Religion Debates and Discussions

That answer simply is not good enough. Christians are slammed on all the time when they say there is an answer they just don't know it, so saying that science hasn't "evolved enough" is not a sufficient answer. Besides science can't prove anything and you should know this. It can only gather what evidence it can see to form the most logical conclusion. There are things science will never be able to do.

 

Alrighty then, do your best and disprove away.

 

While Catholicism did spread through force for a time I do not believe that some of it was directed by the Catholic Church (The Vatican). If anything a lot of the conversions were due to Rome, Spain, and other Christian nations conquering pagan esque religious states. However, it is possible that there has been the occasional instance where violence was used on the Church's part.

 

Emmm all the crusades were done in the pope's name.

 

Not what so ever actually. I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now so I will just attach a video link explaining the general idea of the Crusades.

 

1. radiometric dating proves the origins of the earth presented in the bible wrong by billions of years

2. the various paradoxes associated with god and his powers. ex: can god create a rock so strong that even god cannot break it?

3. changes observed over hundreds of years indicating the evolution and humans from ape-like creatures to the humans we are now.

4. the various miracles done in the bible making absolutely no logical sense. ex: noah's ark isnt possible whatsoever for a multitude of reasons, primarily being that there isnt enough water on this planet to create the flood described in the bible nor can he put 2 of EVERY SPECIES of animals on a boat.

5. where are dinosaurs in the bible? you cannot argue for their inexistence as there are many, many fossils that have been uncovered that date back millions of years.

6. what makes you believe in god and jesus more than allah and muhammad? you clearly resort to believing the texts in the bible as your only source of information about your god, so what stops you from believing in the word of the quaran?

7. nobody has shown me reasonable evidence that i cant disprove of that indicates a higher power, so for now, im going to not worry about appealing to god or whatever.

8. i cannot imagine a world where, if the idea of god and jesus are not planted in peoples minds, the god christians worship is thought of as the creator of the world. i can, however, see a world in which the truths thought to be accurate by those who do not believe in a higher power will eventually be discovered seeing as how they are not arbitrary and the discoveries that prove our truths often times lead to and prove other theories.

 

OK that's comedy gold.

KollVenk was an ubërtroll from MCPVP days. He is also my Minecraft god.

@SoCool21
There is absolutely a cosmic teapot orbiting the sun, nobody's ever proven otherwise!!!

Also for the record atheism is just a lack of belief in God and agnosticism is not claiming to know whether or not a god exists.

So an agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't claim to know whether there is a god or not, but lives life without claiming a belief in one.

One deals with a lack of belief and the other deals with a lack in knowledge. They are not incompatible.

 

This.

 

First off I would like to point out that science can not prove anything. So you are incorrect when you say radiometric dating can prove the age of the earth.

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling puts it, " Radiometric Dating is often used to 'prove' rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates." I will link the article for you to read at your pleasure but I will quickly summarize the important topics.

For Radiometric Dating to effectively work a person must first assume that no contamination took place. However, since no one was there when a particular rock was formed no one can be sure if contamination occurred. Rain moves dirt, there are underwater streams, earthquakes occur. If you say that the earth is billions of years old then the number of chances that a contamination could occur increases exponentially! Here is the article if you wish to look at it here.

I'm sorry, but could you please give a specific verse for God creating a rock that could not be destroyed by God? Or really anything of that nature? Yes, there are tons of paradoxes in the New and Old Testament. Almost 100% of the time though, they are used to prove a point. As I already stated there are quite a number of these paradoxes in the Bible, and each one has a meaning of its own. If you want an answer on a particular verse, then I suggest you just Google it and figure out what is really meant. Also, many Bibles offer footnoted explanations for more difficult passages so that is an avenue you could also explore.

Are you sure about this one? Because the Mona Lisa was painted 514 years ago, and she looks just as human as the modern woman. Some specific examples would be great so I could read more about it! Look at Ancient Egyptian art, beneath all of the gold, jewels, and finery they look very humane and relatively unchanged by today's standards. This was over 5000 years ago!

First, lets look at the bigger picture for a moment. If there was a massive flood that covered the entire earth, then what is said in the Bible is perfectly logical. It explains how there are still animals around today and the same for humans. Catholics believe that there are a few instances in the Bible where the story is really just a story. Noahs Ark is an example of this as it teaches a person a number of things. 1. All things are possible through God, such as the creation of a boat big enough to hold 2 of every land or flying creature (fish can't live on a boat XD). 2. It shows how God has the power to destroy the earth, HOWEVER if you read the full story it ends with God providing for all of the creatures that were saved from The Flood.

By date back I assume you mean through the process of Radiometric Dating, which I find to be a shaky basis at best. Now on to your question. The Catholic Church believes that the book of Genesis teaches "what God did, and not how he did it." Here is an excerpt from a news article. Here is the source.

In 1986, John Paul II gave a series of general audiences on the subject of Creation. In them, he laid down a principle of Biblical exegesis that has been around since the Church Fathers: The Book of Genesis is not meant to teach science. Genesis tells what God did, not how he did it. “Indeed,” writes John Paul, “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about creation. . . .as presented in the Book of Genesis. . . .It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. . . .[But] it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings.”

Not true at all! Where Catholics differ from some of other Christian denominations is the sense that he draw our knowledge from 2 sources and not 1. The first is the Bible, and we believe it to be an infallible source. The 2nd way we receive information is through tradition. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself. Priests are able to trace there lineage (By means of who ordained them) back to Peter himself! The Church has a wealth of knowledge because of tradition. One of the reasons why the Catholic Church has existed for so long is because of its solid foundation.

And that's your prerogative, but just know that reason is a very complicated matter. One of the issues when arguing with Atheists is they think that proof and evidence is a 1 sentence answer. I recommend you read Orthodoxy by G.K Chesterton, and although I haven't read it yet, Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis. Just if you are ever bored

 

Next time you get a debilitating illness try telling that to the doctors as they treat you with the medical sciences that have extended our lives extensively.

Or, you know, next time you bring in your car to a mechanic, try telling them that the physics that allows the transfer of energy from the gasoline to the piston through combustion isn't a proven science.

Attempt to show a pilot that his plane can't fly because the science we've used to prove the concepts of lift, thrust, drag, and gravity to such a degree that we can send tunes of thin metal through the air at exceptional speeds isn't capable of proving anything.

Or even better, try telling that to the physicists who shows you the proofs for gravity that allowed humanity to land on the moon, put probes on Mars, take photos of Pluto, and determine the exact time it takes every planet to orbit our home star.

You'll be laughed at. Hard.

 

Yeah, because AiG isn't scientific and makes no claims to be.

To paraphrase Ken Ham, the owner of AiG:
'Nothing will make me change my belief in God. Any evidence that disproves God will be rejected."

That is the exact opposite of science, and the exact opposite of a man who wishes to have an actual debate.

AiG is a for-profit organization that exists to further itself. Nobody except diehards take it seriously.

 

He did, I watched it live, he got his ass handed to him. That's what I'm paraphrasing, and that's why I don't use him as scientific evidence.

 

Honestly, if you truly believe that science can prove anything (essentially) then you should really start reading, because even other Atheists know it can't prove anything.

I would hope they would at least read the article thinking that they have an interest in learning, despite what the website is called.

 

Radiometric dating is shaky at best so I'm not going to believe it, however I believe that humans lived to be 900 years old, someone walked on water and there's an old guy living in the sky because an old book says so!