Religion anyone?
-
why should you wage a war for something you don't believe in?
or is it correct to say: "I believe in Atheism!"???
-
@Kwist:
THESE communists were institutionally and oicially atheists and they indeed called themselves atheists. So I name them in this case again.@Jakob:
Yes, it was almost like compulsory "religion".
And wars are not only fought for religious reaons but also for power (which has mostly been the case during the last couple of centuries). -
Yes, I see you point but in this particular case they did indeed hate believers just because they were believers. What is it then? It's simpl believing in not believing and that's what led them to do so.
-
Gaeius,
The point I wanted to make is that 'non-believing' doesn't automatically mean hating the people that do believe.
Just like not having a car doesn't mean you hate cars.....
-
Unfortunately, there is, and always has been, too much power wrapped up with any kind of movement....religious or dogmatically secular like Soviet Communism.
Those in power, whether clergy or the party elite all too often demonstrate a desire to make people think the same way that they do. Many are control freaks, which is why they are in the position they are in. It was true of Mohammed, it was true of Torquemada, it was true of David Koresh and it was certainly true of the Politburo.Although I thoroughly respect his science, it's also true of Richard Dawkins, who is as fanatical and dogmatic in his atheism as many of the religious figures he takes issue with. In the case of Creationists, they have it coming.
-
I do not neccessarily agree whole-heartedly with Richard Dawkins however I do think it is very important that religion is kept out of public discourse.
-
Solo,
- Calculation based on ‘half-life’ of radioactive isotopesis is criticized by many scientists, for a long time (we can see many comments on the Internet…).
For ‘short-lived’ cathegory, because the result is influenced by the sun and by the atmosphere, there are additional questions as age of sun, not-constant atmosphere, configuration (stable?!!) of our planet system, etc.
Unsignificant variation in time of isotopes can implicate another question: which progress is proper to be considered – arithmetic (linear), geometric (asymtotic), or...?!
Supplemental question: aren’t there possible natural factors that can affect ‘half-life’ process, even to increase (to enrich) isotopes?!
- Back to that video clip...., respective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw
That film is an evident counterfeit!
Verify, please: calendars, astrology, names, locations, fashions, execution methods, narative manner, etc.
Beside that, no one till now, except Jesus Christ, was resurrected and remained alive forever.Cornel
-
@Cornel,
No bible quote this time to support all that?
I guess there is none that talks about 'half-life' and 'isotopesis', right? -
@alan fraser said:
Although I thoroughly respect his science, it's also true of Richard Dawkins, who is as fanatical and dogmatic in his atheism as many of the religious figures he takes issue with. In the case of Creationists, they have it coming.
Not true Alan. Richard Dawkins describes himself (in "The God Delusion" - if you haven't read it, I recommend it strongly) as agnostic - because he acknowledges that he cannot prove the non-existence of a god. True atheism is a belief system - as unsupportable by evidence as religious faith. However he also explains how there can be degrees of agnosticism - citing the 'teapot hypothesis' -and describes himself as being at the far end of that agnostic scale.
Crucially however - and this is the REALLY important point - he also says that should he be given genuine, testable proof of God's existence, he would instantly change his views. This is the key difference between an enlightened scientist and a blinkered 'believer' who would cling to his views in the face of all evidence. -
I'm just looking for a decent chocolate chip cookie recipe...
Name of Group Name of Religion Number of followers Date of Origin Main regions covered
Abrahamic religions
3.4 billion Christianity 2.1 billion 1st c. Worldwide except Northwest Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of Central, East, and Southeast Asia.
Islam 1.5 billion 7th c. Middle East, Northern Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, Western Africa, Indian subcontinent, Malay Archipelago with large population centers existing in Eastern Africa, Balkan Peninsula, Russia, Europe and China.
Judaism 14 million 1300 BCE >Israel and among Jewish diaspora (live mostly in USA and Europe)
Bahá'í Faith 7 million 19th c. Dispersed worldwide with no major population centers
Indian religions
1.4 billion Hinduism 900 million no founder Indian subcontinent, Fiji, Guyana and Mauritius
Buddhism 376 million Iron Age (1200–300 BCE) Indian subcontinent, East Asia, Indochina, regions of Russia.
Sikhism 23 million 15th c. India, Pakistan, Africa, Canada, USA, United Kingdom
Jainism 4.2 million Iron Age (1200–300 BCE) India, and East Africa
Far Eastern religions
500 million Taoism unknown Spring and Autumn Period (722 BC-481 BC) China and the Chinese diaspora
Confucianism unknown Spring and Autumn Period (722 BC-481 BC) China, Korea, Vietnam and the Chinese and Vietnamese diasporas
Shinto 4 million no founder Japan
Caodaism 1-2 million 1925 Vietnam
Chondogyo 1.13 million 1812 Korea
Yiguandao 1-2 million c. 1900 Taiwan
Chinese folk religion 394 million no founder, a combination of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism China
Ethnic/tribal
400 million
Primal indigenous 300 million no founder India, Asia
African traditional and diasporic 100 million no known founder Africa, Americas
Other
each over 500 thousand
Juche 19 million North Korea
Neopaganism 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism 800,000
Rastafarianism 600,000
Scientology 500,000 1951 -
I stand corrected then, Andy. That sounds utterly reasonable.
Cornel, which scientists disagree with radiometric dating? Which universities do they teach at? What papers have they published, in which journals? Where did they get their doctorates The back of match books doesn't count.
This is another fallacy put about by Creationists...that there is still any kind of debate going on about the matter. There isn't...any more than there is about whether the world is supported on the back four elephants, standing on the back of a giant turtle. -
We need a 'banging head against brick wall' smilie....
-
Alan, see Proverbs 8:23-26:
“I* was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth, while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the beginning of the dust of the world.”
(* ‘I’ means “The Wisdom)There aren’t mentioned those “four elephants and a turtle”…,
In Latin Vulgate Bible, Proverbia 8:31, the shape of The Earth is described as an oblate spheroid:
“…ludens in orbe terrarumet deliciae meae esse cum filiis hominum.”
(In English, Proverbs 8:31 wasn’t translated properly…!)Cornel
-
Don't tell me, Cornel. Tell the Pope. Tell the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church. They believe in Evolution too.
I know it doesn't mention elephants and turtles...that's Hindu mythology. I wouldn't expect to see that in the Bible.
Anyhow, that Latin doesn't mention an oblate spheroid, just a sphere. It says "...playing in the sphere of the earth, and my delights were with the sons of men."
Bangs head against brick wall. Still waiting for list of reputable scientists...and you can forgrt that nonsense about Polonium halos found in granite, that's already been debunked by reputable scientists.
-
well, in regards to how old our planet is, I have to agree with Cornel, that science can't be 100% sure that its 4.5 billion years old.
we only have a very short period of time, where scientists have been studying the behavour of molecules.
so standing in the middle of rail way tracks will not necessarily let you see, where they leed to or where they come from. they may have quite strong evidence by now, that earth is indeed that old.
but as RickW stated so nicely earlier, this figure has been corrected several times in history, and quite dramatically I may add.
doesn't really matter to me anyway, because 4.5 billion years is far too long for me to really comprehend.PS: "I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it!" Joker, The Dark Knight, 2008
(I just wanted to bring a quitation - however, it has no relevance to the discussion of our topic ) -
Alan,
Regarding “radimetric dating”, you can start w/ an easy article like this:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.htmlI wrote that latin expression is “orbe terrarum” and it wasn’t correct translated in English, as 'simple' spheroid...!
Cornel
-
@plot-paris said:
well, in regards to how old our planet is, I have to agree with Cornel, that science can't be 100% sure that its 4.5 billion years old.
But the difference is that science KNOWS it isn't sure. This figure of 4.5 billion is derived from what all the available evidence is telling us. Should future evidence contradict this, scientists would revise their hypothesis. The difference between science and dogma.
Loving the Batman quote too. Actually more illuminating than the biblial quotes....
A.
-
That's Gentry's theory regarding Polonium halos. I already mentioned that. It's been proven to be faulty research.
-
The model of the constantly changing age put on the Earth by reputable scientists isn't really a valid criticism. All scientist accept the fact that theories will be upgraded or overturned at some point. Nevertheless you have to go on what is best knowledge at the time.
Once upon a time we used to subject people to Trial by Ordeal, or measured the bumps on their head to determine their guilt or innocence. Now we use forensics. You might just as well make the argument that forensics are going to be superceed by something better someday, therefore we shouldn't pay too much attention to them and empty the prisons. Great news if you're doing Life for mass murder.
-
well, than it was probably just me, misunderstanding some posts to take these facts for absolutely hard and fast.
because how you said it, its my understanding of science; a truth we agree to believe until proved otherwise.by the way. all this "taking the Bible literally" is nonsense as far as I am concerned. I think the Bible is simply a collection of stories that transport a message of how we should behave and treat our fellow citizens...
Advertisement