By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Atheits ... How Many On VGChartz ?

jonager said:
ninty_shareholder64 said:

A funny comment on this topic is written on the toilet door of my university.

"God is dead,

Jesus was never alive,

Long live the mighty

Nintendo 64"

ROFL

stuid comment, but funny!

or not?

may i ask what university is that?

The Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg.

I studied neuroscience/biophysics there.



Around the Network
ninty_shareholder64 said:
Rainbird said:
ninty_shareholder64 said:

Yes, but a discussion about this topic is always insulting.

I'm feeling insulted everytime someone tries to prove god's existence. Things about evolution, C-14, etc. is just laughable at best, imho.

But hey, i have friends who believe in god and we're still friends, nevertheless. And yes i am rude.

Then you're probably being overly sensitive.

Anyway, having a respectful conversation is always better than name calling and what not. Anyone can claim to be right, but being rude and not presenting proper arguments just makes you come off as a jerk.

Besides, name calling can get you banned on this forum. I could easily have reported you before for calling every religious person stupid.

Hey!

What did i say?

I am not dump enough to kid myself. Everything you concluded is interpretation, or not?

Sending someone to hell for not believing is flaming, too.

And that's part of your belief, citing the bible.

So my interpretation of your religious belief is insulting to me.

Does that mean everyone believing in something that can't be proved at the moment are dumb? Last time I asked you said 'Yes!'.

And I agree saying to people they can go to hell for not believing is flaming, but I haven't seen anyone do that (not that I've been watching the thread closely, so it might have happened anyway).

And why is my belief insulting you? You have no idea what I believe in.



ManusJustus said:
kevin the wiiite said:

I have a big problem with one thing people are saying - "The bible is full of fictional stories."  Explain to me the thin layer of oil found throughout the entire middle east without their being a catastrophic flood to destroy and cover up that much forested area..  Explain Josephus' writings on the destruction of the Jews by Nero.  Explain the Egyptian record which tells a similar story of an enslaved people being let go by Pharaoh.  Explain the remains of the city of Jericho that was sacked by the Jews in the bible. (The walls being blown down by trumpet blasts even has its basis in science with natural frequency!)  Explain why 4 people would write entirely different accounts of the life of Jesus without having actually seen it. You can choose whether or not to believe in God, but the bible is as historical as any other ancient writing.  (a nice parallel is the recent discovery of the city of Troy proving the historical basis of the Iliad and the Odyssey)

Carbon 14 is absolutely useless as a dating technique because nobody knows how much carbon 14 you start with in ancient bone, or how much dissolves into the system while the bone turns to rock.  It's much better proven that human bones don't even last 2,000 years in most cases because of all the roman tombs found with only dust where there was once a body.  The oldest of bones preserved by ice where bacteria are rarely around to decompose anything are found to be about 10,000 years old.

Yet bones of 5,000 year old pharoahs are in great condition, with hair still intact.  You have a misunderstanding of science, so instead of delving into atomic isotopes or geology I'll just advise that you to research that area on your own (and not from a preacher or religious blogger who knows less about religion than I do about making women happy).

Natural frequency (resonance) is a property of all solids.  But stone walls aren't made of a single material (stone, mud, brick, wood), and even the same type of rock taken from the same source will have different properties.  When materials have different natural frequencies they dampen the frequency.  Engineers easily cancel out resonance by combing materials of different natural frequency.  Below is a link that is supports your religious theory, but with a ton of assumptions the engineer can still only claim that it was the marching of the army that brought down the walls, which is laughable when you think about how small ancient armies were.  If this was the case, every time there was a parade the town would come tumbling down.  Hitler's army would have destroyed itself on their first march through Berlin :)

http://www.reliabilityweb.com/index.php/articles/a_look_into_pulse_theory_and_why_the_walls_of_jericho_fell/

There is historical evidence of the Hebrews.  In the Armana Letters, which were political correspondance between Egypt and its neighbors, the Habiru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru)  were nomadic raiders from the desert who were attacking the Canaanites.  No where is there any evidence about Egypt letting slaves go

Yeah that's what I mean with the habiru people.  I forgot what they were called.

What I meant by saying that people decompose in 2,000 years was under normal circumstances.  Pharaohs were obviously preserved through elaborate processes.  If humans have been around for a few hundred thousand years then where are the 100 billion bodies?

And don't even get me started on macro vs. micro evolution.  Randomness does not get you from nothing to atoms to bacteria to fish to reptiles to apes to me.  It does get you finches of varying beak structure.



I'm not a fanboy, I just don't enjoy dual analog control.  It's d-pad or wii-mote for me.

the conduit has changed the way wii play games.

I know.  I'm sick of the puns too.

I got the urge to insult someone, but i decided to leave this thread.

Science advancement will cut back the religious influence until nothing is left.



ninty_shareholder64 said:

I got the urge to insult someone, but i decided to leave this thread.

Science advancement will cut back the religious influence until nothing is left.


that'll be some awesome thing to see, just hope iam around to watch it come true!



Around the Network
kevin the wiiite said:

What I meant by saying that people decompose in 2,000 years was under normal circumstances.  Pharaohs were obviously preserved through elaborate processes.  If humans have been around for a few hundred thousand years then where are the 100 billion bodies?

And don't even get me started on macro vs. micro evolution.  Randomness does not get you from nothing to atoms to bacteria to fish to reptiles to apes to me.  It does get you finches of varying beak structure.

Pharaohs (and many other Egyptians buried in the desert) were preserved because of the dry humidity.  There are human remains dating back millions of years and we find more all the time, though it is difficult because there were so few early humans (we bottlenecked to around 10,000 people before the last Ice Age).  Atomic decay is a sure thing, in fact our vast knowledge of physics and chemistry is what allows you to see what I am typing right now.

Evolution is proven by all types of science and the fossil record to genetics.  Genetic mutations happen all of the time, and considering that your DNA is replicated trillions of times and then passed off to your children, its pretty obvious that there are going to be errors.  

Where else do all of these old bones of different looking species come from?  Do you think God kills off every living thing of Earth every 100,000 years or so and creates vaguely similar new species?



kevin the wiiite said:

Yeah that's what I mean with the habiru people.  I forgot what they were called.

What I meant by saying that people decompose in 2,000 years was under normal circumstances.  Pharaohs were obviously preserved through elaborate processes.  If humans have been around for a few hundred thousand years then where are the 100 billion bodies?

Not every body is going to end up in the circumstances to be preserved. This is the reason for example why only 30 specimens of T-Rex have been found when I don't think you would argue there would have been many thousands of times that many.

And don't even get me started on macro vs. micro evolution.  Randomness does not get you from nothing to atoms to bacteria to fish to reptiles to apes to me.  It does get you finches of varying beak structure.

Evolution is not random. It is selective of random mutations. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing, just on different time scales.





I am 100% an Atheist. There are questions that science has yet to answer but there is nothing that science cannot answer.  I understand why religion exists both from a cognitive and a historical perspective but it really has no place in an enlightened society.

Sadly, I doubt we will ever be able to rid ourselves of religion because no matter how far we progress the vast majority of people simply lack the skill set to make use of this information except that the most superficial levels.



ND3G said:

I am 100% an Atheist. There are questions that science has yet to answer but there is nothing that science cannot answer.  I understand why religion exists both from a cognitive and a historical perspective but it really has no place in an enlightened society.

Sadly, I doubt we will ever be able to rid ourselves of religion because no matter how far we progress the vast majority of people simply lack the skill set to make use of this information except that the most superficial levels.

There actually are some things that science is fundamentally incapable of explaining. I can think of two examples off the top of my head. First, science cannot explain the rationality of the universe because science already assumes the universe is rational. Science assumes the future is like the past (principle of uniformity), and it also assumes Ockham's razor in many instances, so it cannot justify these principles.

Second, science is explained through mathematical formulas, but these laws are all contingent and rely on contingent variables. Mathemtical equations represent relationships between terms, but the constants within the equations are not explained by the equation itself. The equations can explain the relationship between constants, but it does not explain why the constants have that specific value. There will need to be something outside the actual equation to explain the constant. In this instance, you can see how even a Grand Unified Theory(GUT) that unifies all other scientifc laws will still have constants within it that are not explained by the theory itself.



Agnostic I guess. Cannot believe in a higher power that would punish people in my life, taking them away and therefore punishing me, all for being good people.



Hmm, pie.