NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated

He's not there. Might as well give up now. Choose which ever religion can give you conclusive proof of the existance of it's deity.

Read about every religion you can think of. Talk to people about their faiths. The internet can actually be good for this. Don't shy away from debate. Finally when you have come to the conclusion that none of them offer any evidence that one is more correct than the last make up your mind to be an atheist or agnosic.

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated

I have a question to ask you first: Do you know how to live?

He's not there. Might as well give up now. Choose which ever religion can give you conclusive proof of the existance of it's deity.

1) Prove there's no God (it cannot be done because there is no physical him so you can't say that because we can't see him he doesn't exist, in which case you might as well say that our brains don't exist because we can't see them)
2) God can be proven through how he has affected believers and non-believers.

I have a question to ask you first: Do you know how to live?

Don't confuse the issue.

Religion has nothing to do with living.

It is an attempt to deny the reality of death. That is the only common theme for all religions.

Read about every religion you can think of. Talk to people about their faiths. The internet can actually be good for this. Don't shy away from debate. Finally when you have come to the conclusion that none of them offer any evidence that one is more correct than the last make up your mind to be an atheist or agnosic.

But an atheist is worse off because thier belief cannot prove thier own existance, much less any good way to live. Secondly, atheism has less evidence that the is a God than the Greek belief that there were multiple Gods.

Don't confuse the issue.

Religion has nothing to do with living.

It is an attempt to deny the reality of death. That is the only common theme for all religions.
What is the function of religion? What does it do?

Don't confuse the issue.

Religion has nothing to do with living.

It is an attempt to deny the reality of death. That is the only common theme for all religions.

Religions affect a persons look on life and therefore affects their way of life. Secondly, common theme of religions is not an attempt to deny the reality of death but rather how you should live and what to expect after death.

Gah. This is just going to turn into another religious debate thread ;_;

But...It's really better (for me at least) to talk to people in person about it, instead of having someone try and prove their religion to you.

What is the function of religion? What does it do?

Outlook on life and death.

If you want to talk about Protestant Christianity, feel free to IM me, but I always detest talking about anything remotely religious on these boards because of so many obnoxious people flaming. CSA4evr1861 is my sn.

Gah. This is just going to turn into another religious debate thread ;_;

But...It's really better (for me at least) to talk to people in person about it, instead of having someone try and prove their religion to you.

True. And since some people never change their minds about their religion some of these debates are useless. You can only give your opinion and why.

1) Prove there's no God (it cannot be done because there is no physical him so you can't say that because we can't see him he doesn't exist, in which case you might as well say that our brains don't exist because we can't see them)
2) God can be proven through how he has affected believers and non-believers.
1 It's up to the one making the positive statement to provide proof. For instance, I can say you killed a guy back in 1983. You would have a tough time accounting for every moment of every day to prove that you didn't. The burden of proof would lie with me to provide evidence that you did in fact kill some guy.

2 I challenge you to show me one verifiable instance where you can prove god acted on someone rather than a natural force.



Nevermind. Let's take this to another thread so we don't hijack this one.

1) Prove there's no God (it cannot be done because there is no physical him so you can't say that because we can't see him he doesn't exist, in which case you might as well say that our brains don't exist because we can't see them)
2) God can be proven through how he has affected believers and non-believers.

No. No he can't.

1 It's up to the one making the positive statement to provide proof. For instance, I can say you killed a guy back in 1983. You would have a tough time accounting for every moment of every day to prove that you didn't. The burden of proof would lie with me to provide evidence that you did in fact kill some guy.

2 I challenge you to show me one verifiable instance where you can prove god acted on someone rather than a natural force.



Nevermind. Let's take this to another thread so we don't hijack this one.

Maybe but first prove that it wasn't God. Round and round we go so lets stop bickering.

No. No he can't.

Can't what? Can't prove God? Prove gravity. Similar ways of proving things that cannot actually be physically seen by us right now.

Religions affect a persons look on life and therefore affects their way of life. Secondly, common theme of religions is not an attempt to deny the reality of death but rather how you should live and what to expect after death.

Exactly my point - the "what to expect after death" is the only common theme for any religion. That is the major driving force, the "how to live" is supposedly a way to determine the "after death" experience.

Quite simply, any and all religions are based on a denial that death is final.

Understandable as it is not a pleasant prospect, but denial all the same.

If you are really serious about this, read the books by Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. They were both atheists who were convinced that God exists. Also read Surprised by Joy by CS Lewis. He's coming from another time period, but that also may be worth a look.

Exactly my point - the "what to expect after death" is the only common theme for any religion. That is the major driving force, the "how to live" is supposedly a way to determine the "after death" experience.

Quite simply, any and all religions are based on a denial that death is final.

Understandable as it is not a pleasant prospect, but denial all the same.

Except for atheism which basically believes that death is final and that anything you do is useless because it will never make a difference in the end.

The "how you live" doesn't always determine the "after death". Atheism, "born again" Christians, Islam, and probably many others deal with a choice or chance or simply nothing after death.

Death is final only for the body, not for the soul.

Can't what? Can't prove God? Prove gravity. Similar ways of proving things that cannot actually be physically seen by us right now.

You can't prove god.

There is a lot of evidence for gravity.

Science test things and tests itself, that is the point. However, conveniently, you can't test god.

If you can prove god exists then do. I still won't join any religion, but at least i'd know. But you can't prove god. Nor can you irrefutably disprove god, but I'm pretty damn sure.

If you are really serious about this, read the books by Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. They were both atheists who were convinced that God exists. Also read Surprised by Joy by CS Lewis. He's coming from another time period, but that also may be worth a look.
I and many other atheists were christians before becoming atheists. So what if you have a couple books by people who went the opposite dirrection?

Except for atheism which basically believes that death is final and that anything you do is useless because it will never make a difference in the end.So nothing is useful unless it makes you feel better after you die? For example, helping your fellow human and bringing enjoyment and pleasure into the lives of others is "useless" because you are going to die anyway?

Oooo-kay then, I can see why agnosticism or atheism might not be your thing.

Except for atheism which basically believes that death is final and that anything you do is useless because it will never make a difference in the end.

The "how you live" doesn't always determine the "after death". Atheism, "born again" Christians, Islam, and probably many others deal with a choice or chance or simply nothing after death.

Death is final only for the body, not for the soul.

Atheism has no comment on anything other than the existance of god. hence Atheist Buddhists believe in a set of Buddhist values and reincarnation, rather than what any other atheist may believe.

Except for atheism which basically believes that death is final and that anything you do is useless because it will never make a difference in the end.

The "how you live" doesn't always determine the "after death". Atheism, "born again" Christians, Islam, and probably many others deal with a choice or chance or simply nothing after death.

Death is final only for the body, not for the soul.
What's a soul? How do we know they exist?

Yeah, fuck it. I couldn't stay away.

You can't prove god.

There is a lot of evidence for gravity.

Science test things and tests itself, that is the point. However, conveniently, you can't test god.

If you can prove god exists then do. I still won't join any religion, but at least i'd know. But you can't prove god. Nor can you irrefutably disprove god, but I'm pretty damn sure.

The Earth and the life on earth has a design. Anything that works efficiently almost consistently is usually designed. When there's a design there's a designer. When theres a portrait, theres a painter. That is my indirect proof. Such as sciences indirect proof of gravity.

So nothing is useful unless it makes you feel better after you die? For example, helping your fellow human and bringing enjoyment and pleasure into the lives of others is "useless" because you are going to die anyway?

Oooo-kay then, I can see why agnosticism or atheism might not be your thing.

Hehe.

I and many other atheists were christians before becoming atheists. So what if you have a couple books by people who went the opposite dirrection?

Well, the creator of this thread is looking for evidence for religion. These books provide evidence.

The only way to find God or whoever you wish to find is by looking yourself. Everyone has their own path, and they must walk it themselves. Patience is a virtue. You must decide for yourself which is the correct path, no one else can. And no one can force you to take any path.

Oh, and if you want proof of God, no one can give it you, and no one can prove God doesn't exist. Nature could be God, determining the physical laws of reality, determining the results of the Big Bang, determining the Laws Of Thermodynamics...determining the universe. God doesn't have to be a person, God could be the universe.

That's my 1.05031 pence (I live in Great Britain, so technically it would be my 1.05031 pence...currency converter, converting 0.02 United States Dollars to Great Britain Pounds).

What's a soul? How do we know they exist?

Yeah, fuck it. I couldn't stay away.

How do you know it doesn't exist? You can't see it. So you don't really know but I believe there is.

The Earth and the life on earth has a design. Anything that works efficiently almost consistently is usually designed. When there's a design there's a designer. When theres a portrait, theres a painter. That is my indirect proof. Such as sciences indirect proof of gravity.

I disagree.

Why must it be designed? Why must there be a designer?

Many efficient things are not designed.

That provides little or no proof.

I and many other atheists were christians before becoming atheists. So what if you have a couple books by people who went the opposite dirrection?

Then I feel sorry for those who left something good to go to nonsense.

Apologies for that insult if it offended.

There is no evidence. Live a good life and be nice to others. At least that is rewarding in itself, right here, right now.

I disagree.

Why must it be designed? Why must there be a designer?

Many efficient things are not designed.

That provides little or no proof.

Show me something that is efficient that I can't say was designed. You can't. Still this another one of those threads where you can't really prove anything.

Then I feel sorry for those who left something good to go to nonsense.
FYI, there is goodness outside of belief.

Then I feel sorry for those who left something good to go to nonsense.

Apologies for that insult if it offended.

Realise you apoligised but perhaps you can see that to suggest my entire life is a "nonsense" is particularly insulting, especially as I have refrained from making similar comments about how religion and indeed the belief in a god is very much an entirely unneccessary nonsense based on little or no evidence.

I believe the best choice for you would be Christianity. I found God and my faith myself. I was going through rough times and I called upon the Lord Jesus Christ and he saved me. When I was say 7 or 8 I found him, and countless times up until now he has helped me, protected me, and guided me. I know everyone is like, oh he is some religious wacko. No, I dont shove my religion down others throats but I will defend it at any costs necessary. I do respect other religions as well. Atheism the least. Let the Lords will be done

1) Prove there's no God (it cannot be done because there is no physical him so you can't say that because we can't see him he doesn't exist, in which case you might as well say that our brains don't exist because we can't see them)

Well, clearly I'm completely wrong. If I can't prove something doesn't exist, it does? So anything with no solid prove that it NEVER WAS definetly is? Are you completely insane?

Don't ask my to prove something doesn't exist, as that's just stupid. You prove something exists. You don't prove something doesn't. Is there any way at all I can get this simple premise through?

By the way, I am the son of God. Prove me wrong.

Oh, and you CAN see brains. Open up a skull and you'll find one. Perhaps not in the religious circles you hang out in, but in most cases it's true.

2) God can be proven through how he has affected believers and non-believers.

So can schizophrenia. Funny how the two seem to have very simliar syptoms. So do magic mushrooms and LSD. Is God in the drugs?


The Earth and the life on earth has a design. Anything that works efficiently almost consistently is usually designed.

No, anything HUMANS design that works has been designed. We have no other frame of reference. Also note that anything humans design isn't alive. Living things design themselves through evolution.

Show me something that is efficient that I can't say was designed. You can't. Still this another one of those threads where you can't really prove anything.

Whatever... The sea. It's just a load of chemicals and water condenced due to how the earth and atmosphere developed and works perfectly. Providing life and water and a place for rivers to go and the water cycle and salt and whatever....

"But I think it was designed by god" I hear.

Yes. I know.

Go back and read the post where I said god could not be irrefutably proved or disproved.

Then I feel sorry for those who left something good to go to nonsense.


Those who pray in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and those who believe the universe was built in seven days by an invisible master being should avoid using the word nonsense.

Qoute:
You can't prove god.
by Rockness

You can't prove there isn't a God can u? I get my information from the Bible and people havn't provent it wrong so ppl cant say it's wrong.

I do respect other religions as well. Atheism the least.
How do you respect religious believe partially? Is it Christianity 100%, Judaism 88%, Islam 70%... and Atheism only 25%? Either you respect other peoples belief or not.

Qoute:
You can't prove god.
by Rockness

You can't prove there isn't a God can u? I get my information from the Bible and people havn't provent it wrong so ppl cant say it's wrong.

I can say it's wrong because your argument is "but how do you know".

I know because there is no evidence. Present me with some and I will change my opinion.

You can't prove me wrong either... and so the circle of religious people claiming to know the truth and me saying they don't and them insulting my non-belief in a mystical deity as "nonsense" and "least" respectable continues...

Except for atheism which basically believes that death is final and that anything you do is useless because it will never make a difference in the end.

The "how you live" doesn't always determine the "after death". Atheism, "born again" Christians, Islam, and probably many others deal with a choice or chance or simply nothing after death.

Death is final only for the body, not for the soul.

The very concept of a "soul" is a religious one - therefore you are arguing about the validity of religious belief by using religious concepts. Otherwise known as arguing in circles.

Proving that "Death is final only for the body, not for the soul" is just as likely as proving that God exists, or that the soul exists.

Show me something that is efficient that I can't say was designed. You can't. Still this another one of those threads where you can't really prove anything.


And regardless of what we cite, you'll say 'God designed it'. It's a little childish, isn't it?

You're using God to prove stuff was designed, and that using the same stuff to prove God exists. It's tautologous. You're not arguing a case, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping we'll all go away.

Teutonberg, why do you respect Atheism the least? Do you feel ashamed in some way that Atheists don't feel the need for an emotional crutch to make them feel complete? I'm an atheist, and one of the reasons I feel so damned hostile to Christians is this apparent belief you have that we are somehow lesser beings because we aren't willing to blindly believe in ANYTHING until it's proven false?

There is no evidence. Live a good life and be nice to others. At least that is rewarding in itself, right here, right now.

I agree.

The Earth and the life on earth has a design. Anything that works efficiently almost consistently is usually designed. When there's a design there's a designer. When theres a portrait, theres a painter. That is my indirect proof. Such as sciences indirect proof of gravity.

You apparently believe that a God exists. Who designed God? And if God need no designer, then neither does the Universe. Just save yourself a step.

And if God is a perfect designer, why do men have nipples? why do tsunamis happen ? why do we have an appendix? Are these design flaws ?

You apparently believe that a God exists. Who designed God? And if God need no designer, then neither does the Universe. Just save yourself a step.

And if God is a perfect designer, why do men have nipples? why do tsunamis happen ? why do we have an appendix? Are these design flaws ?

"God works in mysterious ways" I expect. :headbang:

For the religious ones, I'd just like to introduce our side properly. I'm The Father, Rockness over there could be described as The Son, and Jester is the Holy Ghost. Now, by your reasoning you must prove us wrong, or it's true.

Bless you all.

For the religious ones, I'd just like to introduce our side properly. I'm The Father, Rockness over there could be described as The Son, and Jester is the Holy Ghost. Now, by your reasoning you must prove us wrong, or it's true.

Bless you all.

To add further credibilty, apparently I look like Jesus.

Why should I believe the myths of a small tribe from palestine dating from 2000-4000 bp as recorded by some Greeks, adapted by the Roman Empire and dis-assembled by every generation engaged in protestant / orthodox wrangles. The only reson we've heard of christianity is that it was the Roman state religion for a period.

There are fairies at the bottom of my garden and they control your mind. Prove me wrong

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated

Well, if it's any help, I'm a Christian, and I know a lady who was miraculously healed of diabetes.

TG me if you have any questions.

Aha! Me too. That gives us two counts of circumstancial proof, to none against. That's surely a certainty.

Okay, I need more information. Where is your Scriptures? What are your key beliefs? What is the meaning of life according to your religion? Etc.

To add to our credibility, i will write a book, where, in weird words, is written the same. And it is holy, because i conceived it. Isnt that great?

How do you know it doesn't exist? You can't see it. So you don't really know but I believe there is.
Assuming the soul contains the personality (you actually havent' defined soul naughty naughty) I can show that people with brain trauma have personality changes thus indicating that the brain is all there is.

Okay, once you write the book, I can show you your errors.

Okay, I need more information. Where is your Scriptures? What are your key beliefs? What is the meaning of life according to your religion? Etc.
Scriptures? I am still on it. Key beliefs? None. Dont believe, know. What is unknowable, ignore, get on. Meaning of life? Selfpreservation and procreation.

I am sorry to have to be the one to tell you this. God is dead, I’ve seen the head stone, and it’s inscribed with “He died from his greatest weakness, his love of mankind. He died from pity of mankind”.

Okay, once you write the book, I can show you your errors.

You can't prove they're errors. I know they're not errors.

Qoute:
You can't prove god.
by Rockness

You can't prove there isn't a God can u? I get my information from the Bible and people havn't provent it wrong so ppl cant say it's wrong.
The bible was written and edited by people. One might say they made it up, just like your spelling.

Scriptures? I am still on it. Key beliefs? None. Dont believe, know. What is unknowable, ignore, get on. Meaning of life? Selfpreservation and procreation.

Hell [not real either] yeah!

Okay, once you write the book, I can show you your errors.
Show them now. Like i said, its only fancy words for what Nasopotomia said.

Then I feel sorry for those who left something good to go to nonsense.

Apologies for that insult if it offended.
I thought you were insulting those who went to christianity.

Okay, let me see what I can do.

First of all, do Nasopotoma and company know everything?

If the meaning of life is "self preservation and procreation" then what is the purpose of Nasopotoma and company? Man can do that on his own without them.

Okay, once you write the book, I can show you your errors.You mean kinda like people do with the bible all the time?

If the scriptures of this new religion get staggeringly idiotic (like, you know, if they claim rabbits chew their cud or some stupid shit like that), they can just write a New Bookthing and say you can ignore all the weird parts in the old one.

Show me something that is efficient that I can't say was designed. You can't. Still this another one of those threads where you can't really prove anything.
evolution works quite efficiently. but your presupposition of an intelligent designer would invalidate any argument in your mind. If someone points to the efficiency of a virus, you claim it's designed. Your mind is closed to any argument along these lines, therefore it's disingenuous(sp?) of you to even ask for an example.

Okay, let me see what I can do.

First of all, do Nasopotoma and company know everything?

If the meaning of life is "self preservation and procreation" then what is the purpose of Nasopotoma and company? Man can do that on his own without them.

We have no purpose. but I least I admit it.

So if there is no purpose to life, why bother living? Why not just grab a shotgun and end it all?

We have no purpose. but I least I admit it.

Plus to enlighten others the their own pupose-less-ness is in itself a kind of pupose.

He's not there. Might as well give up now. Choose which ever religion can give you conclusive proof of the existance of it's deity.
Choose consumerism! The deity fits neatly in your pocket and can manifest into an acceptable deity in almost every nation of the world! Unless it's a Euro and you're in Yorkshire.

So if there is no purpose to life, why bother living? Why not just grab a shotgun and end it all?

'Cause life is nice. Doesn't mean it has a point.

Temme: Obviously men can not always do it by themselves. Otherwise there would not be that many followers of other religions who deny themselves that. Religious fanatism that brings people to blow themself up is against selfpreservation. Priest living in celibacy do not procreate.

You mean kinda like people do with the bible all the time?

If the scriptures of this new religion get staggeringly idiotic (like, you know, if they claim rabbits chew their cud or some stupid shit like that), they can just write a New Bookthing and say you can ignore all the weird parts in the old one.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. What do you mean with this post.

I have noticed one thing that is rather interesting about this forum board is the fact that every time something about God or in that same area comes about that it ends up becomeing a mudslinging contest to see who can make up the most inventive insult or theory about how God does not exist

Well, if it's any help, I'm a Christian, and I know a lady who was miraculously healed of diabetes.

TG me if you have any questions.
Spontaneous remissions are documented among all faiths and among the faithless. If it were evidence for god, why does it work for all religions and for those with no religion? It is just evidence that we don't know all there is to know about the human body.

'Cause life is nice. Doesn't mean it has a point.

So that would mean that the reason we're here on earth is for pleasure?

I have noticed one thing that is rather interesting about this forum board is the fact that every time something about God or in that same area comes about that it ends up becomeing a mudslinging contest to see who can make up the most inventive insult or theory about how God does not exist

Cole Square, i believe in "everybody to his own" until they claim they have proof. That applies to theists and atheists alike.

So if there is no purpose to life, why bother living? Why not just grab a shotgun and end it all?

If you are deperate to find a "purpose" in your life, instead of living it, I suppose you could always invent a religion.

Why does life need a purpose?

A "purpose" is another human invention.

I have noticed one thing that is rather interesting about this forum board is the fact that every time something about God or in that same area comes about that it ends up becomeing a mudslinging contest to see who can make up the most inventive insult or theory about how God does not exist

Actually there are more people insulting atheism here.

We got bored of arguing about gay marriage.

So if there is no purpose to life, why bother living? Why not just grab a shotgun and end it all?
Because we can provide our own purposes. Like building a better nation. Like caring for those around us. Like advancing the level of human knowledge.

So that would mean that the reason we're here on earth is for pleasure?

No. we're not here on earth for any reason, pleasure is just a perk.

Temme: Obviously men can not always do it by themselves. Otherwise there would not be that many followers of other religions who deny themselves that. Religious fanatism that brings people to blow themself up is against selfpreservation. Priest living in celibacy do not procreate.

Well, when people do not procreate or do blow themselves up, then they are acting against their instincts. So is this religion meant to send us to being uncivilized?

Also, both examples you mentioned are religious. It seems like religion helps people repress instincts.

So that would mean that the reason we're here on earth is for pleasure?
Not only pleasure. Cleaning out the toilet when its your share with the housework isnt fun. But sharing is. Animals dont nead a reason in life, they exist. Do you kill them all, because they have no purpose for themselves?

Because we can provide our own purposes. Like building a better nation. Like caring for those around us. Like advancing the level of human knowledge.

Exactly. Who needs religion when Humanism is around?

Not only pleasure. Cleaning out the toilet when its your share with the housework isnt fun. But sharing is. Animals dont nead a reason in life, they exist. Do you kill them all, because they have no purpose for themselves?

I'm confused. How are these two points related, the animals and the toilet?

If you are deperate to find a "purpose" in your life, instead of living it, I suppose you could always invent a religion.

Why does life need a purpose?

A "purpose" is another human invention.

Actually I think the purpose or meaning of life is to live...I mean thats why we are all here.

But why do we live? What are we supposed to accomplish on earth?

But why do we live? What are we supposed to accomplish on earth?
Whatever we set our minds to.

So I can set my mind to killing all the babies I want to, and that can be my purpose in life?

But why do we live? What are we supposed to accomplish on earth?

Physically...we are just the universe expending some energy...make more of it if you want.

hmmm prove G-d exists eh?

Well Atheists require G-d to prove he doesnt exist.... so disproving G-d is like disproving a theory.

Since we can prove "gravity" exists by how it acts on us... we can prove G-d exists, by how we act in his name.

So either all theories are wrong...or all theories are right?

... it sounds better in my head... maybe i should reword it.

*goes off to think of a better post*

So I can set my mind to killing all the babies I want to, and that can be my purpose in life?
It could be but there would be many who would make it their purpose to stop you.

Physically...we are just the universe expending some energy...make more of it if you want.
So it doesn't matter what we do?

hmmm prove G-d exists eh?

Well Atheists require G-d to prove he doesnt exist.... so disproving G-d is like disproving a theory.

Since we can prove "gravity" exists by how it acts on us... we can prove G-d exists, by how we act in his name.

So either all theories are wrong...or all theories are right?

... it sounds better in my head... maybe i should reword it.

*goes off to think of a better post*
No, we can't prove god exists by how we act in his name. Each person will act a different way in his name. Some will start wars, others will make peace. Some people act with compassion and kindness in the names of other gods or goddesses, or even in the name of humanity with no god at all.

It could be but there would be many who would make it their purpose to stop you.
So there is no right or wrong? No objective value systems?

So it doesn't matter what we do?
It matters to the people around you.

So there is no right or wrong? No objective value systems?
If you need to beleive in a god to keep from slaughtering babies then by all means keep beleiving. Most atheists do good things because they want to live in a just society. That's enough for us.

So it doesn't matter what we do?

I don't think so. Hell I beleive if you know what you are doing, you can do whatever you want. But thats just me. Some people want to be guided and to tell you the truth I don't blame them.

So there is no right or wrong? No objective value systems?

Right and wrong are subjective. You do what you feel is right, and you generally don't do what you think is wrong. Why would you require some outside force to tell you? Is it so unlikely that you are capable of learning how to be a well-adjusted person without a mystical father figure stood over you saying "Thou Shalt Not"?

I never expected to get this much of a response

I don't think so. Hell I beleive if you know what you are doing, you can do whatever you want. But thats just me. Some people want to be guided and to tell you the truth I don't blame them. (
(emphasis mine)


But how does one know what they are doing?

I never expected to get this much of a response
But did you expect this TYPE of response?

But how does one know what they are doing?
By noting the impact their action has on the people and institutions they care about.

But did you expect this TYPE of response?

yes and no but i'm very pleased

But how does one know what they are doing?

You should be quite well aware of what you're doing. I am. I can percieve the effects of my actions, and that allows me to judge wether something I have done is right or wrong. I need nothing to tell me, for I can tell for myself.

Right and wrong are subjective. You do what you feel is right, and you generally don't do what you think is wrong. Why would you require some outside force to tell you? Is it so unlikely that you are capable of learning how to be a well-adjusted person without a mystical father figure stood over you saying "Thou Shalt Not"?

If no one told me how to live, right now I would probably. . .

a) be pregnant
b) have killed my other children
c) be so tired from hanging out here and not going to bed.
d) be stupid from not going to school.

etc. And that's just what I'd do. My life would also be changed by what others do or fail to do.

By noting the impact their action has on the people and institutions they care about.

But how does one care?

But how does one care?
It doesn't take god. Only empathy, which is found in most primates.

It is my considered opinion that what we refer to as "the divine" resides within each and every living thing.

If no one told me how to live, right now I would probably. . .

a) be pregnant
b) have killed my other children
c) be so tired from hanging out here and not going to bed.
d) be stupid from not going to school.

etc. And that's just what I'd do. My life would also be changed by what others do or fail to do.

I never said no-one would tell you how to look after yourself. That implies you would have no parents, which is unlikely. God never showed up and took me to school. I didn't attend through fear of Him. And you'd go to bed if you were tired anyway.

Why would you have massacred your kids? And why would you be pregnant if it wasn't for God? Last I heard, it was the religions that were anti-contraception

And school doesn't teach you how to think, that's what University is for. That's the problem with the system, but that's a whole other topic.

this is a stupid thread.

this is a stupid thread.

Not really, it's a theological debate. It's what people of learning have done for thousands of years. Like that well known dumbass Socrates did with his idiot pupil Plato.

That's sarcasm, by the way. It's another learned thing.

1) Prove there's no God (it cannot be done because there is no physical him so you can't say that because we can't see him he doesn't exist, in which case you might as well say that our brains don't exist because we can't see them)
2) God can be proven through how he has affected believers and non-believers.

1) i can't prove there is no god, and u can't prove that there is one. that why its called religion u silly sausage.
2)your ridiculus insignificant opinion has been noted

But how does one know what they are doing?

By being aware instead of asleep, being conscious instead of ignorant....you have to wake up.

1) i can't prove there is no god, and u can't prove that there is one. that why its called religion u silly sausage.
2)your ridiculus insignificant opinion has been noted

there in lies the problem "god" can't be seen or felt or tuched so many write him off as non existant

how can we simply dismiss what cant be "seen"

Oh, now don't start with that Matrix crap. It's too early in the day, and it's already 23:50.

It's not simply his imperceptable nature, it's the fact that I know why religion was made up in the first place, and it's now redundant and hampers society. Want me to explain?

Don't confuse the issue.

Religion has nothing to do with living.

It is an attempt to deny the reality of death. That is the only common theme for all religions.



And what is the reality of death? And how can you claim authority of knowledge, and therefore proof of that reality, when you yourself are not dead?

The refusal of religion on the grounds that it is unrealistic is as naive and crass as the rejection of atheist ideas by believers for the same reason.

It IS equally possible that god exists or does not exist. Therefore the debate is neutral and neither side of the argument can prove their side of the argument. With that in mind, it would be laughable to deny outright the possibilities offered by both sides of the argument, since they cannot even outmatch one another.

Talk of believers and people who have undergone 'Religious Experiences' is irrelevent - because they are extremely personal revelations. If I believed God existed, I would put that down to God showing himself to that particular person; if he had wished others to know the same as that person, he would have revealed himself to them as well. However, it must also be understood by believers that, in an argument between an atheist and a believer, there can be no outcome except, frankly, a violent resolution - on the grounds that neither argument can out do the other, because an atheist evidence is worthless to a believer, and vice-versa.

In short, why strain your minds trying to comprehend the divine when it is easier to accept that we'll all find out if there really is something at the end, at the end? For atheists - its not as if you get bragging rights after you're gone, is it? you'll be dead! For believers - it is against most religions to brag anyway, because its aggressive, and they mostly claim to be peaceful religions that only resort to aggression as a counter to aggression, and so on and so forth.

A more worthwhile undertaking might be to stamp out fundamentalism in all segments of religion, including atheism - because it is when these extremes meet that violence is stemmed from religion. :headbang:

If no one told me how to live, right now I would probably. . .

a) be pregnant
b) have killed my other children
c) be so tired from hanging out here and not going to bed.
d) be stupid from not going to school.

etc. And that's just what I'd do. My life would also be changed by what others do or fail to do.
So you need a big invisible father figure to keep you out of trouble?

It's not simply his imperceptable nature, it's the fact that I know why religion was made up in the first place, and it's now redundant and hampers society. Want me to explain?

Go ahead kill a jew or chriatian or whoevers religion your gonna disprove :headbang:

And what is the reality of death? And how can you claim authority of knowledge, and therefore proof of that reality, when you yourself are not dead?

The refusal of religion on the grounds that it is unrealistic is as naive and crass as the rejection of atheist ideas by believers for the same reason.

It IS equally possible that god exists or does not exist. Therefore the debate is neutral and neither side of the argument can prove their side of the argument. With that in mind, it would be laughable to deny outright the possibilities offered by both sides of the argument, since they cannot even outmatch one another.

Talk of believers and people who have undergone 'Religious Experiences' is irrelevent - because they are extremely personal revelations. If I believed God existed, I would put that down to God showing himself to that particular person; if he had wished others to know the same as that person, he would have revealed himself to them as well. However, it must also be understood by believers that, in an argument between an atheist and a believer, there can be no outcome except, frankly, a violent resolution - on the grounds that neither argument can out do the other, because an atheist evidence is worthless to a believer, and vice-versa.

In short, why strain your minds trying to comprehend the divine when it is easier to accept that we'll all find out if there really is something at the end, at the end? For atheists - its not as if you get bragging rights after you're gone, is it? you'll be dead! For believers - it is against most religions to brag anyway, because its aggressive, and they mostly claim to be peaceful religions that only resort to aggression as a counter to aggression, and so on and so forth.

A more worthwhile undertaking might be to stamp out fundamentalism in all segments of religion, including atheism - because it is when these extremes meet that violence is stemmed from religion. :headbang:

Death is what you make of it and nothing more

And school doesn't teach you how to think, that's what University is for. That's the problem with the system, but that's a whole other topic.


Agree entirely. Good point, if its anything to hear it from me :cool:

how can we simply dismiss what cant be "seen"
We couldn't dismiss him if he was only invisible, but we can't detect him in any way. What's the difference between a being that can't be detected in any way and no being at all. You can't see my pet invisible monkey who can't be touched, exerts no gravitational pull, can't be heard, and doesn't eat. Do you beleive I have such a monkey? BTW, his name is elohim.

Death is what we make it and nothing more - therefore, what right has an atheist to discount what a believer makes of his death?

Religion is the Hope that death is not the end. without hope there is no will to live one without hope is a living courps. is death the beginning or the ending :confused:

We couldn't dismiss him if he was only invisible, but we can't detect him in any way. What's the difference between a being that can't be detected in any way and no being at all. You can't see my pet invisible monkey who can't be touched, exerts no gravitational pull, can't be heard, and doesn't eat. Do you beleive I have such a monkey? BTW, his name is elohim.

say i never wrote a response would that mean i dont exist?

Religion is the Hope that death is not the end. without hope there is no will to live one without hope is a living courps. is death the beginning or the ending :confused:
I don't beleive in life after death yet I'm all right.

I don't beleive in life after death yet I'm all right.

you havent answered my question is it the end or begining

The major problem for me about religions is not only do they tell you how to live but most emphasize that they are the only way to live.

say i never wrote a response would that mean i dont exist?
No, you interact with your environment in other ways. Besides, I have seen other humans. If someone comes up to me saying that there is a human who owns a nation called Black XIII I would probably beleive him. If I wanted more proof I could look up the nation and see if it exists. Now claiming that an invisible man who makes universes and populates them with people of his own design is a much bigger stretch. It requires a lot more evidence.

you havent answered my question is it the end or begining
Death? It's the end. So what?

And what is the reality of death? And how can you claim authority of knowledge, and therefore proof of that reality, when you yourself are not dead?

You want to see the reality? Go did up a grave. check the brain, or whatever is left, for electric signatures. That's dead. No activity in the body. What you do afterwards, I don't know, but there's no reason to assume there's a God figure involved anywhere.

The refusal of religion on the grounds that it is unrealistic is as naive and crass as the rejection of atheist ideas by believers for the same reason.

No, it's not. Religion has continuously declared that certain things are 'acts of God', only for us to have discovered otherwise. I reject religion on the grounds that, since so much of 'God's' work was nothing to do with him (earthquakes, tidal waves, the weather, volcanoes), then the evidence for his exitance grows thin, and rather than being an explaination for events he himself becomes a liability, to be explained.

It IS equally possible that god exists or does not exist. Therefore the debate is neutral and neither side of the argument can prove their side of the argument. With that in mind, it would be laughable to deny outright the possibilities offered by both sides of the argument, since they cannot even outmatch one another.

In that case, you support the idea that it is ALSO equally possible that Jupiter is made of blackpool rock and has 'Jehova waz ere' written through the middle. And I contend that the religious side IS outmatched, and that is why it relies on the ludicrous argument 'you can't prove he's NOT real', or tortologous nonsense and circular arguments.

Talk of believers and people who have undergone 'Religious Experiences' is irrelevent - because they are extremely personal revelations. If I believed God existed, I would put that down to God showing himself to that particular person; if he had wished others to know the same as that person, he would have revealed himself to them as well. However, it must also be understood by believers that, in an argument between an atheist and a believer, there can be no outcome except, frankly, a violent resolution - on the grounds that neither argument can out do the other, because an atheist evidence is worthless to a believer, and vice-versa.

I contend that the believe may well crumble from outside argument due to the very absurdity of his beliefs. Also, the religious arguments can NEVER rule out the answers of other religions, since the rely on the same arguments of 'you can't prove me wrong', where as the Atheist can confidently deny all others through total lack of proof.

In short, why strain your minds trying to comprehend the divine when it is easier to accept that we'll all find out if there really is something at the end, at the end? For atheists - its not as if you get bragging rights after you're gone, is it? you'll be dead! For believers - it is against most religions to brag anyway, because its aggressive, and they mostly claim to be peaceful religions that only resort to aggression as a counter to aggression, and so on and so forth.

I do this because it fascinates me. See my remark on 'Theological debate'. Merely because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't think religion is an amazing phenomenon. I just believe it's the result of cultural development rather than divine interference,

A more worthwhile undertaking might be to stamp out fundamentalism in all segments of religion, including atheism - because it is when these extremes meet that violence is stemmed from religion. :headbang:

Possibly. How exactly do you propose we do that? We're on a damned forum.

you havent answered my question is it the end or begining
Niether....you become the stuff that stars are made of...your consciousness ends but it to is a product of various physical reactions.

No, you interact with your environment in other ways. Besides, I have seen other humans. If someone comes up to me saying that there is a human who owns a nation called Black XIII I would probably beleive him. If I wanted more proof I could look up the nation and see if it exists. Now claiming that an invisible man who makes universes and populates them with people of his own design is a much bigger stretch. It requires a lot more evidence.

but you have never seen me befor and ive never interacted with you in anyway save writing to you now. By your own words their is no proof of my existance in your own effected world

Sorry, should have used quote here, but I'm sure you'll catch on who Im replying to;

AS for detecting god, there is one significant argument that religion holds, and that is simple. Science refutes religion, on the grounds that much of what it is rooted in is either long dismantled and lost in time, irrelevent in the present, or unethical in the present.

The response is exactly the same. Religion is doubted because of its mysteries. I find it amusing then how so many atheists lay their faith in science - which above all else, consists of unsolved mysteries. Whats the difference!? To me (I am aware I'm utterly inconsequential, so kindly don't remind me D), science goes wrong exactly where it blames religion. It too is steeped in history - who knows what scientific revelations are simply big mistakes, that we have since built upon and so everything we know now is faulty? Suppose someone got it wrong?
Abstract bit coming up here; what if Newton simply was wrong? What if some things are capable of flight under particular circumstances. It is entirely possible that humans have, or had, what would be considered supernatural powers - but because of science and its narrow channeling of thoughts, and the status that has been accredited to it, I now sound like a madman for the mere implication that humans posess supernatural powers. I ask; if science is entirely correct, then how is it that we are able to invent? From a scientific persective, it was ridiculous that a machine could fly - then we flew in aeroplanes.
I am aware that it is indeed science that enables us to construct such machines. However, science as a faith is as narrow and faulty as it is claimed religions are by atheists. It might be less rash to regard science as a tool to be wielded, rather than a set of laws to be bound by.

but you have never seen me befor and ive never interacted with you in anyway save writing to you now. By your own words their is no proof of my existance in your own effected world
Read the whole post.

Also just because I haven't heard of you someone else has. They could show me a picture.

Death? It's the end. So what?

you cant prove that so your answer dosent hold.

Sorry, should have used quote here, but I'm sure you'll catch on who Im replying to;

AS for detecting god, there is one significant argument that religion holds, and that is simple. Science refutes religion, on the grounds that much of what it is rooted in is either long dismantled and lost in time, irrelevent in the present, or unethical in the present.

The response is exactly the same. Religion is doubted because of its mysteries. I find it amusing then how so many atheists lay their faith in science - which above all else, consists of unsolved mysteries. Whats the difference!? To me (I am aware I'm utterly inconsequential, so kindly don't remind me D), science goes wrong exactly where it blames religion. It too is steeped in history - who knows what scientific revelations are simply big mistakes, that we have since built upon and so everything we know now is faulty? Suppose someone got it wrong?
Abstract bit coming up here; what if Newton simply was wrong? What if some things are capable of flight under particular circumstances. It is entirely possible that humans have, or had, what would be considered supernatural powers - but because of science and its narrow channeling of thoughts, and the status that has been accredited to it, I now sound like a madman for the mere implication that humans posess supernatural powers. I ask; if science is entirely correct, then how is it that we are able to invent? From a scientific persective, it was ridiculous that a machine could fly - then we flew in aeroplanes.
I am aware that it is indeed science that enables us to construct such machines. However, science as a faith is as narrow and faulty as it is claimed religions are by atheists. It might be less rash to regard science as a tool to be wielded, rather than a set of laws to be bound by.


This would be a marvellous point, but for one thing. Science DOES go back and look at other's work. As nothing in science is sacred (to GOOD scientists), people have gone back and change it. Newton, your example, was wrong. Not massively, but he was. So was Einstein.

Hence, science doesn't act as a faith. It revises, it changes, and it is self-critical. Religions are not. Any criticism is declared blasphemy, and becomes outlawed. This insecurity of itself is another major reason I doubt religion.

The major problem for me about religions is not only do they tell you how to live but most emphasize that they are the only way to live.

absolutely - ask any religious authority - be it bishop, imam, or any of the others that I can't really think of - they'll tell you that it is incorrect to believe in any other faith than their own. If it were categorically proven that god by christian definition exists, I could still not place my allegiance to him if he maintained such a law. If he created me, he gave me free will - and therefore choice, and subsequnetly loyalty, faith, etc are all our prerogatives.

Sorry, should have used quote here, but I'm sure you'll catch on who Im replying to;

AS for detecting god, there is one significant argument that religion holds, and that is simple. Science refutes religion, on the grounds that much of what it is rooted in is either long dismantled and lost in time, irrelevent in the present, or unethical in the present.

The response is exactly the same. Religion is doubted because of its mysteries. I find it amusing then how so many atheists lay their faith in science - which above all else, consists of unsolved mysteries. Whats the difference!? To me (I am aware I'm utterly inconsequential, so kindly don't remind me D), science goes wrong exactly where it blames religion. It too is steeped in history - who knows what scientific revelations are simply big mistakes, that we have since built upon and so everything we know now is faulty? Suppose someone got it wrong?
Abstract bit coming up here; what if Newton simply was wrong? What if some things are capable of flight under particular circumstances. It is entirely possible that humans have, or had, what would be considered supernatural powers - but because of science and its narrow channeling of thoughts, and the status that has been accredited to it, I now sound like a madman for the mere implication that humans posess supernatural powers. I ask; if science is entirely correct, then how is it that we are able to invent? From a scientific persective, it was ridiculous that a machine could fly - then we flew in aeroplanes.
I am aware that it is indeed science that enables us to construct such machines. However, science as a faith is as narrow and faulty as it is claimed religions are by atheists. It might be less rash to regard science as a tool to be wielded, rather than a set of laws to be bound by.
Science is a method of studying the world around us. Many scientists have been wrong. The errors are corrected. Religion has no error correcting mechanism like science does. You claim that science doesn't study supernatural powers in humans. It does. Think of all the experiments done on precognition and telekenisis. The problem is that when good double blind studies are done no evidence of such supernatural powers shows up. We can be fairly certain they don't exist. Science never claims absolute certainty (religion does). The claims of science lie on a scale between 10 (absolutely true) and 0 (absolutely false). Some things have been proven to 9.999999 accuracy. We would be fools to toss them away. Some things have been disproven to .00000001 accuracy. We would be fools to accept them.

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated

My goodness why would any one start a search for the devine on these message boards.. this is about the most atheistic anti-religious group of people i've ever seen..

If you want to learn about God, try going to a good evangelical church nearby..
thats where I'd start.

you cant prove that so your answer dosent hold.
I can point to the fact that people who claim to contact the dead never come up with data that couldn't be gotten by a good cold reader.

This would be a marvellous point, but for one thing. Science DOES go back and look at other's work. As nothing in science is sacred (to GOOD scientists), people have gone back and change it. Newton, your example, was wrong. Not massively, but he was. So was Einstein.

Hence, science doesn't act as a faith. It revises, it changes, and it is self-critical. Religions are not. Any criticism is declared blasphemy, and becomes outlawed. This insecurity of itself is another major reason I doubt religion.


Uncounterable, at least by my (admittedly addled by computer-gaming) mind.

Now to convince idiot fundamentalists that its ok to be rational in the name of their deity. But I'm off now folks - twas an excellent debate for the short while I latched onto it. Cherrio.

Read the whole post.

Also just because I haven't heard of you someone else has. They could show me a picture.

Allow me to delve deeper into this debate. until tonight you have had no contact with me. neither has anyone here. your world has not been influanced by me in any way. But you are still willing to belive that i exist correct? why then are you unwilling to accept that god exists? must you have tangable proof that he exists to know he's there? your willing to accept that i exist. Why not god. if i may change the subject a bit do you belive in Aliens?

I can point to the fact that people who claim to contact the dead never come up with data that couldn't be gotten by a good cold reader.

that fact we both agree on

I have to go. I've been here 20 minutes longer than I should have. Good night all.

My goodness why would any one start a search for the devine on these message boards.. this is about the most atheistic anti-religious group of people i've ever seen..

If you want to learn about God, try going to a good evangelical church nearby..
thats where I'd start.


We're not that bad. It's just that the religious element can't compete. Go figure.

And as for going to a church, why not try a Mosque instead? Or a University, and learn some science, hanging out with Atheists?

I have to go. I've been here 20 minutes longer than I should have. Good night all.

see ya

We're not that bad. It's just that the religious element can't compete. Go figure.

And as for going to a church, why not try a Mosque instead? Or a University, and learn some science, hanging out with Atheists?

explaine how the religious element cant compete with science

Allow me to delve deeper into this debate. until tonight you have had no contact with me. neither has anyone here. your world has not been influanced by me in any way. But you are still willing to belive that i exist correct? why then are you unwilling to accept that god exists? must you have tangable proof that he exists to know he's there? your willing to accept that i exist. Why not god. if i may change the subject a bit do you belive in Aliens?


Looks like it's just us now.

I do believe in the possiblity of Aliens, but not all-powerful ones that created everything and control the universe and life and death.

We acept your existance because you are writting to us. God, it must be noted, hasn't posted here for quite a while. We can chat about existentialism for a while, if you like. I've a degree in philosphy, and while I can't prove I or you exist, there is considerably more burden of proof to support the pair of us than there is for God.

And even if we use common sense, which is far more useful than Existentialist philosophy, God becomes no more likely than before where as we become certainties.

explaine how the religious element cant compete with science


It was sarcasm. My sig isn't working.

I can run out a full discourse on why religion is unlikely to be theologically correct but may be culturaly vital, if you like. It's very long, but it's pretty convincing stuff.

Looks like it's just us now.

I do believe in the possiblity of Aliens, but not all-powerful ones that created everything and control the universe and life and death.

We acept your existance because you are writting to us. God, it must be noted, hasn't posted here for quite a while. We can chat about existentialism for a while, if you like. I've a degree in philosphy, and while I can't prove I or you exist, there is considerably more burden of proof to support the pair of us than there is for God.

And even if we use common sense, which is far more useful than Existentialist philosophy, God becomes no more likely than before where as we become certainties.

yesh im feelin kinda out classed right now. i havent even goten out of high school yet. but im willin to take a crak at it

It was sarcasm. My sig isn't working.

I can run out a full discourse on why religion is unlikely to be theologically correct but may be culturaly vital, if you like. It's very long, but it's pretty convincing stuff.

i listen to almost anythin fire away! it's funner than government hw

Don't feel outclassed. We're not fighting.

I'm writing the reply in another window, but it'll take me about twenty minutes. If you've got any other replies or anything, I'll keep an eye out in a spare window.

take your time im in no hurry :headbang:

be back shortly

my times up i'll check back tommrow thanks for the insight
<<(+)>>

okey dokey

okey dokey
maybe he should become a Scientologist

There have been numerous religions throught history, some of which have survived, some of which have not. I doubt if many today still worship Zeus, Mithras, Isis, or Huitzlopochtli (the supreme deity of the Aztecs associated with sun and fire) anymore.

And yet all religions claim that they alone possess ultimate truth.

Therefore, at least some of them have to be wrong, and merely the inventions of mankind.

If that is the case, then quite possibly all are mere inventions.

Why invent a god or gods? Denial of mortality features in all. The control of nature is common, with practices to ensure the seasons continue or the sun is "reborn" each day. And manipulation of fellow mankind is a wonderful little bonus.

Religion as a tool of State.


The main reason I think religion is incorrect is because it was originally designed as a tool of the state, as opposed to a crutch for the people. The initial religions, dating from around 40,000 years ago, were essentially designed around the idea of semi-divine God-Emperors, rulers who reaper the rewards of their people's work, and in order to protect them from the wrath of their followers their priestly classes developed the idea that these kings were actually Gods. Hence, religion was originally designed around the concept of social order.

Later, it became impractical to hold to this. The God-Emperors could not control the fate of their people, and they could not ensure the success of the harvest. It became more useful to have a devine figure who could NEVER be held to account for 'his' actions. Here, religion moved away from being the tool of the 'God', and thus the king loses a great deal of power to the priesthood. It's never been properly taken back.

At this point, suddenly there are lots of Gods. Polytheseim becomes commonplace, and anything that cannot be explained is given its own God. Volcanoes? They're angry Gods. Earthquake? You have angered the Gods beneath the ground.

Now, why this moved on to monothesiastical religion is not completely clear. It was probably due to the internal power struggles between the priests of various Gods, and so a single, all-powerful being had to be designed. He was responsible for everything that was not understood, he must have made the world because, well, who else did? Humans make things. Therefore, they assume that anything that exists has been deliberately designed and made. Who did it? God!

The priesthood consolidates. With monotheseim, divine bickering was impossible, and so the church forms a single voice (It might be worth noting here that what non-biblical evidence we have of Jesus suggests he was very firmly anti-religion, as does some of the Bible itself, so possibly he was standing against this, and would probably be disgusted by the Church Peter spawned in his name). This is the common ancestor of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

Freed from it's restrictions as a tool, religion quickly begins to act as a state in it's own right. It acts independently, collects its own tithes, and is no longer restricted to remaining with a single 'host' nation. It is, therefore, vital to indoctrinate as early as possible. The religions go to it with gusto.

Now, we can find out what causes things, so religion switches it's defence. As opposed to claiming God is proof for events, God himself is the event that must be proven. The Church turns and demands proof of his non-existence, which is naturally impossible (you cannot conclusively prove that anything DOESN'T exist. Not existing doesn't leave proof. It's just a silly argument.). Hence, religion defends itself against a rising tide of disbelief. The population can, for the most part, afford to live comfortable lives, and no longer really need the 'carrot on a stick' of heaven to prevent the uprising. The ranks of acts previously laid at God's door shrink away as Science provides new answers.

Blind Faith is all God has left.


Disclaimer: I've not been alive for 40,000 years, so this is, admittedly, mainly theory and deduction, with archealogical remains providing the early part of the story. However, I have studied Theology, Sociology and Philosophy extensively, and these are my conclusions.

Why invent a god or gods?

Because we are conscious of our impending death and thereforelive in constant fear of something, we don't want to name this something for what it real is , so we call it God.

The denial of mortality is far more a sweetner to draw in potential worshipers than any major tenant. It was bait, rather than a serious part.

I'm tossing up whether to define religion as
1. The search for spiritual meaning in an otherwise meaningless life
2. The ultimate scapegoat for events you don't like

Scapegoat, definately. Anything you don't understand, rather than don't like.

Please please please someone read that damned post on the last page. It took me nearly an hour to write.

Best advice I can give is: Don't search too hard. You'll get frustrated and try to find the most comfortable ideas to conform to, rather than forming your own.

And read as much philosophy as you do religion.

Oh, and shameless promotion: look into the Tao Te Ching. Even if you don't use it as a holy text or anything, its nonexclusive and focuses more on living than dying. Just overall good advice in it.

Please please please someone read that damned post on the last page. It took me nearly an hour to write.
It's nice. You should write historical fiction for a living.

Please please please someone read that damned post on the last page. It took me nearly an hour to write.

Oh, you poor thing.

O.K. I read it.

There, happy now?

Seriously, yeah, we are basically in agreement. As you would know if you read other people's posts.

I do write for a living. That's how I know all this crap.

And the over-long lecture is for the benefit of our religious chums, who will undoubtedly come back tomorrow and start with the old "prove me wrong" argument.

I agree with you :) Although to quibble a little I'm more inclined to think that people started out worshipping the moon and sun, then gave them names, then religion became more sophisticated with the addition of other deities for the harvest, rivers, etc, then shifted its focus to mouthpieces of the gods.. Were you including the religion of people before cities became established? i.e. Neanderthals and cave-dwellers? because I think the whole King-as-Deity would definitely have to be part of an established civilisation.

I agree with you :) Although to quibble a little I'm more inclined to think that people started out worshipping the moon and sun, then gave them names, then religion became more sophisticated with the addition of other deities for the harvest, rivers, etc, then shifted its focus to mouthpieces of the gods.. Were you including the religion of people before cities became established? i.e. Neanderthals and cave-dwellers? because I think the whole King-as-Deity would definitely have to be part of an established civilisation.

The moon and the sun were adopted once people became truly aware of them, a bit later on. The sun was often associated with the God-king figures. It was the whole 'unexplained events' aspect.

Religion, art and technology all started with 'The great leap forward', some 40,000 years ago (creationists, cover your ears now. Most of this happens 20,000 years before you even believe the Earth was created). Neanderthals were certainly alive back then, but I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, they worshiped. There's no surviving culture to analysis from, and they had no system of writing.

The oldest city found so far is about 25,000 years old, near Istanbul. It's certainly outdated by religions of one form or another; it had reach the stage of idolatory religion, worshiping (mainly)a big black bull if I remember. There will almost certainly have been earlier conabations, but I'd say religion came before cities.

This leads on to the conclusion that, without religion, civilisation could not have truly formed. Imagine God, if you will, as a kind of species-wide Santa Claus, and when the species reaches a certain age, you can tell it he's not real. Unfortunately, there's no one here to tell us.

I also agree with you that religion came before cities - and the bull strikes a chord somewhere that I can't quite place. I studied ancient history and I know that early religions commonly worshipped the bull but since you sound like you know a lot more on the topic than me I'll accept what you say :) and cheerfully admit that I'm out of my league since I specialised in culture and warfare, not religion.

Believe it or not, my area's meant to be philosophy. It's just that you get so much damned religion in philosophy that you wind up learning about both in order to make an argument.

I studied the history and philosphy of science, and ended up having to write an essay and perform a debate on Plato's Creator vs Augustine's God - i.e. the merits of their respective religions. Urgh.
Luckily I was on Plato's side.

You can usually rely on Plato. Lecturers are scared of him. You can't really turn around and say he was a beardy fool, can you?

Abstract bit coming up here; what if Newton simply was wrong? What if some things are capable of flight under particular circumstances.

I am not going to put faith into this by standing under a falling piano. Empirics tell me i am going to end up hurt or dead. As every object not supported by some means fell down in every observation. Of course there is no real proof for that, but it seems rather good advice nonetheless to go out the path of falling heavy objects. On the other hand, using guidelines for your life that serve no other purpose than achieving a special status in the case that there is an afterlife of exactly the way your denomination describes it, is putting faith into something that never was observed.
Both boil down to questions of faith, but i know where i place my bet.
I, know, the question will arise if those religious guidelines dont serve the purpose of bettering human relationships as well, to this i mostly agree. But you dont need to follow a specific faith in order to accept them as valuable.
Who is the better man, the one who is kind to his neighbour in order to reap heavenly benefit, the one who does so out of fear of divine repercussion, or the one who thinks it is the right thing to do, because this graspable world is nicer that way?

your post on the last page was quite intresting but I must point out that the first recorded religion was the jewish religion which was and is monotheistic

your post on the last page was quite intresting but I must point out that the first recorded religion was the jewish religion which was and is monotheistic

Nice point, except it's completely factually inaccurate in absolutely every particular. Judism is 6000 years old. Hinuism is older than that, and Babylonian religions (on which Judaism is based) are older still. Not to mention all the pagan religions.

Religion definitely dates back to ceremonial burial, which predates writing and is generally considered to have been about 40,000 years years ago.

I suggest you search the web for any mention of the "great leap forward".

There also has been no mention made of the australian aborigines, a population that has existed for around 60,000 years. Of course there is an argument as to whether they have "religion" per se, or merely have a spiritual culture.

That being said, Nasopotamia is correct when he says that Hinduism is older than Judaism by some margin. I'm sure a quick google search will reveal a chronology.

Right and wrong are subjective. You do what you feel is right, and you generally don't do what you think is wrong. Why would you require some outside force to tell you? Is it so unlikely that you are capable of learning how to be a well-adjusted person without a mystical father figure stood over you saying "Thou Shalt Not"?

If you think about it, the culture in which you're brought up is ultimately the very "mystical father figure" you're speaking of. Regardless of religion, we all have worldviews based on our cultural inculcation. In fact, based on this very inculcation we assume certain things to be true and certain things to be false, upon cultural presupposition.

In other words, culture is ultimately the all-pervasive influence that guides and in some ways dictates our actions. In this manner our very upbringing is like a religious institution.

1 It's up to the one making the positive statement to provide proof. For instance, I can say you killed a guy back in 1983. You would have a tough time accounting for every moment of every day to prove that you didn't. The burden of proof would lie with me to provide evidence that you did in fact kill some guy.

2 I challenge you to show me one verifiable instance where you can prove god acted on someone rather than a natural force. I know this is coming late, but:

1] "There is no God" - is that a positive statement? "There is" is a positive part, and you are trying to prove an opinion - so both sides are positive arguments.

2] Stigmata.

I know this is coming late, but:

1] "There is no God" - is that a positive statement? "There is" is a positive part, and you are trying to prove an opinion - so both sides are positive arguments.

2] Stigmata.

1] No, "There is no God" is NOT a positive statement. If it had read " There is a God" that would have been a positive statement. Let me spell it out for you:

"There is no" = Negative

2] Stigmata. Please provide the evidence, the proof that any instance of stigmata anywhere, has been conclusively proven to be as a result of God acting on them.

1] "There is no God" - is that a positive statement? "There is" is a positive part, and you are trying to prove an opinion - so both sides are positive arguments.

2] Stigmata.


1] No, it's not a positive statement. It contains 'no', which is quite well known for being negative.
Also, proving non-existence is a stupid system. You can't prove non-existence. Something not being there doesn't leave proof it's not there. Something being there does leave proof. Therefore, lack of proof = not there.

If I said I was son of God, would you believe me until I was proven wrong?


2] Humans can 'think' themselves ill, and this can manifest in actually physical injury. Aborigines can think themselves to death.

If you think about it, the culture in which you're brought up is ultimately the very "mystical father figure" you're speaking of. Regardless of religion, we all have worldviews based on our cultural inculcation. In fact, based on this very inculcation we assume certain things to be true and certain things to be false, upon cultural presupposition.

In other words, culture is ultimately the all-pervasive influence that guides and in some ways dictates our actions. In this manner our very upbringing is like a religious institution.

In many ways, yes. Culture could be considered like that. Religion is the guise culture wears to adopt the 'father-figure', and therein acts as the tool of state which encourages its people to follow the laws. It all goes wrong when religion starts setting up it's own laws and stops adopting those of State.

And even so, it still means that the entire 'God' story is a load of hogwash. It's a vast white lie, well-meant (at least initially), which swiftly got out of hand.

your post on the last page was quite intresting but I must point out that the first recorded religion was the jewish religion which was and is monotheistic

Another detail you seem unaware of, is that Judaism was originally polytheistic before the Cult of Yahweh overtook the Israelite culture. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Yahweh itself was originally female instead of male (this will undoubtedly ruffle the feathers of a few fundies who come to these forums, LOL).

Allow me to delve deeper into this debate. until tonight you have had no contact with me. neither has anyone here. your world has not been influanced by me in any way. But you are still willing to belive that i exist correct? why then are you unwilling to accept that god exists? must you have tangable proof that he exists to know he's there? your willing to accept that i exist. Why not god. if i may change the subject a bit do you belive in Aliens?
It's much easier to accept the existance of one human than to accept the existance of a being that violates physical laws. We have six billion humans on this planet. One more is no stretch of the imagination. An invisible being who creates universes and designs life is hard to beleive without a lot of extra evidence. I don't know if Aliens exist. Life exists on this planet, it's possible that it exists elsewhere, but I don't know. Let's say I'm agnostic on aliens.

explaine how the religious element cant compete with science
Science is self-correcting. Science collects the evidence, ALL the evidence, then makes a statement that fits all the available evidence. Religion starts with a beleif and then picks and chooses evidence to fit it. All contradictory evidence is explained away by "God works in mysterious ways". If you want to learn something about the universe around you had better ask a scientist not a preacher.

The moon and the sun were adopted once people became truly aware of them, a bit later on. The sun was often associated with the God-king figures. It was the whole 'unexplained events' aspect.

Religion, art and technology all started with 'The great leap forward', some 40,000 years ago (creationists, cover your ears now. Most of this happens 20,000 years before you even believe the Earth was created). Neanderthals were certainly alive back then, but I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, they worshiped. There's no surviving culture to analysis from, and they had no system of writing.

The oldest city found so far is about 25,000 years old, near Istanbul. It's certainly outdated by religions of one form or another; it had reach the stage of idolatory religion, worshiping (mainly)a big black bull if I remember. There will almost certainly have been earlier conabations, but I'd say religion came before cities.

This leads on to the conclusion that, without religion, civilisation could not have truly formed. Imagine God, if you will, as a kind of species-wide Santa Claus, and when the species reaches a certain age, you can tell it he's not real. Unfortunately, there's no one here to tell us.
How about tribal shamans? Perhaps religion started with them as early humans with little technology tried to make sense of and control their environment. To people with no science things like disease, dreams and lightning must have seemed divine.

Another detail you seem unaware of, is that Judaism was originally polytheistic before the Cult of Yahweh overtook the Israelite culture. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Yahweh itself was originally female instead of male (this will undoubtedly ruffle the feathers of a few fundies who come to these forums, LOL).

you are the one that is miss informed i have had extensive studies of Judaism the so called pollythesim aspect is completly false. In Judaism there are many names for the one same god. And Yahweh is not a female name it is one of athority

your post on the last page was quite intresting but I must point out that the first recorded religion was the jewish religion which was and is monotheistic
Actually the greeks and norse people kept records of their gods. So did the Babylonians. If you want to stretch it a little you could say the cave paintings in Lascaeux (I appologize for the spelling) could be a record of ancient shamanic religions of Cro Magnon man.

How about tribal shamans? Perhaps religion started with them as early humans with little technology tried to make sense of and control their environment. To people with no science things like disease, dreams and lightning must have seemed divine.

Covered with 'unexplained events'. Also note that early tribal shamans may not have been considered 'priests', or have any concept of 'religion' as we term it here. They simply learned what mushrooms gave you the visions, and which ones killed you, and they chose the appropriate leader for the group.

The spiritual side came later.

Science is self-correcting. Science collects the evidence, ALL the evidence, then makes a statement that fits all the available evidence. Religion starts with a beleif and then picks and chooses evidence to fit it. All contradictory evidence is explained away by "God works in mysterious ways". If you want to learn something about the universe around you had better ask a scientist not a preacher.

science proves much of religion. i am blessed by having a fair grasp of sevral feilds of science and religion. I may not be as informed as others in either feiled but i know enough to find paterns that are similar in bot feilds an example being that at one point there was a great flood that covered much of the earth the bible and geologist both make similar claims

you are the one that is miss informed i have had extensive studies of Judaism the so called pollythesim aspect is completly false. In Judaism there are many names for the one same god. And Yahweh is not a female name it is one of athority

It's hard to call either way, but Judaism definately draws a great deal on Babylonian roots. Babylon had a pantheon and later became monothesiastical, before Judaism semi-stole their ideas and creatonist myths.

Actually the greeks and norse people kept records of their gods. So did the Babylonians. If you want to stretch it a little you could say the cave paintings in Lascaeux (I appologize for the spelling) could be a record of ancient shamanic religions of Cro Magnon man.

that was sevral thousand years after the jews kept their records and the cave paintings cant be interpreted well enough to say they have any religious porpous

science proves much of religion. i am blessed by having a fair grasp of sevral feilds of science and religion. I may not be as informed as others in either feiled but i know enough to find paterns that are similar in bot feilds an example being that at one point there was a great flood that covered much of the earth the bible and geologist both make similar claims


You do find similar patterns, mainly in the results. However, the religious reasoning is that you look at the result and pretty much make up a reason God did it, while the scientific answer is to look into what actually causes these things by weighing up evidence and applying knowledge.

that was sevral thousand years after the jews kept their records and the cave paintings cant be interpreted well enough to say they have any religious porpous

But ceremonial burial weapons show a clear indication of a belief in an 'afterlife', and date from over 30,000 years prior to Judaism. And remembe the Babylonians.

Also, greek religions date back around four to six thousand years, and proto-Norse ideas may be even older. They had little in the way of records.

Regardless of all this, Judaism is definately NOT the oldest religion.

listen all you atheists and religious nuts who posted to this... Who cares what religion your in as long as you BELIEVE! thats the diffrence if you believe who cares if your catholic, prodestant, hindu, muslim. If you believe in God than you are one step above the religious nuts who care what reglion your in (so they can gain a profit) and one step above the atheists who can't understand faith (aka why divorce in the US is so high not that I'm blaming just saying due to the idea the moronic children of this nation followed your lead.) If you believe thats great I pray in my own way even though I am catholic I pray mostly in private, have I ever talked to God yes. Has God ever answered me, yes sometimes but don't expect what you want but what you need.

I am Truly sorry if I have offended anyone,

Joseph Smirl age 18 studied in religions 13 years

I know this is coming late, but:

1] "There is no God" - is that a positive statement? "There is" is a positive part, and you are trying to prove an opinion - so both sides are positive arguments.

2] Stigmata.
1 And no is the negative part. It's like going into court and the burden of proof being shifted onto the defendant. It isn't fair, so it isn't done.

2 Why can't stigmata be faked? Has there been a case where stigmata have been proven to occur by supernatural means rather than human means? Please provide a link or a reference.

science proves much of religion. i am blessed by having a fair grasp of sevral feilds of science and religion. I may not be as informed as others in either feiled but i know enough to find paterns that are similar in bot feilds an example being that at one point there was a great flood that covered much of the earth the bible and geologist both make similar claims
I haven't read about any "great flood that covered much of the earth" in any science book. I have read that much of the earth was covered in warm shallow seas once, but that was in the time of trilobites and such. No humans around then, and it wasn't a sudden flood. It was just the shape of the earth at that time, stable that way for quite some time.

that was sevral thousand years after the jews kept their records and the cave paintings cant be interpreted well enough to say they have any religious porpous
Perhaps the norse were, but the Babylonians? and the Greek pantheon is pretty old. I'm not completely sure if it predates Judaism, but it goes back to the early bronze age, Making it at least as old.

listen all you atheists and religious nuts who posted to this... Who cares what religion your in as long as you BELIEVE! thats the diffrence if you believe who cares if your catholic, prodestant, hindu, muslim. If you believe in God than you are one step above the religious nuts who care what reglion your in (so they can gain a profit) and one step above the atheists who can't understand faith (aka why divorce in the US is so high not that I'm blaming just saying due to the idea the moronic children of this nation followed your lead.) If you believe thats great I pray in my own way even though I am catholic I pray mostly in private, have I ever talked to God yes. Has God ever answered me, yes sometimes but don't expect what you want but what you need.

What is the importance of blind faith? why is it so important to make up a God to put your faith in? Are you frightened of being alone, so you need a constant imaginary friend to hold your hand?

The US is far more religious than most Western European countries, which all have lower divorce rates.

What form did this reply from God take? Also note that I get what I need without needing to pray to a bedtime story.

I am Truly sorry if I have offended anyone,

That's OK, as long as I can claim to be 'one step ahead' of weak individuals like yourself who need a master figure to keep from doing idiotic things, rather than common sense like your clear superiors the Atheists.

What pisses me off most about your obsequious little post is this assumtion that you are somehow 'better off' than I am because you can't handle life without a crutch. Personally, I think I'm better because I can use birth control rather than breeding like a fucking rabbit. Or worse, a catholic.

Joseph Smirl age 18 studied in religions 13 years

Are you sure you mean 'studied' and not 'indoctrinated'? How much do you know about any religion other than your own?

I can study religions because I have an objective view point; I stand outside them and observe. Your view is entirely subjective, and your studies will always involve carefully altering your results to fit your faith.

listen all you atheists and religious nuts who posted to this... Who cares what religion your in as long as you BELIEVE! thats the diffrence if you believe who cares if your catholic, prodestant, hindu, muslim. If you believe in God than you are one step above the religious nuts who care what reglion your in (so they can gain a profit) and one step above the atheists who can't understand faith (aka why divorce in the US is so high not that I'm blaming just saying due to the idea the moronic children of this nation followed your lead.) If you believe thats great I pray in my own way even though I am catholic I pray mostly in private, have I ever talked to God yes. Has God ever answered me, yes sometimes but don't expect what you want but what you need.

I am Truly sorry if I have offended anyone,

Joseph Smirl age 18 studied in religions 13 years
What good is it to beleive in something that has no evidence to support it and can't even be demonstrated to interact with the real world? Atheists are not the cause of high divorce rates. In fact, the Northeastern US, the most atheist part, has lower divorce rates than the Southeast, which is the buckle of the bible belt.

I haven't read about any "great flood that covered much of the earth" in any science book. I have read that much of the earth was covered in warm shallow seas once, but that was in the time of trilobites and such. No humans around then, and it wasn't a sudden flood. It was just the shape of the earth at that time, stable that way for quite some time.

A common missconception is that the earth is millions of years old. Tf that were true there would be sevral problems with the current earth situation.
1) There would be considerably more oxagen in the air
2)the atom halos that are found in the middle crust of the earth would be found much deeper than they are now or they wouldn't have been found at all.
3)carbon dating is only accurate to a couple of hundread back and is easly messed up

A common missconception is that the earth is millions of years old. Tf that were true there would be sevral problems with the current earth situation.
1) There would be considerably more oxagen in the air
2)the atom halos that are found in the middle crust of the earth would be found much deeper than they are now or they wouldn't have been found at all.
3)carbon dating is only accurate to a couple of hundread back and is easly messed up
Actually it's billions of years old.
1 No, Oxygen is used up as it is produced. Plants and agae produce O2 from CO2, animals and fire use O2 and spit out Co2.
2 Don't know about atom halos, can't answer this one.
3 There are many forms of radioisotope dating. Carbon is only one. BTW it's good into the many thousands of years back.

Have you been reading creationist books and mistaking them for science?

But ceremonial burial weapons show a clear indication of a belief in an 'afterlife', and date from over 30,000 years prior to Judaism. And remembe the Babylonians.

Also, greek religions date back around four to six thousand years, and proto-Norse ideas may be even older. They had little in the way of records.

Regardless of all this, Judaism is definately NOT the oldest religion.

I never said that it was i mearly stated that it was the oldest recorded religion

A common missconception is that the earth is millions of years old. Tf that were true there would be sevral problems with the current earth situation.
1) There would be considerably more oxagen in the air
2)the atom halos that are found in the middle crust of the earth would be found much deeper than they are now or they wouldn't have been found at all.
3)carbon dating is only accurate to a couple of hundread back and is easly messed up
Alright I see you don’t know actual carbon dating metods

Here is a REALLY simplified accuracy chart


Carbon 14 … 50-60 k years
Potassium 40 … 13 billion years (halflife of 1.3 billion)
Uranium – 236 … 7 billion years (halflife of 704 million years)
Uranium -238 45 billion years (half life of 4.5 billion)
And it goes on from there with thorium and rubidium with a halflife of 49 billion years)

I never said that it was i mearly stated that it was the oldest recorded religion
The Babylonians kept records. So did the ancient Greeks.

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated

God never leaves His people alone. He sends Messengers to give people principles and laws to live by. In the past Moses, Budhha, Jesus, Mohammed and today Baha'u'llah have been sent to humanity. Try this site for more info.

http://www.us.bahai.org/

God never leaves His people alone. He sends Messengers to give people principles and laws to live by. In the past Moses, Budhha, Jesus, Mohammed and today Baha'u'llah have been sent to humanity. Try this site for more info.

http://www.us.bahai.org/
If all the religions were like Baha'i we wouldn't have as much to argue about here in NS General.

Actually it's billions of years old.
1 No, Oxygen is used up as it is produced. Plants and agae produce O2 from CO2, animals and fire use O2 and spit out Co2.
2 Don't know about atom halos, can't answer this one.
3 There are many forms of radioisotope dating. Carbon is only one. BTW it's good into the many thousands of years back.

Have you been reading creationist books and mistaking them for science?

Nothing much to add to this, other than mentioning the fossil record. It's many millions of years old, and so if the world was only a few thousand years, then these would all have existed prior to the planet. It's a novel reason for the dinosaurs dying out, but not a very realistic one.

Also, plants use Oxygen AND carbon dioxide, as the respire at night and photosynthesise during the day. This sorts out the discrepancy, but for some reason never gets mentioned by creationists.

Nothing much to add to this, other than mentioning the fossil record. It's many millions of years old, and so if the world was only a few thousand years, then these would all have existed prior to the planet. It's a novel reason for the dinosaurs dying out, but not a very realistic one.

Also, plants use Oxygen AND carbon dioxide, as the respire at night and photosynthesise during the day. This sorts out the discrepancy, but for some reason never gets mentioned by creationists.
Also, if humas existed at the same time as dinosaurs why don't we find human remains and tools mixed in with dinosaur fossils?

Actually it's billions of years old.
1 No, Oxygen is used up as it is produced. Plants and agae produce O2 from CO2, animals and fire use O2 and spit out Co2.
2 Don't know about atom halos, can't answer this one.
3 There are many forms of radioisotope dating. Carbon is only one. BTW it's good into the many thousands of years back.

Have you been reading creationist books and mistaking them for science?

I was taught these things by an atheist
1)it is proven that the air we breath is increasing i its oxagen content. there are also other factors that add to the rising amout of oxagen. but i feel that you have miss interpreted or i failed to make my case clear it is not the amout of oxagen but the precent of the breathable air.
2) an atom halo is whats left of an element that has a half life of about 2.65 seconds these elements were found in abondance when the earth was first created.
3) all raidoactive dating methods are effective to about 5,000 then they start to fail some do last a good bit longer but none of them are effective past 15,000 years

I was taught these things by an atheist
1)it is proven that the air we breath is increasing i its oxagen content. there are also other factors that add to the rising amout of oxagen. but i feel that you have miss interpreted or i failed to make my case clear it is not the amout of oxagen but the precent of the breathable air.
2) an atom halo is whats left of an element that has a half life of about 2.65 seconds these elements were found in abondance when the earth was first created.
3) all raidoactive dating methods are effective to about 5,000 then they start to fail some do last a good bit longer but none of them are effective past 15,000 years
Here incase you did not understand the first time


Alright I see you don’t know actual carbon dating metods

Here is a REALLY simplified accuracy chart


Carbon 14 … 50-60 k years
Potassium 40 … 13 billion years (halflife of 1.3 billion)
Uranium – 236 … 7 billion years (halflife of 704 million years)
Uranium -238 45 billion years (half life of 4.5 billion)
And it goes on from there with thorium and rubidium with a halflife of 49 billion years)

Also, if humas existed at the same time as dinosaurs why don't we find human remains and tools mixed in with dinosaur fossils?

that would be most easly explained by the cataclysm theory

I never said that it was i mearly stated that it was the oldest recorded religion

Again incorrect, as various strnds of Hinduism are old and have records, as did Babylon, Greece and various others. Note that the early Chinese had religions too.

Also, who gives a toss if it's the oldest RECORDED one? What does that matter in the slightest? Records are utterly unimportant in the context of the discussion we were having. You claimed that Judaism was the oldest religion and is monothesiastical. It's not the oldest and it's based on a previously polythesiastical religion that preceeded it entirely. Records are as irrelevant to this as whether or not they let followers eat fish.

Here incase you did not understand the first time

those dates are very much incorrsct go ask someone with extensive knowalage of how the principle realy works.

we can argue about this until the second comming but it won't change much

I was taught these things by an atheist
1)it is proven that the air we breath is increasing i its oxagen content. there are also other factors that add to the rising amout of oxagen. but i feel that you have miss interpreted or i failed to make my case clear it is not the amout of oxagen but the precent of the breathable air.
2) an atom halo is whats left of an element that has a half life of about 2.65 seconds these elements were found in abondance when the earth was first created.
3) all raidoactive dating methods are effective to about 5,000 then they start to fail some do last a good bit longer but none of them are effective past 15,000 years
1 So there's more breathable air? Could it be because there are more photosynthetic organisms due to intensive agriculture and wastes that act as fertilizer dumped into the sea?
2 Still can't comment, haven't looked into it
3 You are wrong. Some isotopes have half lives into the millions of years.

that would be most easly explained by the cataclysm theory
Actually it's most easily explained by the theory of evolution that shows humans and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time.

did you know that uranium does not have a constant decay rate?

that would be most easly explained by the cataclysm theory

Would it bollocks. All traces of human casualties are completely wiped away, but the Dinosaur corpses aren't? Bullshit.

It would be most easily explained through the Earth being a sensible age for a planet to be, like 4 billion years.

Actually it's most easily explained by the theory of evolution that shows humans and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time.

common evolution is as much a religion as buddism there are to many holes in it to be true

those dates are very much incorrsct go ask someone with extensive knowalage of how the principle realy works.

we can argue about this until the second comming but it won't change much
I did ask someone that knows (I work at a collage)

Also I have documented resources

(may want to note when you go researching half-life != accuracy … just a little hint)

They can be accurate down to 10% of isotope level

(bah why do I bother arguing with someone who does not want to look at facts that do not agree with your religion)

Would it bollocks. All traces of human casualties are completely wiped away, but the Dinosaur corpses aren't? Bullshit.

It would be most easily explained through the Earth being a sensible age for a planet to be, like 4 billion years.

do you even know what the cataclysm theory is?

common evolution is as much a religion as buddism there are to many holes in it to be true
Like what holes?

1] "There is no God" - is that a positive statement? "There is" is a positive part, and you are trying to prove an opinion - so both sides are positive arguments.

It positively states a negative. :)

those dates are very much incorrsct go ask someone with extensive knowalage of how the principle realy works.

we can argue about this until the second comming but it won't change much
Actually I do beleive his numbers are right. And radioisotope dating works by seeing how much of the isotope you are looking for is left in the sample as opposed to how much of the isotope there originally was, then figuring out how many half lives would have to go by to get the ammount you measured. It's quite a long time for some isotopes.

Actually I do beleive his numbers are right. And radioisotope dating works by seeing how much of the isotope you are looking for is left in the sample as opposed to how much of the isotope there originally was, then figuring out how many half lives would have to go by to get the ammount you measured. It's quite a long time for some isotopes.
Yeah I put the half life's in my info too (carbon 14 had a halflife of 5700 by the way) I forgot that one

I did ask someone that knows (I work at a collage)

Also I have documented resources

(may want to note when you go researching half-life != accuracy … just a little hint)

They can be accurate down to 10% of isotope level

(bah why do I bother arguing with someone who does not want to look at facts that do not agree with your religion)

how should i explaine this.... no radio active isotope has a constant decay rate. ask who ever you need to but there is no constant decay rate for any isotope

did you know that uranium does not have a constant decay rate?
It does outside of a nuclear reactor or a bomb, where faster decay is triggered artificially.

What good is it to beleive in something that has no evidence to support it and can't even be demonstrated to interact with the real world?
Like a broken heart?

how should i explaine this.... no radio active isotope has a constant decay rate. ask who ever you need to but there is no constant decay rate for any isotope
But there is an average range … less then a 5% error at the 5th half life due to variances

Like what holes?

fist did you know that evolution has 5 diffrent forms?
which are we talking about

common evolution is as much a religion as buddism there are to many holes in it to be true
Not at all. Evolution takes in ALL of the available evidence. Creationsim is a religion. It picks and chooses which evidence to accept.

did you know that uranium does not have a constant decay rate?

It's stable enough to give a 10% margin for error.

common evolution is as much a religion as buddism there are to many holes in it to be true

rubbish. Creationists often cite holes in the fossil record, and are reasonable convincing until you ask a paleontologist. The he shows you the 'holes'.

do you even know what the cataclysm theory is?
Is it the idea that a flood would somehow sort the fossils? I think I read something about that in a creationist propaganda book somewhere. It's stupid. Why would flying dinosaurs and early birds then be found in lower strata than humans? Surely something that could fly could escape the flood waters more easily than a mere walking mammal.

how should i explaine this.... no radio active isotope has a constant decay rate. ask who ever you need to but there is no constant decay rate for any isotope
Funny, that's not what I was taught in school, or what the science books I've read have found. What do you base your assertion on?

fist did you know that evolution has 5 diffrent forms?
which are we talking about
Actually 7 if you don’t count Phenetic and that is just current theory. (remember that science changes as they find more information)

Hmmm lets say Coevolution just for the sake of arguement

Like a broken heart?


A broken heart DOES interact with the outside world. And there is empirical evidence to support it, most people have had one.

But there is an average range … less then a 5% error at the 5th half life due to variances

did you know that 5% error in an automotive completly kills it?
did you know that if you have 95% heart function you have a 70% chance of having a hearattack.
5% however small the numder seems can still kill the dating of anything
and something you forgot to mention is outside influances

Funny, that's not what I was taught in school, or what the science books I've read have found. What do you base your assertion on?


Well there is UP to .5 percent variation ... depending on isotope

fist did you know that evolution has 5 diffrent forms?
which are we talking about
The "forms" you are speaking of are differences like slow steady change versus punctuated equilibrium. They aren't weaknesses in evolution, just models with different details. They agree in the vast majority of details.

Actually 7 if you don’t count Phenetic and that is just current theory. (remember that science changes as they find more information)

Hmmm lets say Coevolution just for the sake of arguement

whats there to argue about coe evolution is a fact of life. and i've never considered that as a form of evolution more as a form of adaptation (microevolution)

did you know that 5% error in an automotive completly kills it?

Depends on the 5%


did you know that if you have 95% heart function you have a 70% chance of having a hearattack.

No, but then again it's not true. My father had about 60% heart function, but was declared in no danger of a heart attack at all.

5% however small the numder seems can still kill the dating of anything and something you forgot to mention is outside influances

No, because it's a 5% MARGIN FOR ERROR. that means it can only be 5% away from the answer you come out with.

did you know that 5% error in an automotive completly kills it?
did you know that if you have 95% heart function you have a 70% chance of having a hearattack.
5% however small the numder seems can still kill the dating of anything
and something you forgot to mention is outside influances
No that is including backround radiation influences … the actual variance is .5% in radiometric decay.

(and that is a total variance on end range) so you say a standard isotope decay leads to the 5th halflife at 1 bilion years (just picked a round number) it has a variance in length of 5% (way high but oh well)

That would put it at a RANGE rather then a fixed date


So the range is actually 25 thousand around the mean … so the total range is 725 milion to 1.25 billion years

That is at the HIGHEST amount

(remember this is not a failure rate rather a variance rate)

So it only creates a range

It is NOT pass fail like the auto industry

did you know that 5% error in an automotive completly kills it?
did you know that if you have 95% heart function you have a 70% chance of having a hearattack.
5% however small the numder seems can still kill the dating of anything
and something you forgot to mention is outside influances
But we aren't talking about the close tolerances in an automobile or a human heart. We are talking about huge stretches of time. Your example is like saying we shouldn't take aspirin because it is lethal to rabbits. It doesn't fit.

whats there to argue about coe evolution is a fact of life. and i've never considered that as a form of evolution more as a form of adaptation (microevolution)

And if you have significant quantities of micro-evolution, you get macro-evolution. And over 2 billion years, complex life will emerge and explore many avenues of evolution.