Perspective from athiests/agnostics

[sureYnot]

Why would creationist care about carbon dating? According to the lore, Adam was created as a full grown man, not a baby. So, why then wouldn't God create the universe "fully grown" as well? "Fully grown" would include aged things (just like Adam's body) such as fossils, oil, diamonds, etc.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

[2wheelDuke]

Goodness! Do you actually think Christians are a majority of criminals? On what AOC metric are you claiming that?

I mean, it is my (easily defendable) position that Christians are the the world's leading defenders of the powerless, not their oppressors! What insider information do you have that the rest of us don't?

I have to agree with him from observation of criminals in my custody.

It's not such a jump really. By the numbers, Christians are the majority in this country. It'd stand to reason that the majority of the criminals are Christian.

You wouldn't believe how many bad people I've arrested that believed that somehow God was on their side even with what they've done. I've had countless people start praying or ask for a bible at some point in my custody before they taken into the back at jail. I usually told them that they should've picked up the bible and started praying before they did the actions that made our paths cross.

[2wheelDuke]

I have heard it put that an agnostic is an atheist with no umm............courage.

I don't know that I agree. I was taught all my life that God exists. Now I have questions. I'm not convinced. I don't know if that is wanting to play both sides of the fence or not. Perhaps it is. I just don't claim to know for sure either way.

I see Agnosticism as similar to Atheism, just a bit more humble or open. One doubts if there's a God, the other is convinced there's none.

[RED BEAR]

I certainly am a believer in the big bang theory.
The question of whether it was orchestrated by God is where the jury is still out for me.

I asked a question in another thread, regarding whether firm believers could reconcile faith and science, if God did indeed speak everything into existence, could it mimic a big bang.
The Catholic church seems to have no problem reconciling the two. Pope Francis said that the big bang does not contradict a divine act of creation. He is also quoted as saying that the evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with him, I'm just using that as an example that a lot of people believe that you can believe in science, and believe that is the way God chose to do things.

I'm sure the Catholic church isn't alone in this. I am also aware that individuals in all religions/denominations have their own thoughts on the subject that may or may not line up with the official view of their particular church's creed.

The big bang takes one heck of a leap of faith. People ask where did god come from well where did the dust and gas come from ? Oh i know its always been here. Yea right. For those who claim there is no god you are free to believe what you like me i think that dust and gas magically appear and are gathered together and are compressed by some mysterious force until it is just a microscopic point in nothingness. ( now we are talking every bit of matter not in our galaxy but all galaxies ) this is blown out into the what emptiness. As it is blown out something makes it start to come together compress into planet's not exactly does that either then magically amino acids combine with other compounds then gets struck by lightning or something else who knows oh lets not forget you have to have an atmosphere where did that come from. Then this single cell evolves into all life everywhere.
There is a reason its called the big bang theory its a theory. Absolutely no proof . But to a lot this is just like gospel its a fact with out proof.
Now if this is what you chose to believe then go for it more power to you. It just amazes me the lengths people go to point out that i am foolish for believing in god. I know what i know and people will never change my mind. I just wish they would stop trying. I don't understand all the people or groups that feel they have to try to tear down anything that they perceive as religious . A cross on a memorials saying under god in the pledge. If you don't like the cross don't look if you don't want to say the pledge then don't . Don't want your kids to say it tell them not to.
Now this is just my opinion and we all know what they are worth but i think this country could use more religion.

[RED BEAR]

Good question.
I've never seen any at all.
When you ask for it you get answers like, "I feel him in my heart" or "the laughter of a baby" or "the beauty of a rainbow".
That is not evidence.

It would take evidence that could be tested and produce repeatable results.
And we all know, that's not going to happen.

I feel him is all the evidence i need. If you don't then i am sorry. But if you are happy in life then i am glad for you. I to have had bad experiences at churches. But these are people not god. I don't attend church on a regular basis but that doesn't change what i believe. It amazes me how many seem to think people who believe in god are hicks and boobs well call me a hick and a boob i don't care.

[RED BEAR]

Carbon dating is far from junk science. It is most accurate within the last 20,000 yrs. Many factors come into play when using this method including contamination by older material. Scientists have also developed a dating curve which is updated regularly to make this information the most accurate.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioc...nd_reliability

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-...rbon-14-dating

It is junk science can you prove it no. They think it works but cannot prove it works. It cannot be tested. How do you know x is 10000 years old and y is 5000 years old to start with to test if it works . I am not saying it doesn't i am saying it cannot be proven and as such its junk.

[UKShootist]

It's not about anyone's belief in God. That has to be up for a possibility, remote or otherwise. That is almost irrelevant. The question that matters is why you believe in that particular God in that particular fashion and why you insist on performing what often seems to believers of a different persuasion to be irrational mental gymnastics to justify your particular interpretation of your particular religion.

[UKShootist]

It is junk science can you prove it no. They think it works but cannot prove it works. It cannot be tested. How do you know x is 10000 years old and y is 5000 years old to start with to test if it works . I am not saying it doesn't i am saying it cannot be proven and as such its junk.

Wow! That's almost the exact argument I use about the Bible! (And the Koran, and quite a few others)

[dtknowles]

The big bang takes one heck of a leap of faith. People ask where did god come from well where did the dust and gas come from ? ……...

You might want to study the Big Bang Theory a little more. The theory is that the universe came from nothing. The absolute nothingness got unstable and at a single point that nothing shattered into particles of matter and anti-matter and then with the presence of matter and change, space and time and gravity came into being along with the matter and anti-matter. That does not mean that God did not exist in that nothingness and maybe God caused the instability that led to the Big Bang. The phrase let there be light, harks of the Big Bang. All the dust and gas you are talking about came from that original singularity at the origin of the universe. God might not have created the singularity God might be the singularity.

Tim

[Wag]

As far as your quote of me:

I am willing to discuss nearly anything, and am definitely ok being wrong. My tone was in response to the tone given by 1hole. If he is going to put himself on a religious high horse, he should display at least cursory knowledge of his religion.

No argument here. Discussion on this subject is never much more than an irritation because people are unwilling to be honest during the course of the discussion. It's one reason why I don't generally jump in on these discussions.

--Wag--

[T_McD]

Carbon dating is far from junk science. It is most accurate within the last 20,000 yrs. Many factors come into play when using this method including contamination by older material. Scientists have also developed a dating curve which is updated regularly to make this information the most accurate.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioc...nd_reliability

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-...rbon-14-dating

Carbon dating lacks a solid baseline. And even if one can account for atmospheric variation causing errors (we can’t), the dating could only be accurate to as far back as the baseline. Measurements cannot be more accurate than the tool used to measure.

I understand the concepts behind carbon dating, but historical records remain the most reliable method.

[RED BEAR]

You might want to study the Big Bang Theory a little more. The theory is that the universe came from nothing. The absolute nothingness got unstable and at a single point that nothing shattered into particles of matter and anti-matter and then with the presence of matter and change, space and time and gravity came into being along with the matter and anti-matter. That does not mean that God did not exist in that nothingness and maybe God caused the instability that led to the Big Bang. The phrase let there be light, harks of the Big Bang. All the dust and gas you are talking about came from that original singularity at the origin of the universe. God might not have created the singularity God might be the singularity.

Tim

Boy that sounds crazier than what i said it all started from nothing. And nothing became unstable and shatered into matter and anti matter. Now thats out there. And exactly how would you prove that? Sounds a bit sceptical to me. Now exactly where did the matter and anti matter come from oh wait i got it from nothing. You do realize that anti matter is a hypnotist not a fact. The scientists are using the hadron collider to try and prove there existence but it ain't been proven yet. In theory both matter and antimatter have mass and weight so exactly how did that come from nothing. Now why did the matter change? And exactly how did space time and gravity come into being ? Because matter and antimatter came from nothing and since they did they had to change and shizam you get space time and gravity oook. You can't see how this sounds nuts. My eye doctor is a physicist who's main accomplishment is a paper he submitted to nasa that proves light has weight. We have some pretty good discussions about these type things even he can't say that the big bang can be proven.

[RED BEAR]

My biggest point is say what you will neither can be proven so exactly why is one irrational and the other not.

[UKShootist]

My biggest point is say what you will neither can be proven so exactly why is one irrational and the other not.

I'm not sure I can answer that question entirely, but here's the difference. If a scientific theory that I think is correct is proven to be wrong then I will be able to digest and understand, hopefully, the new theory. Neither will I be damaged by the idea that I was originally wrong because I will now know a little more about the universe I inhabit. If OTOH I believe something as matter of religious faith I cannot accept a change to my religious faith without destroying my religious faith which then destroys all of my life values and may even make me feel and look foolish because faith cannot be held on the basis of proof but must actually exist without proof.

If there was proof it would be science and therefore open to contradiction by research and science. Faith and science are two opposites. You can damage my science by better science and my world will not fall apart because of it. Damage my faith and my world may well fall apart. For the faithful it is easier to believe with certainty (i.e. faith) than to be uncertain. Faith is a crutch to lean upon in the face of ignorance that must be preserved for fear of knowledge. Ironic that eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge caused so much trouble (if you believe that). What on earth is wrong and evil about knowledge? Would you raise a child and deny it knowledge (OK, quite a few would, and do. Don't make it right)

I find it interesting that nobody has made any effort to clarify the differences between science and faith from the religious side of the discussion.

[UKShootist]

Radiocarbon Dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

An argument can be made here that the above linked article is not proof. But then, what is? There is a lot of factual detail and logic in that article. To me it carries more weight that any book of the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Hindu scriptures, or Old Possums Book of Practical Cats, or the Just So stories, or Aesop's Fables. All of those books end up being used as 'proof' because 'It says so in this book'.

What of the the laws of thermodynamics? Can you prove them? All of them? Neither can I completely but I probably could if I took my time and did the maths. It would be foolish though to take some of the tales from the Bible and give them the same credibility, or lack thereof as the laws of thermodynamics. Whether I believe in those laws or not I can go outside, start my car, and see them working.

What about short wave radio? Are you really telling me that you can speak into this microphone and the load pf plastic and wires will send invisible waves of something or other through the air to bounce off an invisible 'layer' of something or other before perhaps hundreds of people living miles apart can hear you speaking through a similar bundle of plastic and wires all at the same time and before the bloke standing 50 yards away does? Oh, come one now. Face it, it must just be magic.

But, again, here's the thing. Study long enough and you can prove by science and practice that all that about the radio is true. And If it is discovered that, for instance, the Heaviside Layer doesn't exist but that it is caused by some other phenomenon, then that new phenomenon will be studied, proved, understood, and once again, science will let us know little more about the universe.

[RED BEAR]

You believe these theories because you think it sounds logical to you but the fact remains you me or no one can now or ever prove them. Science has a tendency when something doesn't work like they think it should they invent something things in the universe don't work the way they are supposed to so lets invent something dark matter .does it exist who knows i personally don't think so but thats me. I think what i believe is just as valid as what you believe. I don't believe it because a book tells me to i believe because this is what i feel to be true. I have said on numerous occasions that people who do not believe as i do are free to believe what they want i just can't figure out why i am not afforded the same courtesy. But i am used to it.
I am not trying to be smart i would really like to know why is it so important for those who do not believe in god to convince those who do that they are wrong.

[PerpetualStudent]

If there was proof it would be science.

And that would be where it ceases to be science and instead becomes philosophy. Many, if not most, hardcore atheists make this argument. And it gets buttressed because they actually believe in future science, rather than science right now, so if any of the planks they fight and die for now can be removed and they're still believers in "science". They've insulated themselves against evidence just as well as the believers of any faith.

To be clear, I'm not against science. Nor philosophy. I am against philosophy masquerading as science. You can prefer, you can choose, an atheistic view. But it is not a "scientific" view.

[1hole]

I'm a believer who totally accepts science. What I do not trust is/are scientists pushing pet concepts; anyone wanting to see a dogmatic "religion" at work need look no further than such scientists.

The Big Bang has been proven wrong but, given that it's part of the scientist's religion, they choose to ignore that it's wrong. IF it were true, the combined gravitational pull of universal creation would be slowly pulling everything back to its starting point; that isn't happening, the rate of universal expansion is accellerating.

IF the Big Bang were true everything would be radiating away from the Bang's start point in more or less straight lines; there are whole galaxies moving in unexplainable angles to most of creation. Either there were multiple Big Bangs or .... God made it the way he wanted it!

Finally, for life to exist, the third law of thermodynamics would have to be stood on its head! I'm gullible but not gullible enough to put my faith in scientists and believe any of their creation explanations!

[Arkansas Paul]

The big bang takes one heck of a leap of faith.

It doesn't take nearly as much faith as thinking an invisible man in the sky did it, for which there has never been one iota of evidence for, other than a thousands of years old book that was written by sheep herders who didn't know where the sun went at night.
Talk about faith......

There is a reason its called the big bang theory its a theory. Absolutely no proof.

As for the first comment, this is something that is often said by science deniers to kind of automatically tell themselves that it is bogus and immediately stop thinking.
A theory in science is not the same as the non-scientific version of the word.
In science, a theory is not just an idea someone pulled from their derriere. It is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.
Gravity is a theory. You're not floating off the earth. Because even though it is a theory, we know full well it exerts a downward force of 9.8 m/s squared on our planet.

As for the 2nd part that there is no proof. I'm not even going to attempt to explain the expanding universe or cosmic background radiation that was recently discovered that scientists believe are remnants of the explosion. I'm not going to attempt to because, for one I'm not a scientist and would do an inadequate job of explaining such things. Secondly, even if I were the reincarnation of Stephen Hawking I still wouldn't in this situation.
I'm not going to because it would do no good whatsoever.
Religious people don't require evidence for their beliefs because it is not relevant. The definition of faith is belief without evidence.

My father is very religious. He was a preacher my entire life.
He is also a wonderful person and I have seen him give selflessly to strangers.
He is also not an idiot. He's a pretty smart guy.
By the same token, if he read somewhere in the bible that 2+2 equaled 5, he wouldn't question it. He would question mathematics.
And that is why I won't try to prove my point any more.

It just amazes me the lengths people go to point out that i am foolish for believing in god.

I don't think you're foolish at all.
I know some non-believers come across that way and I apologize for that.
There are jerks in every group of people.
I don't think you're foolish because I was a believer until about 30 years old. Then I decided to think for myself and question everything.

Now this is just my opinion and we all know what they are worth but i think this country could use more religion.

All religion?
Or just yours?
Could it use more Muslims?
More Hindus?
More Scientologists?

[T_McD]

I would like to thank everyone for a reasonably civil discussion. I think we are to the point now where we agree to disagree. The last several posts are mostly in agreement despite differences of opinion.

My takeaway: don’t make science your religion or religion your science and I think we can get along.