BoobzTwo BoobzTwo

What does the word 'religion' mean to you?

What does the word 'religion' mean to you?

Opinion of a non believer

Actual History is chockfull of the rise and fall of religions for millennia … many Ages. And they all have the following in common. Whenever they became week enough to lose control of the majority of the sheeple, they are replaced with a new Messiah and a new message just as the Christians have done with the ‘old Jewish’ religion when that too lost its strangle hold on the world of Man due to its barbarism as perceived by man in a new Age. Anyone who lives in a future time views almost everything from previous times to be barbaric (except for those that thrive in barbarism) and in this Christianity is no exception. It is my belief that the purpose of religion has always been nothing but a methodology to control the masses. The Bible (OT and NT) are replete with plagiarisms from the actual real world of the past. The NT is in itself a plagiarism from much of the OT. The stories of the Bible are impossible in the real world in which we all exist. I agree that many names and places were real, but this is just another plagiarism from the actual history of man. If you can place your hand on a Bible and swear that the Earth is what ~12,000 years old, then you are a fool. If you deny the evidence of science and technology, then you are doubly a fool. If you deny the evidence of early man or prehistoric man and can find no logic or truth in evolution you are a damned fool. And if you are so foolish as to allow the leadership of some rascals who lived thousands of years ago during the ‘glorious’ days when all this stuff was concocted … to control virtually every aspect of your life today, you are doomed. But all you have to do is ‘have faith’ and ignore your own perceptions of reality … and all will be yours, just bring your pocket book and come often … because we have castles and churches and armies to build to prove they are right, yea right. The all-powerful all-knowing one God would never vanquish the devil (certainly within reason for the all-powerful mindful of His sheep) because He would be destroying Himself … as there can be no light without the dark? What better ploy could man devise than to make the light and the dark impervious to the perceptions of man, the sheeple? The complete history of the universe and that insignificant little planet Earth with its complete compliment of well ‘everything’ … all described between the covers of a book written thousands of years ago by smart (-ass) people with nothing benign in mind whatsoever who championed a flat Earth for a thousand years for naught than to promote the new religion of the Age of Pisces … the two fish. It took man and a simple invention called a telescope to start the downward spiral of Religion (Christianity this time) and it cannot be stopped.

63,745 views 180 replies
Reply #176 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 175
Reply #175lulapilgrim
Lula your source is as flawed as all creation hit-pieces are. I couldn’t get through the setup to fail prerequisites listed, some of which follow. Nothing but the honest pursuit of science scholarship in practice here, geez but you are blind.

“We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life “, “The overriding supremacy of the myth (evolution not creationism???)”, “The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology”, “… Evolutionary scientists”, “Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution”, “omnipotent chance (evolution of course)”, “the discovery of the DNA molecule … has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionary scientists”, “so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events” etc. Oh and this duzzie – “Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was it impossible for life to form by accident,—it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species either! Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species.” All bollox

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 175
I've said just about all I plan to here.
Excellent decision because you are just being rediculous, but you have my vote too! I am sure you intended to speak in detail but couldn't figure out how to. I hazzard you never read the article yourself but that is to be expected. If you do find some courage knowhow come on back and let us go over the details in some, yea right.

Lula your problem is that all you do is try to break everything unbiblical ... you never try to make anything work but you do have your flawless book. With the technology that we do have, biology is a splendorous thing and explains both flora and fauna. Just because the bible doesn't work doesn't mean that everything else doesn't either. We know so much more than you will even let yourself imagine about but that is your loss.

The Central Dogma of Biology   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kOGOY7vthk

Reply #177 Top

Lula, on second thought, watch this vid and see what you do not believe possible simply explained. I know you don’t want to have to read anything constructive or anything that makes sense (preferring the bible instead), but please stop playing biblical games and at least modernize your arguments and terminology. This might also let you know the difference between what a paleontologist, a geologist and a biologist find important. If you are interested the information we actually have as opposed to what you and other apologist’s say we have not … then watch or remain ignorant. This whole series is quite informative … and enlightening.

 

Molecular Genetics I   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRXA1_e30o

PS - Thanks for irritating me enough to find this Stanford University series, it is really pretty good.

1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

Reply #178 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 175
I've said just about all I plan to here.
I am sure you have quoted as much as you can on the subject, no more knowledge available to copy would be my guess. Jythier is a grown up (I think) and he can take care of himself if he would pursue his own arguments instead of your catholic ones, he is just a lowly lost Baptist type semi-Christian as you know. One defends their opinions with words of meaning, not little pointless jabs. But that is his problem so back to you then. I don't argue against your pitiful examples simply because all those ridiculous arguments (that you copy and paste from said YEC 'experts') has been soundly rebuked time and time again by competent scientists against whom I don’t even measure up to their exacting standards. A few of your YEC idols actually did present scientific like papers, but virtually none presented them in scientific publications preferring Christian apologists for their ‘PEER” reviewers (think of your own scientific prowess and you will get my meaning) and creation myth sites as their preferred source for posting. Honestly, you don’t see anything conspiratorial with this setup and dispersal of false information to the already blind??? The following is an example of creation nonsense in the face of science:

Question Evolution: Question 5   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wfgdqSUNCQ

Reply #179 Top

Jumping in as a new user, and without reading the whole discussion, sorry.... I'd like to add my view and hopefully (optimistically) include points that haven't had much discussion.

There was a time, the 1960s for example, when Christians thought that the science was 'settled' regarding the Old Earth hypothesis. So they had to twist what the Bible said in an attempt to match this new 'scientific' paradigm. I recall reading a small book by the astronomer Peter Stoner, who tried matching the six day creation account in Genesis to the formation of the universe and emergence of life on earth.

Today (and for many decades now) I and many others who have studied the evidence for both sides (old earth & young earth) have come to the conclusion that we have a modern day parallel to the children's story of the emperor with no clothes. It is intellectually respectable to laugh at young earth creationists, and cling faithfully to the atheistic evolutionary paradigm, no matter what challenges it faces. It really is not a case of faith vs science - it is a case of faith vs faith.

While one would hope scientists to be objective, it is largely impossible over the long run. With money, careers, and peer acceptance at stake, all embarrassing difficulties quickly find themselves swept under the carpet. So sad.

There is no truly scientific case that proves the earth is more than 10,000 years old. We are dealing with history, not science, as these things can't be repeated in the lab. There are many assumptions and projections used to posit that the earth is billions of years old, but these could easily be invalid, and often are invalidated by scientists. See "how old is the earth" for example. For some reason these discoveries don't make the news, because of course, we "cannot allow a divine foot in the door".
- if only science was a search for truth rather than a search for naturalism only.

Reply #180 Top

What parameters would you suggest the scientific community establish to objectively research whatever it is you call "the truth"? What in the world hasn’t been repeatedly tried in the last couple of millennia attempting to verify something/anything biblically meaningful and failing, any suggestions? Do you really expect this failing to change somehow now that we have Wikipedia? Mentally envision the environment and living conditions of those unknown scriptural writers, then snap back to the real world and tell me science doesn’t work. It is really this simple: Nothing works if you just don’t want it to however with that being said, there is nothing complicated or difficult about learning the basic sciences; you just have to want to. We have trees older than ten thousand years so what in the world are you talking about, oh, a biblical creation, how quaint? What in the world would prompt an old atheist like me to go to “Creation.com” to try and ‘discover’ anything useful let alone the age of the earth? The only ‘nudes’ here are those who envision a meaningful eternity and devote their entire lives to the unknown and improvable in spite of all natural explanations to the contrary.