Religion Debates and Discussions

I think people usually get hung up on things like this. They think that the evidence that they have found or uncovered disproves the existence of God, but most of the time from what I have seen the evidence works with the existence of God and not the other way around.

Well, we as Christians believe that God created our religion so it must be infallible in its teachings and so on. However, I know this point only works on those who already believe in an existence of God. The Church is 2,000 years old and still strong, and unlike other religions, The Church has meticulous documentation of various happenings and has a very detailed account of History as a whole. It has persevered through wars and persecutions. Thousands upon thousands of people have died for it (called martyrs), but that is not to be confused by how Islamic Terrorists sacrifice themselves for their religion. Many empires and civilizations have risen and then subsequently have fallen while The Church continues to stay strong. In fact, Christians are still persecuted today more specifically by Islam. I know this probably won't change your viewpoint but I hope that it helps you to see a different side.

That's a reason why I avoid using 100% values because it leaves not only no room for doubt, but it the makes person sound irrational.

 

Wait, quick question. If you religious people don't believe in evolution and think that Adam and Eve were just placed on the planet, doesn't the bible therefore advocate incest since we have them as a common ancestor?

 

OH MY GOOD LORD WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS 3000 TIMES

carbon dating is NOT used to measure the age of the earth. it is only ONE of the various methods used in radiometric dating.

uranium-lead dating is primarily used to evaluate rocks that are between 1 million-4.5 billion years old, and i find the whole "carbon dating isnt accurate so the earth is only 3000 years old" to be the most hilarious example of creation websites spreading absolute misinformation

 

"Evolution is wrong"
Can you explain why?
"I don't know how evolution works and I don't want to know."

?????????
At this point are you pretty much admitting that you're a completely irrational person with no interest in the truth? That's what this says to me.

Well firstly I'd like to point out that one can argue against God without being SURE he doesn't exist. Most atheists aren't 100% confident that he doesn't exist, they just lack a belief in him. But to clear things up, I am someone who is sure he doesn't exist and to me it's simple. There is pretty much no evidence for the Christian God that makes him any more likely to exist than any other God or any other of infinite possibilities of beings that could exist in our universe.

When I say God isn't real, I say that bearing in mind that there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance he is real. That is a small enough number that I feel absolutely safe in saying definitively that he is not real. It will never be 100% proven because God not existing is an unprovable negative, but that's as close as you can get and that's good enough for me.

I am though

I'm as sure that God isn't real as most adults are sure that unicorns aren't. Given the relative evidence, I'd say unicorns are probably more likely to exist.

its not so much that it PROVES evolution, just that it proves that the world is older than 6,000 years

Yeah Adam and Eve fked their kids. Lots of weird sht in the bible but that maybe takes the cake

 

He is good, isn't he.

Also just calm down XD
I was only asking SoCool a question and you took it like I was against Carbon Dating. From what I understand about it is it can't prove Evolution really at all but it is supposed to prove that the earth is older. Also, I know how annoying it is to repeat yourself because I have had to do it multiple times to you.

 

This is the crux of the problem with debating for or against religion, and is most of the reason I try to avoid arguments on the subject.

I don't recall talking about carbon dating, and I really don't know much at all about it.
If I did talk about it, please make sure I was right.

No evidence can directly disprove a God. That's a fact.
However, evidence can contradict and suggest alternatives to things that the Bible states are true. That's all i was trying to say with that point.

This is not what I was asking.
I'll rephrase in case I was unclear (which I usually am)
Since a lot of evidence for Christianity can also support other religions (everything against evolution supports Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc; anything "paranormal" that's attributed to a God can also be the god of other religions), why is it that this evidence is rarely used as supports for other religions?

Carbon dating can help prove certain parts of evolution because it can accurately (except past 50,000 years, which has been stated) date fossils. We use this to set up a "family tree" sort of thing that puts the species we believe to be related together, and dates when they existed. This helps us narrow down on the pinpoint, small details about evolution.
Carbon dating alone can't prove evolution, but it can assist in research.
Also, I don't think carbon dating is used very often to date the Earth, but, again, I don't know a whole lot about carbon dating.

 

Actually, it is not on anyone to disprove god's existence. Until you can prove a positive, it does not exist.
You say that we can't disprove it. That's true, but it's also poor logic and bad science to say that. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative. This is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution in criminal cases. This is why a scientist must come up with conclusive evidence to back up statements. You can believe in things that aren't proven, but until you can prove something, it isn't true from a logical standpoint.

 

I think you missed the point. He clearly said that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. "If you cant prove it, it doesn't exist" is taught to us by secular science which is quite biased and is trying to blind people from the truth.

 

I didn't miss the point- I said I don't need proof to say god doesn't exist.
Secular science is based on logic and reason. Nothing is trying to blind you and science has a bias towards truth by definition.
Unless you're trolling in which case I look idiotic now.

 

but like dude come on my sister is pretty ****ing hot lmao

islamic terrorists don't sacrifice themselves for their religion. islamic terrorists aren't even islamic. would you call a christian who bends the words of the bible into his favor so he can sin a "true christian"? islamic terrorists aren't islamic. they're just terrorists.

and THAT is why so many people in this thread don't believe in him.

when you make a claim, you have to give evidence to that claim. you can not state "your claim doesn't have evidence, therefore my claim doesn't need evidence."
like @ObamaTheReptile said, if i said i had 6 fingers, you would want to see proof that i had 6 fingers. i can't just say "you don't have proof of me not having 6 fingers, so i dont need to give you proof."

most people here aren't completely against god; i'd say, if god gave a 100% believable sign (when i say 100%, i mean that anyone in the entire world, even the most hardcore of atheists, would be changed) to us, we'd switch. but the fact of the matter is that in our lifetimes, god will most likely never do that.


TL;DR
you give me 100% proof that god exists, and i will believe in him. the issue is you can't give me that proof; so i'm not going to believe in him.

 

No, I am not trolling. You still look idiotic though, because you are completely blind to the fact that the "logic and reason" you speak of is all fake news. All that logic is taught to you by secular science. You believe everything science tells you just because its science. You have to dig deeper for yourself before you come to a conclusion on what you believe. Also, think about why you believe what you believe. You need to be able to formulate your own opinions, and not just believe what science tells you because its science.

 

This isn't about belief. It's about determining what is truth and what's unclear. It's not true that god exists, at best it's unclear. Belief fills in the unclear, but is inherently wrong until proven right. Science establishes truth. We believe what we want to based on the truth that careful observations show. For example: there is a particle that gives all things mass and holds the universe together. That is fact. Is this particle and act of god or does it simply exist because that's how our universe formed and we're lucky to have it? That's belief. Both are wrong because they cannot be proven.

 

Wait but where in the Bible does it say that God appeared to Adam and Eve's kids and said "it's ok to do incest"? How were they supposed to know? This is one of many times that you've said that its ok to do certain sins in certain situations but apparently we have no way of knowing when it's OK and when it isn't.

Also that's not how truth works. There's not "truth for you" and "truth for me". There are no alternative facts. Evolution is the truth and the fact that you don't know even properly know how it works just shows how amazingly and willfully ignorant you are. Imagine if people had the same attitude about other scientific theories, like gravity. "It's not my truth" he says of gravity, as he jumps off a bridge, fully expecting to be able to fly.

Does this mean that I can say "God is absolutely not real", and it would make perfect sense without me even having read the Bible? Would you think that was an informed opinion? Honestly, people like you, Gehenna, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

ah, you say that both are wrong because they cannot be proven. You see, we have proof to prove our faith, that being the Bible. If you choose to completely disregard it and reject the idea of that being proof, then thats on you buddy.

 

I think you're gonna need to support the claim that all science is a lie with a little more than "fake news."

 

If I throw the blueberries I'm eating right now into the air, I can watch them all hit the ground. That right there proved gravity. I cant go back in time and film evolution with my camera, therefore we have no proof of evolution.

@Sir_Inge says that until something is proven, it is deemed false by science. @GlobalistCuck says that evolution is a fact (making it true). Two evolutionists, two different contradicting stories trying to prove the same theory. hmm, something doesn't seem right.

I never said that all science is a lie. There is obviously some science that is true. All I said was that some science is biased and false.

People on CNN and other news channels that were promoting science have been exposed by many conservatives in the past. That alone shows that these news networks and the scientists that work for them are not afraid to lie. If 54science is true, why does the "truth" constantly change.

 

Well, no.
The blueberries falling to the ground show that there's an attraction between blueberries and the ground. There are lots of things it could be, if we're assuming we haven't figured out gravity yet. People used to think that there was some other quality of matter that determined attraction, which explained why things like a bus stayed on the ground while steam or smoke didn't.

Nothing in science is ever deemed 100% true. "Fact" is really overused, but it's important to remember that good science always keeps reasonable doubt in mind.
Also, we can directly observe evolution. I posted some examples of directly observed evolution a while back, and I'll get them here:

These obviously don't prove definitively that humans and apes came from a common ancestor, but it does provide very, very strong support for evolution.

Can I have some sources? Like we've discussed in this thread many times, we aren't going to make claims like that without citing.
Also, science is not the absolute truth. I feel like a lot of people have the misconception that whenever a scientist says something, it should be taken as absolute and infallible truth. That's almost the opposite of the point of science.
Science attempts to find the best explanation for things that we can observe. Sometimes, we find new things to observe, and our explanations need to be updated, or we find out that they just don't work at all.