- Lorenzo Lorenz
- Lusaka
- Zambia
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God? Does this give freedom to live life without becoming answerable to anyone?
Many people are atheists because of the way they were brought up or educated, or because they have simply adopted the beliefs of the culture in which they grew up. So someone raised in Communist China is likely to have no belief in God because the education system and culture make being an atheist the natural thing to do.
"Other people are atheists because they just feel that atheism is right." It is on this premise that i am asking this question.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
edward long 100+
John Dunbar 10+
On what basis does God choose those to believe or not believe?
edward long 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Do you see the logical problem? Man, if I believed in this god I would despise the monster. By the way, the Bible is contradictory about this. Calvinists (the main ones believing in the same kind of god as you, an evil one that is) choose some passages and ignore others, as most Christian denominations do. Each interpreting and cherry-picking for their own interpretation to look reasonable. If anything, this shows how contradictory the Bible is, and how contradictory and nonsensical people can be when referring to their beliefs in some version of a god.
Which leads to why I don't believe. I grew up a Christian, but started having doubts when doctrine crashed with reality, when I found defences of the faith to be based on lying about what science is about, or on beautifully sounding but meaningless rhetoric, when ... long story short, at some point I thought that "God" was just misinterpreted, looked briefly into other religions, into other Christian denominations, but with time the idea of a god existing faded away and I could see with clarity how much gods are just human imaginary constructs. Very often nonsensical ones.
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
God already knows what is happening, is outside time etc, so why not skip to the chase. Do we have free will, when god made us and knows exactly what we do. HE made some of us knowing we would fail. A lovely paradox.
Actually, while the bible says god is almighty, eternal, and knows everything that goes on, I'm a bit rusty about how we get to being outside time and knows the future.
Is the outside time thing a recent invention to go along with the scientific view that time began with the big bang. I would not be surprised if eternal means he has been around forever and will not die. Not necessarily outside time and seen the future. Maybe there are temporal limits on being all knowing. Just like almighty is not quite omnipotent. I mean god can not lie (but he can trick as per Abraham) and must remain true to his nature
Also does the bible just say god "knows all things" which does not necessarily mean he knows the future, it is open to interpretatn, or does it specifically say god "knows the future".
Maybe god hasn't seen or experience the future rather being all knowing he can predict it down to the quantum level. Every quark. Amazing. And he still had time to send 2 bears to maul 42 youths after they called Elisha a baldhead.
Seriously though, I think there is still some Christian debate about whether everything is predetermined or not.
There is a non religious parallel. If you had enough computing power and scientific understanding you could predict every atomic action at the quantum level. In effect, unless there is an element of chaos everything is predetermined. However, on the human scale it feels like we are making decisions. Perhaps this logic applies to the god question as well, it feels like we have free will. But it does not answer the issue that god made some us knowing we would fail
Colleen Steen 500+
"God has known...since before the beginning of history...who & who not shall be saved"...AND..."whoever calls on him will be saved".
I know....I know.....I know.....we're supposed to accept this on faith!!! LOL:>)
John Dunbar 10+
Also, why would God who punishes and rewards, according to the Bible, orchestrate the design of non believers. If he created us and chose who believes in him then he would have to take responsibility for those who do not believe. If he were to then punish those who do not believe, with an eternity in Hell, that would mean God built some people, who by no fault of their own were destined for hell. Wouldn't that mean god is at lest partially sadistic?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If Hell as asserted by many Christians is true, then by having children you are complicit in risking a human soul to eternal damnation, endless suffering.
Unless believers are 100% confident their children will follow Jesus and be saved, it is simply too great a risk when they face infinite punishment - eternal suffering and torment.
This is a logical conclusion to the scenario knowingly set up by god.
Free will and a mind capable of critical thinking, supposedly a gift from god, will result in billions of souls suffering for eternity. This is a result of gods creation, gods rules. Creating us with free will and reason, knowing that this will result in billions of conscious beings suffering for eternity is simply evil.
Think about it. Please really pause and think about it before leaping into an automatic response.
I'm not trying to offend. This is an honest and I think correct analysis of the mainstream Christian doctrine of hell and salvation.
edward long 100+
Peter Law 30+
Like regular science, our side does move with current discoveries. However the bible has always told of the universe having a beginning & an end. Beginning in a ball of water & ending in a fervent heat. God has always been outside the system. Since Einstein we have believed that time can travel at different speeds, & can only effect items with mass. God has no mass, so is unaffected by time.
Basically the big bang is built on our interpretation of red shift, ie the universe appears to be expanding. The bible is ok with this as it says many times that God stretches out the heavens. However the BB does not fit with the bible regarding creation. The best model I read was of the universe being created small, with the earth at an event horizon, which allowed 6 days on earth,& millions elsewhere, to sort out the starlight question. This is of only passing interest however; the bible is where it's at.
We are free to make whatever decisions we like, incl. having children. I believe God knows all my decisions as He knows the end from the beginning. I am in time so the decisions are still entirely mine to be made.
Why does everyone want to question the wisdom of God. All that matters is what is real. If we don't like it that's too bad. We cannot wish it away. I have decided that the bible is true. I have to accept it warts & all. The author made the universe, so He is smarter than me. That is my decision; you are all free to make yours.
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I find a lot of this very speculative. God has no mass. I guess he's not pure energy either.
Wouldn't parents who really believe in hell be concerned about whether their kids will end up there. I guess Christians are humans too and have all the cognitive tricks to avoid looking at the dark side and focus on the love etc.
Part of the comments above were about understanding a particular god concept. Part questioning the morality of it. In other places asking where is the evidence for this concept. Others, the absurdity and other issues.
Whether it is true matters most. This does not preclude analysing the concept whether you believe or not.
"If we don't like it too bad" I appreciate the honesty.
More powerful, smarter, but not necessarily great ethics. Might does not make right.
Stewart Gault 30+
Why do people want to question the wisdom of a god? Well simply because given ten minutes I could think of a utopia for a race to live on and then to prove I existed I'd pop down there every day at around 12, just to see how things are.
John Dunbar 10+
I see you are sincere about your beliefs and they probably help you on a personal level. I respect you for those beliefs. But the bible can't be taken as fact.
I can tell you i question God because I see all types of different religions claiming there exclusivity, they can't all be right? How do you know which is right and which is wrong?
Frans Kellner 100+
You say: "I have decided that the bible is true."
That's all you have to say in your comments.
What it tells we all know but most of us don't believe the bible to be true any more than we believe any other myth to be true.
You believe in God while I have no idea what the word means. So what's your contribution to the conversation? Maybe you first explain the word God.
Peter Law 30+
"Jesus never met anyone who ever wrote about him. "
Matthew, John, Peter, & James, (his brother) all met Jesus before his death. Paul met him after his resurrection.
The compilation of the bible is a pretty complex story; Constantine certainly had a part.
It is true there are many religions. Why would there be any at all if there was no truth in any of it? When we look at the bible we find historical data that can be checked out. The whole scenario makes a lot of sense when we look around the world we live in. Jesus promises that those who sincerely seek him will find him. He comes through. Millions have had their lives changed for the better by following him. There's a reality there that I find absent in the others. Most disagree, but that's the way I see it.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Now Jesus' existence I'll skip tackling, haven't got enough words.
But in the case of people finding comfort within this religion or doing good deeds in the name of a creator. Surely to the critical mind basing your life upon a disturbing truth is much better than a comforting lie, in religion it is the one place where we will abandon all logic just to comfort ourselves, it reduces us to that. Then if people only act better after accepting a potential lie, then the fault lies with the person and the state in which the person lives. If you only do good because Jesus says so then you're just not a nice person or if you think you'd be immoral without Jesus then you've abandoned all human solidarity.
Which leads to a few extra points worth saying, because it makes you feel better, that does not inherently make it true. Also if a million people believe a lie, its still a lie. The only way you can change their opinion is if you get them to pause their faith and actually question what they know which I fear some people are afraid to do.
John Dunbar 10+
Every culture has creation myths. There an expression of the struggle of life vs death, a tribute to life conquering death. So i understand if you take the bible for metaphor and it gives you strength, but to say its historically accurate is another thing entirely.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The best scholarly assessment is they were written decades after Jesus died assuming a person called Jesus existed (which I think is most likely).
The best assessment I have heard is that the gospels, and there are more than 4, may have been oral traditions that developed over time e.g. this is the story of Jesus according to Mark etc. We have no idea if Mark was present when the Gospel according to Mark we written. I guess the first written gospel put a bit of a stake in the ground and this influenced the rest, but they do differ and in some cases contradict.
I note the last 12 verses of Mark in the modern bible are not in the earliest manuscripts and are in a different style to the rest of the gospel. It is reasonable to assume these were added later and support the developing mythology.
While 1 and 2 Peter are attributed to Peter the disciple the authors are also unknown. Unlikely to have been Peter if written in the 2nd century
The claim about Paul meeting a resurrected Jesus is an extraordinary one and is unverifiable with the information we have, as is the resurrection of Jesus, as is the validity of any of the supernatural or truth claims in the bible.
The whole New Testament thing was not very well thought out in terms of proving evidence or reliable information for future generations.
Suggest Islam has some similarities in regards to historical references. Agree once the Jesus Jewish messianic cult started taking on gentiles and proselytising it was on the way to spreading, with help from the Romans after 300, and then European colonisation from the 1500's. There are not to many religions that seek converts as aggreesively as some forms of Christianity. (Not the Coptic or Orthodox that seem less expansionary) .
We will have to disagree on Christianity having a reality beyond most other religions, particularly Islam that did a much better job documenting the teachings and event
Peter Law 30+
We could talk forever about who did what when, that is the nature of history. I cannot prove empirically that Julius Ceasar ruled Rome, or that Hannibal crossed the Alps. What I can say is that the bible has to be the most poked & prodded history book on the planet & has an excellent reputation with most scholars.
God normally works through men, & to me at least, it is reasonable that an all powerful universe creator would be able to procure a book through mankind. I see no problem with that. Whether the bible is that book is for each of us to judge. On the other hand, I am told that the universe, life, & all it's wonders popped into existence with no intelligent input whatsoever. I am asked to believe that the Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years, but the Athabaska Vallis on Mars was formed rapidly by a torrent of water. The former on a planet absolutely awash with water, & the latter on a planet with zero detectable water.
For me it boils down to either/or & becomes a rather easy choice.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Now as to the universal creator conveying his messages through man, I can't disprove it but I can say that it seems a little odd that he contradicts himself just about everywhere in Deuteronomy, or the fact that I'm asked to believe that the creator of the whole universe including time itself could only cleanse the sin of humanity by sending his son to be a human sacrifice, or to drown everyone bar 6. Was this god just having a day off or not feeling creative when he thought he'd cure sin by human sacrifice but he wouldn't fully cleanse it, nooo that'd be too easy, everyone's still born in sin apparently.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I guess the difference is suggesting a Roman ruled Rome is a mundane claim compared to if you said Caesar was born or a virgin, walked on water and came back to life to get Brutus back. Supernatural claims require more evidence than the mundane.
The more I learn about the different bibles, how the New Testament developed and was compiled, what is actually written in it, the disconnect between old and new, the more I'm baffled how so many see it as infallible or at least a source of divine wisdom.
If you take it literally, Yahweh is a petty monster drowning nearly everyone, killing thousands and still having time to command some bears to savage some youths who call a prophet baldhead . Slavery is okay etc.
The Mars thing is a bit of a red herring, Its not between a theory about the geological formations on Mars and the literal truth of the bible. Science has improved via millions of iterations and resulted in technology we are using to converse today, no thanks to the bible.
I understand many struggle to comprehend evolution, The really tricky bits that we don't know the answers to are how did life start, how did the universe start, and end up looking and working like it does now, and what does life mean, how should we live etc. The theist approach is the easy way out. Yet there are so many competing theist views saying they have the answers.
The amazing thing for me is we both genuinely look at the same stuff and see two completely different realities. And I get the same certainty about other supernatural claims from a Muslim or Mormon etc.
Peter Law 30+
You make my point very well. I never for a minute said that it wasn't water that cut the canyons on Mars. What I do say is that the evidence for a universal earthly flood is much greater, but you presumably deny that possibility. On the Mars thing; liquid water is very unlikely given the lack of atmospheric pressure, Water would go directly from ice to vapour.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast29jun_1m/
Not saying impossible, but unlikely. I reckon it gets pumped up when NASA needs funds.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
On the contrary I think there have been many huge floods, I forget how many ice ages there were (around 5 major ones) but following them sea levels would rise causing significant flooding but nothing of the scale you describe. Also I forgot what site it was but I linked it to you in a previous conversation where it said that even if you used the highest estimate for the amount of water on Earth (including potential subterranean water) the sea level would still rise by less than 200m, so either a god had to create extra water then take it all away again afterwards is just too presumptuous and lacking of evidence for my liking. Also if sea and fresh water mixed as I mentioned also, almost all fresh water fish would die due to osmosis bar salmon, almost all plants would die due to the extreme levels of salt not to mention that lack of sun light that would be reaching them for photosynthesis. Also, boats float, your flood covered all land, that includes Everest, put these two facts together and you get a boat with over 100 million species (that includes the extinct ones) at an altitude of over 8000m, where the air is incredibly then and incredibly cold, now you require more assumptions, God provided extra oxygen and heat etc etc etc. None of this has any evidence to it and it just gets even more fabricated as it goes along.
Peter Law 30+
I have to wonder how we 'know' there were 5 Ice Ages when the last one would remove all evidence of the former ones.
You really need to look at what creationists really believe. All your points are addressed. Try :-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/flood
To my original point. How do you believe the Grand Canyon was formed ?
A) The Colorado River.
B) A temporary torrent.
C) Another.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
And I've actually lost all faith in humanity after reading through that answering genesis site. It actually thinks that dinosaurs could have gone extinct prior to the flood or were on the boat, how does the top predators bloody die off! That's like modern day all lions just randomly dying on a continent full of crippled chickens, it doesn't work that way.
And the Grand canyon lark, water, ice, wind, sun, tectonic activity, you name it any erosional feature combined is a billion times more probable than single flood lasting a month caused it. It would probably take the Americans a month of nuking an area before it resembled a grand canyon.
I'd advise everyone to just not even look at that answering genesis, it just refutes evidence simply because it doesn't want to, you yourself said somewhere creationists don't accept the evidence for evolution, like there's all the evidence and all you're doing is putting you fingers in your ears and going lal la la la. Faith in humanity is just completely gone.
Peter Law 30+
"Ice cores in the two poles Peter, they've told us a lot, because they never change depth at their most Northern or Southern points,"
I fail to see what ice cores at the poles can tell us about ice ages in Europe. "Never change depth"? If it snows they get deeper, if it thaws they get shallower.
"Also waves of extinctions are good examples of what was going on at the time and by seeing what survived you can get a good estimate as to what actually happened."
"It actually thinks that dinosaurs could have gone extinct prior to the flood or were on the boat, how does the top predators bloody die off! "
You are the one talking about extinctions. Evolutionists are the ones who are so sure that the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago; except those that evolved into birds of course.
BTW the flood lasted about a year, not a month.
No-one is saying the Grand Canyon was formed at the time of the flood. We don't know. The two main opinions are 1. The Colorado River. & 2, A torrent of water.
You don't have an opinion; which in my experience is unique for someone proclaiming an interest in the subject. You are however willing to go along with the torrent hypothesis on Mars ?
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
And no it's not just me talking about extinctions I read (painfully) through the genesis site and it suggested that they died off prior to the flood but perhaps one species stayed alive to fit the description of the behemoth that Job sees.
And yes we are very very very sure dinos went extinct millions of years ago. Except for their smaller remnants in the form of birds and crocs.
Ok a year long flood is even more implausible and hasn't helped your case. Btw in a time of flood, you require water to be moving to create erosion. So unless there was extremely powerful deep water currents, a global flood couldn't do very much erosion. And my idea for the GC is just simple erosion and weathering techniques over a few million years.
And for Mars no you don't require a torrent of water, like I said Mars mainly has a very fine sediment and so it isn't hard to move about. So just your average river and a few tectonic shifts could probably help create that canyon.
Peter Law 30+
Maybe we need to back up a little. How do you think the ice formed at the poles ? It is simply the accumulation of snow that slowly turns to ice. 260ft of it can accumulate in 50 years.
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
A squadron of fighters landed on the ice at the end of the war. Some of the guys decided to retrieve them later & that's how deep they had to dig.
The flood was not just a bad shower. The whole Pangea thing started with a bible verse. The flood involved massive tectonic, & volcanic upheavals, together with land & seabeds rising & falling, probably followed by THE ice age. To get an ice age there must be lots of snow. The ideal conditions for this are hot seas & cold land. These conditions probably prevailed after the flood due to the massive submarine fissures that had opened up, & are still detectable today.
This is obviously all new to you; it's a fascinating study.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
Just one question after the flood when continents and oceans were made, did god teleport animals onto the other continents or?
And there's no evidence of such cataclysmic events that you speak of! If volcanoes were erupting and spewing ash all over the world and Noah was up there in a boat how could he breath? This all requires A LOT of faith with no evidence.
Peter Law 30+
"Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere."
That's as close as Nova gets to explaining what causes an ice age. Put simply; nobody knows.
It is a simple fact of physics that warm water evaporates more than cold water. An ice age requires lots of snow, which in turn requires evaporation from the sea. If the atmosphere is black from volcanic activity, then sunlight is blocked. The atmosphere & the land will quickly cool. The sea is slower to cool, and may also still be warmed by magma at the borders of the tectonic plates. Warm sea, freezing atmosphere, freezing land; ice age conditions. I don't know either, but it is at least a workable model.
The main source of water is not rain. Think about it; rain comes from the sea, falls on the land,& returns to the sea. It adds nothing to the equation. The main source of new water was the subterranean water exploding into the atmosphere from the sea floor rifts at the edge of the plates.
Try googling fossils on Everest or similar. There is no disputing the fact that Everest & most mountains for that matter, have marine fossils in the rocks at, or near, the summits. So we all agree these mountains were under water. Most folks on both sides also agree that these mountains have been pushed up by tectonic activity. The only real difference of opinion is on timescale.
It seems likely that after the flood as the crust was settling down, there was a period when the water level paused at a lower level than today & the animals could migrate at will. This is too much to explain here.
Here is a plan. Pick a topic. Go to "TalkOrigins" read up on it, then go to "Answersingenesis" & do the same. Or vice versa. If you're interested.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Like current plate speeds etc would indicate they'd been moving this way for millions of years.
There is just no logical way at all you can get to a worldwide flood where nothing dies except for humans and whatever animals were left on the land. All plants would die after being subjected to salt water and lack of light. Volcanic eruptions on the scale you talk of would have spewed ash into the atmosphere completely covering it and so Noah and his ark goers would have suffocated. All freshwater fish would have died except salmon. And then you say the water level dipped to such a scale that animals could walk over to different continents. There's just no evidence OR any logical way of getting to this conclusion if you solely examined evidence. If you hadn't read the bible and studied all our current evidence you would arrive at the same conclusions as everyone else, old earth, slow tectonics, billions of years etc etc. Yet no, you disregard the evidence you've no doubt read about, simply because a bronze age book says otherwise.
Peter Law 30+
Perhaps you could give a plausible mechanism for an ice age that doesn't involve a lot of snow? You complain I have not given evidence. I have tried, but as you use the blunderbuss approach with multitudes of questions & complaints; it is difficult to address them all. The creationist view on all these things are readily available; it is frustrating that you have no idea what they are.
You 1 day ago "Ok here's another thing on the flood, if it covered Everest and rained every day for a year, 21m of rain would have to fall every single day. and then if it rained for less, more had to fall in a day."
Me 1 day ago "Try googling fossils on Everest or similar. There is no disputing the fact that Everest & most mountains for that matter, have marine fossils in the rocks at, or near, the summits. So we all agree these mountains were under water. Most folks on both sides also agree that these mountains have been pushed up by tectonic activity. The only real difference of opinion is on timescale."
You 2 hrs ago. " Yes tonnes of mountains have sea fossils, but those mountains were once tiny and a flood would easily cover them."
You only know this because I told you. So where is your argument that the flood could not have covered the mountains? So go for it. Give me your take on how an ice age comes about.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Peter Law 30+
""Now an ice age doesn't require snow, it's the same for frost, you don't need it to snow for there to be a frosty day.""
""An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. ""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
""Ice that makes up glaciers originally fell on its surface as snow. To become ice, this snow underwent modifications that caused it to become more compact and dense.""
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10ae.html
Sorry; but an ice age requires lots of snow.
Volcanic ash falls like snow. The Icelandic people regularly breath through eruptions. Noah was indoors in the pouring rain; why should he choke? Never heard that one before, full marks for originality.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Well why should he choke? Because he along with 2 of every species thats about 10 million animals excluding the extinct ones are now 8000m + above the Earth's surface, where there is a third of sea level oxygen in the air. Now people can survive these heights, but only for an hour or so, there is no physical way that many animals could survive at that height with so little oxygen. And the ash, according to your flood theory, wouldn't have far to fall, and actually it doesn't all fall straight away, normally some of it circulates the Earth a few times in the case of a supervolcanoes, now this would then create a super dense fog of ash and dust at 8000m+ high, coupled with the SO2, CO and CO2 emissions you're making it less and less likely for anyone to live.
Now another point to be made, given the parameters stated in the bible and on answering genesis, how do you get 5 million species to fit into it, and that's excluding the extinct species, that and how were they fed.
Peter Law 30+
Don't quite know how to break this to you; but the ark was at sea level. It was floating on the stuff, as was the atmosphere, so air supply would be as normal.
If there was a flood, the water would still be around. Where else would it be? If we flattened the existing planet, the water would cover the earth at an average depth of 3km; so the depth of water at the flood would have averaged the same. At any rate, no choking.
I think we've done the snow thing to death.
At present rates of progress I won't live long enough to explain the animals thing to you. I'll pass. You could start here if you are interested..
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Edit through more research I found that if the air saturated the water early on, it would have risen up with the water hence creating high air pressure at 8000m up causing oxygen levels to be toxic. Hence he would be poisoned
Peter Law 30+
The atmospheric pressure at SEA LEVEL is 1bar or 14.7psi. It matters not whether the sea is 3km or 8km deep. There would be a very small difference due to the effective increase in the diameter of the earth, but so imperceptible as to be insignificant.
Nothing from the past can be proven, whether creation or evolution, everything is speculative.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
2)The air dissolves in the new water, leaving the thin air where the boat would be causing them to suffocate.
More points. Global flood of the kind you describe would kill ALL plants, they'd receive no light for p/s, this is increased by your idea of cataclysmic tectonic activity, ash would encircle the Earth blocking all light, extra salt water would poison normal plants. As mentioned previously all freshwater fish would die except salmon. Also if erosional features for you were formed by the flood why isn't there an evenish spread of erosion,
Also it is impossible to get that many animals on a boat which is impossible to build a working model of as it would collapse under its own weight. It's also highly immoral a flood, like your god is a right bastard.
And saying nothing from the past can be proven is incredibly stupid. Egyptians existed. Greeks existed, hell if we're talking about the past my granda existed. Dinos existed,evolution does happen we see it every day in bacteria and flowers. We CAN PROVE a lot about history, Peter just look at the science, the flood is impossible given the circumstances you assert and those of the bible. There's no evidence and this is why I'm an atheist.
Peter Law 30+
If you stick to the millions of years scenario, I grant you, the flood would be impossible, the mountains are too high. It's one or the other. The flood is in the context of a 6000 year old earth. What we see of tectonic movement today is things grinding to a halt from a greater speed in the past.
Maybe you could give a link that explains how rising sea levels would dissolve atmospheric gasses to any extent. I've never heard of such a thing before.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Now we need evidence of a young Earth, and there just isn't any evidence which suggests it.
Peter Law 30+
John Dunbar 10+
Peter Law 30+
What is your best evidence for an old earth?
:-)
Frans Kellner 100+
Nice site: http://history-world.org/genesis_narrative_in_the_light_o.htm
Written memory goes back almost 6000 years as people started agriculture in the Middle East as a new way of life. As they settled they started to write also. Nomadic peoples don't write, even today, they have no need for it.
Stewart Gault 30+
Light- by working out the density of the sun and it's gravitational strength we've worked out that it takes 1 million years for light from the centre of the sun to reach the outside.
Staying on light, the distance between galaxies, calculated in light years, and given the speed of light, it takes billions of years for the light from the most distant galaxies to reach us.
Staying with galaxies, if you rewind the expansion of the universe and decelerate it at a constant rate you get a singularity forming 13.72 billion years ago.
Radiometric dating
Evolution
Fossils
Geological explanations for separation of Pangea, distribution of animals and occurrence of the same animals on completely different continents, geological reasons for how mountains are formed
Blackholes, supernovas,
Rock layers, k-t boundary
Ice cores Archaeology I could go on, and what do you have? O well there is an invisible god who we'll never see till we die and basically he cursed our race for wanting to have knowledge and so he gave us pain and then he flooded the world but dont worry he floated all animals on a boat which can't physically work or hold the amount of animals it required. But dont worry about that it's all a matter of faith.
What a pathetic and disgusting argument, honestly the aboriginal explanation is even more plausible that a giant snake slithered and created all the rivers, welcome to the 21st century Peter where the most educated humans on this planet would laugh the second someone mentioned young eart and know what's worse? The fact that the most educated theologians of Christianity accept evolution and old earth and the big bang. It's time to catch up Peter, and I don't care if Im sounding rude but we need to get rid of stupid beliefs, they are of no benefit to society and make you look like an idiot And threaten to drag the future generations into a regress of knowledge if religious fundamentalists had their way. I won't have it.
John Dunbar 10+
Peter Law 30+
Much prefer the scientific stuff. Debating who wrote what first is never going to get us to billions of years. 10,000 at most.
:-)
Peter Law 30+
So your proof that the world is billions of years old is that the bible is a load of rot ?
Not the most scientific of reasons, but one that I hear a lot.
Stewart has exactly the same approach.
:-)
John Dunbar 10+