simliar altitudes TIME AND TIME again. True...if we have a miscalibrated or faulty thermometer we may find a discrepancy of a degree or two, but using a new and working thermometer will produce similar results again. This isn't "making the data fit". It's just part of the scientific process. However, if the temperature that water boils fluctuates wildly by a spread 60 degrees at sea level irrespective of what thermometer we are using...we would begin looking for other factors other than just "temperature" alone.


3. It's funny how in the same breath, you could possibly argue that there are contradictions in the Bible, yet when Christians everywhere give a POSSIBLE explanation (because one possible explanation completely eradicates a contradiction claim) as to why it isn't a contradiction, they are called delusion, changing their stories, "that's your interpretation", etc.. Though, as to your response, what about those who remember a "long day"? How do you explain that?


Simply not true. I'm totally open to the idea that our generally accepted dating methods for geologic and human history may be inaccurate. All I ask is for some PHYSICAL evidence that doesn't REQUIRE "faith" as a prime component. Mathematical calculations based upon the bible which has had it's mistranslations mistranslated for the last 1700 years is not academically sound. Personally, I think a WHOLE LOT of the "official story" is incorrect. However, I base this conjecture off of the READILY OBSERVABLE erosion patterns on the Sphinx, the archeological record, and quite a few anomalous findings of artifacts and remains. These all tend to point to at least HUMAN civilization being in a pretty advanced state even 30,000 years ago. But again...I don't say I AM CERTAIN of this...only that there is some pretty compelling physical evidence which makes me HYPOTHESIZE that this MIGHT be the case.




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Too bad that our theists are gone, I was just getting warmed up. At least I would have liked answers to "dinosaur bones", "light from far-away stars" and so on - and any of that explained by "god moves in mysterious ways" or "god did it so give us a wonderful place to stay".. YEAH! I'M TOTALLY CONVINCED!




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Too bad that our theists are gone, I was just getting warmed up. At least I would have liked answers to "dinosaur bones", "light from far-away stars" and so on - and any of that explained by "god moves in mysterious ways" or "god did it so give us a wonderful place to stay".. YEAH! I'M TOTALLY CONVINCED!



That's the way it almost always is. The most amusing thing to me is how they simply REFUSE to change their mind about anything at all. And I'm not just talking about the whole "belief in god" thing either.

I've been in discussions with hardcore Catholics who claimed that "the bible" was the absolute, directly transcribed Word of God still in it's original format after all these years who SIMPLY WILL NOT acknowledge either the First or Second Council of Nicea in which "the bible" was subjected to a heavy cut-and-paste session.

How ironic and comical is it that the official Papal history of their own supposedly infallible religious leader clearly documents these events and STILL HAS the handwritten decree by the very Pope's who called them to convene?
What it boils down to is that most of these people really don't even KNOW what they believe. They have these ideas that their religion says a certain thing...when in fact it states something entirely different.

Even the very few who ACTUALLY read "the bible" don't understand and were never trained how to read a historical text, so they miss most or all of the context that it contains.

The typical response is to just keep talking and do anything and everything they can to avoid answering the question. They change the subject, draw flawed analogies, and when all else fails...they just disappear.
It's as though the 11th Commandment was "Thou shalt not change one's opinion even when vastly superior evidence is presented that would make it prudent to do so".

Let's face it...the only way theism can work is by having lots and lots of people who WORK at being willfully ignorant.



 
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join