Religion anyone?
-
@rickw said:
@alan fraser said:
Cornel, the age of the earth has been verified in just about EVERY laboratory on earth. Maintaining that it is still a matter of debate is just ridiculous, You might as well try to argue that the earth is flat or there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.
A quick look at some historic science will show that the age of the earth has been changing faster than a TV at a channel-surfer's convention.
According to science:
In 1899, the earth was 100 million years old.
In 1905, the earth was 500 million years old.
Today, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.At that rate, the earth will age 109,057 years in the next 24 hours; one year from now, the earth will be 39.8 million years older than it is today.
Talk about dodgy numbers! Your assuming that their was a constant change in the age of the earth (the theorised ages, that is) which is wrong.
From my very brief reading around the subject it seems their is a pretty widespread consensus on 4.6 billion.
-
With respect, Rick. Much of that argument is specious. Certainly science has adjusted the estimated age of the earth backwards into history, just as it has adjusted the estimated emargence of the first hominids...but at no time has it ever claimed that the earth was only six thousand years old, by back-tracking generations through the Bible like Archbishop Ussher.
That's what science does...adjusts it's position in the light of newer and better evidence.
I'm not an atheist; and I'd hazard a guess that the Pope isn't either. Yet he has called this whole debate absurd. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
Newton was deeply religious, but that didn't prevent him from believing that the established Church went seriously off-course at the Council of Nicea in 787...when much of this "Word of God" stuff was concocted.At the risk of repeating myself, mainstream Christianity doesn't have a problem with reconciling scientific knowledge with faith. That absurdity is the sole province of the eccentric fringes...which I'm sorry to say, the US seems to cultivate with relish...be it Creationists, conspiracy theorists or alien abductionists. I'm not saying the rest of the world doesn't have any, but in terms of sheer numbers the US is in a league of its own. In a similar way, it seems that only in America is a stance advocating science and reason automatically seen as being atheistic and anti-religious. I guess this is indicative of how much things have polarised over there.
How could Cornel insult anyone here? Cornel doesn't post anything other than passages from the Bible and exhortations to read it and understand the truth...which, as someone who has read it...cover to cover...several times...I find somewhat patronising.
-
@allen weitzman said:
Juan,
Please don't confuse one man's point of view with that of every man. This fellow, Dovid Krafchow, represents his point of view based on many things from the Torah, to Kabbalah to pseudo-scientific babbling. He is not a recognized authority within the Jewish Community...
AllenYes, Allen
I am sorry. I should of have pointed that it was only his point of view and not the Jewish´s one as I said.
Sorry again andShana tova
-
@rickw said:
I'd have to say that, given the evidence, Christianity is less evil/dangerous than atheism.
Why do a lot of religious people categorise those who don't believe as 'atheists'?
As if you get an automatic subscription to the atheist club when you don't recognise a god.In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
true, even Mr Bush couldn't resist involving God into the Afganistan war.
unfortunately many religions are beeing abused by influential people to serve their course (oil). it is simply easier to justify something brutal as war, if you make all the people around you "believe", that it is the right and only way.concerning science: well I think believing in science has definitely something to do with faith. loads of scientific facts have been revised many times throughout history. so believing in science is quite brave, because you know that you may believe in a false trueth.
the discussion with the age of our planet (currently 4.5 billion years)... I like to think it that way:
if you are in a space shuttle, it is quite easy to figure out, that the earth is round. it is considerably harder though to come to that conclusion if you are standing on the surface of the earth. it may be easier in the mid of the Sahara than in Central London, but it is still difficult.
if we stood on a giant hill for example, we could not see the difference between the curving horizon beeing a hill or a shpere...
and the same, in my eyes, counts for the fact of earth beeing 4.5 years old. every evidence leads to that fact. but we only have a very small period of time that we can rely to where these questions have been explored. so we can't be entirely sure...
of course believing in religion is far more difficult, because you don't have any evidence at all.
this is one of the great things about men, I think; that we can construct complicated philosophical theories and religions - and we can decide ourselves to believe in one of them!I for example have developed my own personal "religion", a theory I can believe in, which is scientific enough to not interfere with physical laws and such, but gives me enough freedom to explain thinks that are out of science's grasp yet, and therefore gives me peace of mind, because I can believe in something (and thats what religion is for in the first place, isn't it?)
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
Call it anyhow but how about communist Soviet Union?
-
@gaieus said:
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
Call it anyhow but how about communist Soviet Union?
As you say yourself, they were called 'communists'.
The term 'communist' does not refer to being atheist in the first place.
Which war has ever been started in the name of 'atheism'? -
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
Advertisement