Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Sum1sGruj]

Your faith is blind. It's pretty obvious by your point of view.

Might I ask. How old do you think the earth is? Answer honestly.

Your faith in science is blind. If you knew what I knew about science, you wouldn't be so quick to ridicule gnostic approaches.

An extreme amount of water to account for the flood can only be from the work of a divine being. It explains what geology cannot. 4.5 billion years of Earthly activity and well over a billion years of life,, this is the result? It's laughable.
The simplest life form cannot be created in the most controlled, sophisticated lab on Earth and yet it occurred naturally? It's laughable.
Dating techniques are laughable. The fossil record is laughable. The entire fundamental aspect of science is laughable.
The more you bring these things up, the more wrong you will become. I have more than done my homework on all these things, as I was a strong agnostic before coming to Christ.
So instead of trying to wordsmith your way through this, bring out the logic. I would not boldly step into a debate issuing these ideas without knowledge to back it up, so either bring me some input on scientific 'truths' or be done with it.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I love it when theists claim a great understanding of science, whilst showing exactly the opposite.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Your faith in science is blind. If you knew what I knew about science, you wouldn't be so quick to ridicule gnostic approaches.

My knowledge of science comes from empirical evidence. Something you can observe physically. Something no creationist has ever been able to do. Your knowlwdge of God comes from a book authored by several people thousands of years ago, based on folk lore.

Tell me, what is your understanding of science? Besides being laughable of course.

An extreme amount of water to account for the flood can only be from the work of a divine being. It explains what geology cannot. 4.5 billion years of Earthly activity and well over a billion years of life,, this is the result? It's laughable.

So I'm going to assume that by this sentance, you believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years old? If this is the case, show me scripture from the bible where it tells you earth is that old? I'll assume when you cannot show it, that you got your belief of the earth age from science (Cause YEC is too crazy for even you, right?) and you are nothing more than a troll.

The simplest life form cannot be created in the most controlled, sophisticated lab on Earth and yet it occurred naturally? It's laughable.

It's easy to laugh at things you dont understand.

Dating techniques are laughable. The fossil record is laughable. The entire fundamental aspect of science is laughable.

See above.

Suppose Ice Cores dating back almost 800,000 years are laughable as well?

The more you bring these things up, the more wrong you will become. I have more than done my homework on all these things, as I was a strong agnostic before coming to Christ.

Spoken like a well trained sheep. Many militant theists claim to have been atheist/agnostic to try and give themselves some form of credulity.

So instead of trying to wordsmith your way through this, bring out the logic. I would not boldly step into a debate issuing these ideas without knowledge to back it up, so either bring me some input on scientific 'truths' or be done with it.

How was I wordsmithing? I wrote two very simple sentances. One asking you how old you thought the earth was? I don't see any wordsmithing there.

 

[PolyHedral]

Dating techniques are laughable.

Dating techniques rely on some of the most fundamental principles imaginable in physics. If they are wrong, you are wrong. I'm actually serious about this: if the physics behind radiometric dating is wrong, then the physics behind how atoms behave is radically different from what we observe every second of every day. This includes the behavior that keeps keeps you you. If radiometric dating is wrong, it logically implies that there's no need for you not to explode in a burst of alpha radiation.

(OK, that last bit was a very slight exaggeration. However, it is still true that radio dating is based on quite possibly the second-most fundamental behaviors in the whole universe. They can't be wrong in any sense you're looking for.)

 

[McBell]

Your faith in science is blind. If you knew what I knew about science, you wouldn't be so quick to ridicule gnostic approaches.

An extreme amount of water to account for the flood can only be from the work of a divine being. It explains what geology cannot. 4.5 billion years of Earthly activity and well over a billion years of life,, this is the result? It's laughable.
The simplest life form cannot be created in the most controlled, sophisticated lab on Earth and yet it occurred naturally? It's laughable.
Dating techniques are laughable. The fossil record is laughable. The entire fundamental aspect of science is laughable.
The more you bring these things up, the more wrong you will become. I have more than done my homework on all these things, as I was a strong agnostic before coming to Christ.
So instead of trying to wordsmith your way through this, bring out the logic. I would not boldly step into a debate issuing these ideas without knowledge to back it up, so either bring me some input on scientific 'truths' or be done with it.

so your argument in support of the world wide flood is "God Did It?"
Seriously?
And then you also claim to have "knowledge" in the same post?

You demand logic proofs yet your argument is "god did it"?
Wow.

So much for honest discussion with you.

 

[Orias]

Your faith in science is blind. If you knew what I knew about science, you wouldn't be so quick to ridicule gnostic approaches.

To ridicule ignorance?

It is undoubtabley a very narrow position to undertake, yet an innevitable stance to One who only see's with their eyes.

An extreme amount of water to account for the flood can only be from the work of a divine being. It explains what geology cannot. 4.5 billion years of Earthly activity and well over a billion years of life,, this is the result? It's laughable.

Can you finish your sentence please?

The simplest life form cannot be created in the most controlled, sophisticated lab on Earth and yet it occurred naturally? It's laughable.

Your speak of blindness

Dating techniques are laughable. The fossil record is laughable. The entire fundamental aspect of science is laughable.

Unsupported claims are laughable.

The more you bring these things up, the more wrong you will become. I have more than done my homework on all these things, as I was a strong agnostic before coming to Christ.

Time homine unius libri.

So instead of trying to wordsmith your way through this, bring out the logic. I would not boldly step into a debate issuing these ideas without knowledge to back it up, so either bring me some input on scientific 'truths' or be done with it.

Provide your knowledge.

You wish to debate with metaphysical words. "Sheepish" one's at that.

 

[darkendless]

To put it simply, science dismisses religious intrigue on account that we do not see such things taking effect, as if 'right now' defines what could have happened 1000's of years ago. So scientists make vast assumptions.
For example, the biblical Great flood. It explains aquatic fossils on the tops of mountains. It explains that fossil fuels would have rapidly formed due to decay, pressure, and burial resulting from it.
And yet, because there are mountains and there isn't an existing flood today to show how those fossils got up there, there just has to be millions of years of stratum-colliding masses to form them, when they could have immediately been made at the beginning chaos of the Earth being formed.

What is the use of science if it only 'discovers' what it wants to 'discover'?

I deal with issues such as flooding and groundwater every day as i'm a geotechnical engineer researching landslides which often result in the build up of hydrostatic pressure in loose soil layers.

Aquatic fossils are a result of uplift. Where i'm sitting right now used to sit about 50km out to sea but for the uplift of the Mount Tamborine ridge approximately 20 million years ago. When we excavated foundations for a retaining wall I found fossils of all sorts of things.

In my job I make assumptions based on experience. For example, I can correlate data taken from drilling to geology maps. The problem I have with people who criticise dating methods is the fact that landslide remediation techniques I employ are currently working. If I was wrong geologically those techniques would have failed. So as you can imagine it annoys me to see people make such uninformed claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your faith in science is blind. If you knew what I knew about science, you wouldn't be so quick to ridicule gnostic approaches.

I'm willing to bet that what you know about science isn't very much.

An extreme amount of water to account for the flood can only be from the work of a divine being. It explains what geology cannot.

Except the flood never happened, so geology doesn't have to explain it.

4.5 billion years of Earthly activity and well over a billion years of life,, this is the result? It's laughable.

And how did you reach this conclusion?

The simplest life form cannot be created in the most controlled, sophisticated lab on Earth and yet it occurred naturally? It's laughable.

Which position, exactly, is more laughable? The position that proposes that, just like every other biological process that has ever been recorded ever, life came about through natural means - or the position which says "a magic man did it"?

Dating techniques are laughable.

Yep, you've just proven what I said above. You know nothing about science.

The fossil record is laughable.

Now you have made it clear you know less than nothing about science.

The entire fundamental aspect of science is laughable.

And this clinches it. Not only do you not understand science, you are so ill-informed that you are actually against science. Such ignorance is lamentable.

If the "fundamental aspect of science" is so laughable to you, then stop using a computer. In fact, you might as well stop using health care, central heating, transport and all the other luxuries that this "laughable" process has provided you. You champion the wisdom and grace of a nonexistent magical sky daddy while decrying the achievements of the very process which has provided you with the most comfort, warmth and protection throughout your life.

If science is so laughable to you, then you were clearly born in the wrong age. You belong back in the dark ages.

The more you bring these things up, the more wrong you will become. I have more than done my homework on all these things, as I was a strong agnostic before coming to Christ.

Nobody's perfect.

So instead of trying to wordsmith your way through this, bring out the logic. I would not boldly step into a debate issuing these ideas without knowledge to back it up, so either bring me some input on scientific 'truths' or be done with it.

What truths would you like to hear?

 

[PhAA]

It just depends on your perspective. One religion tries to disprove other religions, theists try to disprove atheists.

 

[darkendless]

It just depends on your perspective. One religion tries to disprove other religions, theists try to disprove atheists.

Not really, theists slam everything that gets in the way of their precious beliefs.

 

[Gunfingers]

Not really, theists slam everything that gets in the way of their precious beliefs.

Let's not clump the wacky fundies in with the good ones. Some of our most ardent defenders of science on these fora are theists.

 

[tumbleweed41]

An extreme amount of water to account for the flood can only be from the work of a divine being..

The one who ridicules science as faith over fact stumbles backwards over the 'Goddidit'
stump of rationalization.

 

[darkendless]

Let's not clump the wacky fundies in with the good ones. Some of our most ardent defenders of science on these fora are theists.

It was a refernece to the post I quoted.

I know there are some normal theists out there, usually the ones that keep to themselves.

 

[PhAA]

Not really, theists slam everything that gets in the way of their precious beliefs.

:yes:

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I deal with issues such as flooding and groundwater every day as i'm a geotechnical engineer researching landslides which often result in the build up of hydrostatic pressure in loose soil layers.

Aquatic fossils are a result of uplift. Where i'm sitting right now used to sit about 50km out to sea but for the uplift of the Mount Tamborine ridge approximately 20 million years ago. When we excavated foundations for a retaining wall I found fossils of all sorts of things.

In my job I make assumptions based on experience. For example, I can correlate data taken from drilling to geology maps. The problem I have with people who criticise dating methods is the fact that landslide remediation techniques I employ are currently working. If I was wrong geologically those techniques would have failed. So as you can imagine it annoys me to see people make such uninformed claims.

I didnt know you were australian.

-Q

 

[darkendless]

I didnt know you were australian.

-Q

From the Gold Coast.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The one who ridicules science as faith over fact stumbles backwards over the 'Goddidit'
stump of rationalization.

There are witness accounts, historical and physical evidence. If one is foolish enough to take scientific theory as proof and not heed anything else out of pure stubbornness, than you will just have to live with it.
The stump of rationalization lies on the fact that a great flood is evident and accounts for what science has extreme difficulty figuring out, needing many variables just to explain a single issue.
And if a flood is impossible by natural means, than that says something.
Among many other things.
The ridiculous condition of man that the Bible speaks of brings irony to an idea that it may not be true.
Are you saying that the Books of Moses are only a hoax, constructed by geniuses beyond mathematical and social measure to fool the world?
Let's just forget other aspects besides geology, like how such gullible ancient people, as atheists call them, were able to do achieve a great many things. Like build pyramids, astronomy, and the like. And how some civilizations as we know it disappeared without a trace.
You will resort to aliens before taking in witnessed, documented events.. that is why I feel many atheists have a denial complex in general, likely do to some kind of animosity towards religion as a contributing factor.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

There are witness accounts, historical and physical evidence. If one is foolish enough to take scientific theory as proof and not heed anything else out of pure stubbornness, than you will just have to live with it.
The stump of rationalization lies on the fact that a great flood is evident and accounts for what science has extreme difficulty figuring out, needing many variables just to explain a single issue.
And if a flood is impossible by natural means, than that says something.
Among many other things.
The ridiculous condition of man that the Bible speaks of brings irony to an idea that it may not be true.
Are you saying that the Books of Moses are only a hoax, constructed by geniuses beyond mathematical and social measure to fool the world?
Let's just forget other aspects besides geology, like how such gullible ancient people, as atheists call them, were able to do achieve a great many things. Like build pyramids, astronomy, and the like. And how some civilizations as we know it disappeared without a trace.
You will resort to aliens before taking in witnessed, documented events.. that is why I feel many atheists have a denial complex in general, likely do to some kind of animosity towards religion as a contributing factor.

Witness accounts form who? Noah?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Witness accounts form who? Noah?

I'll put it like this:

Noah's descendants would become nations, including Babylon. These nations knew well their ancestor Noah and have several documents regarding the flood. Nobody in the history of these events rose up and said otherwise, because there was nobody else.

It was well over 4000 years ago, so documenting something period required a great importance of the subject to be written.
It seems to me that atheism is a flavor of thought that refuses theism rather than finding any real truth. Is it not science to discover?
Blasphemy, I tell you.

 

[darkendless]

I'll put it like this:

Noah's descendants would become nations, including Babylon. These nations knew well their ancestor Noah and have several documents regarding the flood. Nobody in the history of these events rose up and said otherwise, because there was nobody else.

It was well over 4000 years ago, so documenting something period required a great importance of the subject to be written.
It seems to me that atheism is a flavor of thought that refuses theism rather than finding any real truth. Is it not science to discover?
Blasphemy, I tell you.

Since you've stated some knowledge of geology please indicate using geology how a global flood was ever possible.

Do you understand that a flood of that magnitude would almost inevitably salanize the worlds arible land?