The Anti-theist Thread

[Twilight]

One action doesn't make a person unrighteous, especially if later repented for. Take the example of David as well for that. In the case of Lot, you have to understand the customs of the day. These angels were visitors in Lot's house. It was the custom to protect visitors at all costs. If you will note, this action never did actually take place. That is an act of individual wrongness on the part of Lot, not God doing something cruel or injust, so I fail to see why you brought it up while using my quote at the same time. I guess that I didn't make what I said earlier as clear as it should have been. God doesn't do cruel things without justice. People do bad things, and there isn't an excuse for it always. That is why repentance and forgiveness is so neccesary

[Rána Eressëa]

That's the problem with Christianity: do whatever you want! Just make sure to say you're sorry. I'm gonna go murder a few people now, because, hey, all I have to do is ask for forgiveness later and repent

[Twilight]

It isn't just saying that you are sorry. It is actually being sorry and genuinely repenting. If you go out and murder people, intending to ask for forgiveness later, something tells me that the repentance isn't going to be genuine, and it won't end up doing you much good.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Twilight
Once again you bring up accuracy of radiometric dating... Simply by changing the assumptions, all actual radiometric dates can be brought down to essentially zero.

Nothing in these references "invalidates" radiometric dating as a whole. Exceptions to a rule do not invalidate the rule. Most of these exceptions are regarding specific cases and do not address the age of the earth.

Boyle, R. W., "Some Geochemical Considerations on Lead Isotope Dating of Lead Deposits," Economic Geology, vol. 54, no. 1 (January/February 1959), pp. 130-135.

"From these examples it is readily apparent that the amount of accumulated radiogenic lead contributed to a deposit is the deciding factor in age determinations and must be known before any age can be assigned to a deposit." p. 135

This point of this article is NOT that radiometric dating is not valid. It is specifically addressed to sedimentary lead deposits which would naturally be susceptable to less reliable data.

[QUOTE]
Brooks, C., D. E. James, and S. R. Hart, "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in Young Continental Volcanism," Science, vol. 193 (September 17, 1976), pp. 1086-1094.

"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years.

This article references isotopic inheritance;igneous rocks inheriting the age of the parent rock. The age of the parent rock is still measured in millions of years, not hundreds. This is a question of precision not accuracy.

Catanzaro, E. J., and J. L. Kulp, "Discordant Zircons from the Little Belt (Montana), Beartooth (Montana) and Santa Catalina (Arizona) Mountains," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 28 (January 1964), pp. 87-124.

"The common occurrence of discordant results in isotopic geochronometry presents an intriguing and complicated problem. It has become obvious that many mineral samples used in age determinations have not been closed systems throughout their histories. "

Localized variations of zircon crystals formed by differentiation and altered by hydrothermal processes is important if you are relying on these crystals to date your formations. Disconformities, non-conformities, intrusions of youger igneous rock are more reliable for dating the formation.

Engels, Joan C., "Effects of Sample Purity on Discordant Mineral Ages Found in K-Ar Dating," Journal of Geology, vol. 79 (September 1971), pp. 609-616.

"It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant." p. 609

"Discordances between mineral K-Ar ages in a single rock sample are common, and if these minerals are mutual contaminants, purity levels must be carefully established in order to avoid mixed, meaningless ages." p. 615

Again this is cautionary regarding dating formations by individual minerals differentiated during formation. It is necessary, then, to use a homogenous sample representative of the entire formation and not individual minerals for radiometric dating

Faure, G., and J. L. Powell, Strontium Isotope Geology (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1972).

"It is readily apparent that these rocks [i.e., the Pahrump diabase from the Panamint Mountains in California] scatter widely on the isochron diagram.... making it impossible to determine their geologic age." p. 102

"All of the above conclusions regarding the suitability for dating of rocks and minerals apply only when the rocks or their minerals have not been altered by chemical weathering at or near the surface of the Earth..." p. 102

Metamorphic rocks are inherently less reliable for dating purposes since the parent rock can be igneous, metamorphic, and/or sedimetary. Metamorphic rocks are also more likely to be subject to infiltration of elements via hydrothermal activity. Again, this points to varying degrees of precision, not accuracy derived by statistical analysis.

Gentry, Robert V., et al., "Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification," Science, vol. 194 (October 15, 1976), pp. 315-318.

"Abstract. The discovery of embryonic halos around uranium-rich sites that exhibit very high 238U/206Pb ratios suggests that uranium introduction may have occurred far more recently than previously supposed. The discovery of 210PO Halos derived from uranium daughters, some elliptical in shape, further suggests that uranium-daughter infiltration occurred prior to coalification when the radionuclide transport rate was relatively high and the matrix still plastically deformable." p. 315

"Such extraordinary values admit the possibility that both the initial U infiltration and coalification could possibly have occurred with the past several thousand years." pp. 316-317

"Since it seems clear that the U radiocenters formed during the initial introduction of U and if this were as long ago as the Triassic or Jurassic are generally thought to be, then there should be evident not only fully developed, but overexposed U halos as well." p. 317

"If remobilization is not the explanation, then these ratios raise some crucial questions about the validity of present concepts regarding the antiquity of these geological formations and about the time required for coalification." p. 317

Coal would be very, very, low on the list of rock types one would rely on for accurate radiometric dating. Since no one uses coal to date the age of the earth this article is irrelevant to the discussion.

Hayatsu, A., "K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16 (April 1979), pp. 973-975.

"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." p. 974

This is standard statistical analytical technique used across many disciplines. The outlying data can be atributed to some of the effects described previously. To assume the data outside the second derivative to be the correct answer would be illogical.

Jueneman, Frederic B., "Secular Catastrophism," Industrial Research and Development (June 1982)

"deleted"
"The mechanism for resetting such nuclear clocks is not clear, but knowledge has never really stood in our way in the quest for ignorance. Meanwhile, such prehistoric 'creatures' as Nessie from Loch Ness or Champ from Lake Champlain, as well as others, may not be avatars at all, but survivors from the last catastrophe.

"Even as we." p. 21

The Loch Ness Monster???? The title of this article is a dead give away. Secular... as in not the religious interpretation

Macdougall, J. D., "Fission-Track Dating," Scientific American, vol. 235 (December 1976), pp.

114-122. Macdougall was Associate Professor of Geological Research, Scripps Institute, UCSD.

"Uranium 238 is the only significant producer of tracks in terrestrial rocks and in natural and man-made glasses." p. 115

..ground-water percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being impoverished another part can become abnormally enriched..." p. 118

Groundwater alteration of sample rocks would account for variations in results. This strengthens the case for the reliability of radiometric dating by explaining why variations in precision may occur.

Stansfield, William D., The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 614 pp. Stansfield was at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

"Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history." p. 80

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.'" p. 84

The radiological clock has not been invalidated to date. No one has provided any evidence that half-life rates can vary. Sampling methods and "open system" affects account for variations. This doesn't invalidate statistical method evaluation of adequately sampled formations.

All geological researchers rely on radiometric data to date. If any serious challenge to the technique would result in the abandonment of the technique, which has not occurred to date. The documentation of the possible processes that can cause results to vary only strengthen the knowledge of how to effectively apply the radiometric dating technique.

Deletions have been made to accomodate message lengh limit.
See orginal post for full text.

[Rána Eressëa]

Who said I wasn't going to be genuwine about it? What if it actually hurts me later? Why if I actually feel sorry for what I've done? Then all I have to do is ask for forgiveness and walla! Free ticket to Heaven. Where's the fairness in that? To not pay for what you've done? And don't say you pay "with your own mental pain" - once in heaven, that's all over with. You're happy. But still, you've done others very wrong, that mental anguish does not make up for. The whole system is out of right.

Basically you're still saying do whatever you want - just feel bad about it later and ask for forgiveness.

My message is live the best you can. In your eyes, God made us. He created us. With that comes how we work. And if humans are capable of love, they are capable of hate. Therefore in creating us, creating the way we work: he has given us these abilities to do these things. Never give someone the ability to do something you don't want them to do. That's his big flaw. If he did it on purpose, however, and he punishes them - and I manipulate a quote from Ever After -- What are you but making criminals and then punishing them for it, when you're the one who raised them that way?

[Arathorn]

The problem is that after something like pre-meditated murder, you never do know whether you've repented enough. The belief is that you cannot judge yourself. Even if you get off lightly with a life sentence or have good lawyers, you only get off with the laws of Man. You don't know until after you're dead how you will actually be judged. Therein lies the deterrent to such high crimes or mortal sins. This issue I've discussed with inmates during one of those outreach programs to penitentiaries we went to ages ago.

This is just to clarify how I view it as an individual who just happens to be christian (probably not a very good one, but we try).

[jerseydevil]

Here is something I came across - Secular Humanism . I don't consider myself to belonging to any "group" or labeling myself. But I thought this came close to some of my beliefs, although I didn't look that deep into the website - so there may be things there that I disagree with. Sorry I'm an individual - not a group person.

Secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. Secular humanists look to the methodology of science as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share, acknowledging that new discoveries will always alter and expand our understanding of it and perhaps change our approach to ethical issues as well.

[Rána Eressëa]

If that is so, Arathorn, then why is everyone telling me forgiveness is the only way? It seems you are judging how valid forgiveness is. Really, what's the truth here?

"Religion is based mainly upon fear...fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race." --Bertrand Russell

[jerseydevil]

Well in the Catholic Religion we were always taught about Pergatory. Even if you repented for your sins on earth - you still had to go to Pergatory to wait it out before being let into Heaven. If they were really bad - like murder - then you just went straight to Hell. Of course at the same time they taught us that god was all forgiving.

The one thing I really never understood was Limbo - to me that made NO sense what so ever. Babies that had NOT been baptized and obsolved of original sin (Adam and Eve eating the apple) were stuck in limbo for ever. Doesn't seem very forgiving or just to me.

[Twilight]

You are right that no ammount of being sorry is enough. That is why Jesus had to die for our sins. Pergatory isn't exactly a Biblical thing, it is more of a tradition for Catholics I guess. Forgiveness is the only way. It wipes away our sin so that we are clean in God's eyes. Forgiveness can only come from Jesus, which is why belief in him is the essential thing. I personally don't believe because of fear. Yes, there is eternal punishment for disbelief, but there is so much reward that comes from belief. I focus more on benefits rather than on the fear of going to hell if I do bad things.

[afro-elf]

rogue elf that is one of my favorite sites


Cirdan i'm glad you were here for that.

i got lost in the gabble

obvious the poster does not know about geology and posted some stuff that he didn;t understand and probably only a geo person would


so it sounds impressive to a layman but to a pro you sliced through it like fingolfin through a battalion of orcs

kudos

[Arathorn]

Yes. And in answer to JD's questions (which I also asked myself for a long time) on limbo, everything will be answered on judgement day. Purgatory, it is believed, is a temporary state of hell; with a long wait. But the speed by which you go to heaven is determined by how many living people ask God to forgive you. You don't know, of course; and you can't ask other dead souls to pray for you or pray for yourself. The time for that is up.

That's how our younger more educated parish priest puts it.

[jerseydevil]

Well the Catholic School I went to in Princeton taught that you didn't have to go to confession - because God already knew if you were truly sorry for your sins. We did go to mass every other Friday though.

[Arathorn]

I personally believe that all these other rituals are merely to assure people that something's happening with their efforts; sort of a receipt.
When the priest absolves you after you tell him your sins, it's just so you have a voice and a face to put with your confession. OH well.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by afro-elf
rogue elf that is one of my favorite sites

Mine too


Religion has convinced the world that there's an invisible man who lives up in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire and be tortured there until the end of eternity -- but he loves you.


I would also love to quote George Carlin (I think I'm going to follow him on this one): "I've begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to 'God' are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."

[Khadrane]

Who said I wasn't going to be genuwine about it? What if it actually hurts me later? Why if I actually feel sorry for what I've done? Then all I have to do is ask for forgiveness and walla! Free ticket to Heaven. Where's the fairness in that? To not pay for what you've done? And don't say you pay "with your own mental pain" - once in heaven, that's all over with. You're happy. But still, you've done others very wrong, that mental anguish does not make up for. The whole system is out of right.

The truth is, there is no fairness in asking for forgiveness and getting it. We all deserve to burn in hell eternally. Jesus paid for all our sins on the cross. Of course, if you murder someone and then become a Christian, you still should get punished by jail/execution.

And Twilight, keep on posting because you're like fifty times smarter than me.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Anytime. I'll meet you in the Grand Canyon and you explain how it all happened in 6000 years. There is no burden of proof on a theory since it doesn't claim, as the bible does, that is is the absolute and final truth.

Dear me, Cirdan. Whatever happened to all those 'facts' you were throwing around earlier? Or wasn't that you?

Your theory claims that the universe originated in a big bang, everything is spontaneously organized, the earth is billions of years old, life originated from nonliving chemicals, and everything has evolved from a common ancestor. Have I left anything out?

I certainly got the impression that you're claiming that what you say is true.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Burden of proof? prove the red sea parted. Prove that jesus turned water into wine. Eyewitnesses? They were about human
frailty to make up a tale?

It's certainly possible that they were embellished or wholly imagined. While the parting of the Red sea is difficult to learn anything about, I highly doubt that a story like turning water into wine would be credible in the same generation unless it was true. Otherwise someone that was there could have said it was false.

Originally posted by Cirdan
The name creationism is a dead give away; it implies that it is a belief system (-ism).

Darwinism. Gradualism. Humanism.
Creationism is just a theory. However, it's a theory which I believe more likely than evolution. Regardless of what we both believe, they're in the same boat as far as proof goes.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Atheists think that some fragments of the bible are true, but there are many better sources of knowledge about physics, geology, archeology, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, hydrology, and oceanography.

Christians think that, even though the bible is true, there are better sources for those studies. A conflict between the facts and what scripture says will result from a misreading of one or another.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why can't the universerse have no true beginning or end???

It could. I said that earlier. If there is a self-existantl order, it can be either God or Everything-the universe.

However, since the energy state of the universe is gradually becoming stagnant, it's highly unlikely that the universe is self-existant.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Also, I don't want to see annymore references to Evolutionists; there is no church of evolution as far as i know.

H.J. Muller, arranged to have 177 leading American biologists sign a manifesto which stated that the organic evolution of all living species is a fact of science that is a well established as the earth is round.

As a matter of fact, evolutionists are fairly well organized, aren't they? I mean, BoP posted an article in which the author claimed that it was 'betraying science' to admit that evolution could be false.

Heresy! A Dissident! Get him! Grab him! Lock him up! beat him soundly with rubber chickens!

Originally posted by BeardofPants
It's a made up word, used by someone with made up theories) Creationism. Bleh.

So are creationist and creationism. Bleah.

Just in case Wayfarer is reading this, I've given up trying to spoon feed him some facts. Let him believe in his myths, and I'll go back to my nice warm comfortable facts.

You haven't given me any facts so far. So I'm not particularly surprised that you're not going to. ]: )

Creationism can't be a theory because it requires faith as a prerequisite.

*sigh* do does evolution.

And it would be nice to stop the psuedo fact flinging please.

I agree. On both sides.
You've been doing it as well.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Order can not be 'invalid' anymore than a rock can be invalid. Order is something that either exists or does not exist, not something that is valid or invalid. What the heck is an 'invalid' order, Wayfarer? Give me an example, please.

Banging on my keyboard is inordered. Therefore, even if I do produce a sentance by banging on my keyboard, it doesn't mean anything.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
2) 'Atheistic religion' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

Religion:
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

That pretty well describes you guys.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
3) "The burden of proof still rests with the claimant. Show me" - Why don't you show me? Give us some concrete proof here. And your order/chaos ideas are not proof.

Show you what? That God exists? I'll freely admit that I can't. All the evidence, one way or another, is circumstantial. But we're in the same boat on that one.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
4) Is anyone willing to explain where God came from? This was RE's question, and no one has yet answered it.

Oh, yay. Let me phrase this very carefully.

There must be something that is self existant. It's irrational to say otherwise.
This something must have existed forever (otherwise it woud have a cause), and can never stop existing (because it causes itself to exist)
Now, what I said, much earlier in this discourse, is that this self-existent system can be one of two things: God, or the Universe.

It's a pointless question. Something that has no beginning needs no cause. Whether this is god or a steady-state universe.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
The Christian God cannot possibly exist, because it is impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent...if God is omniscient, he knows what he himself will do in the future. Since he knows, he has to do it - making him not omnipotent. Or, if he does something else, he's not omniscient, because he didn't know what he was going to do beforehand.

That arguement only holds water if God is constrained by time. He's not.
I think CS Lewis put it best. God inhabits the Eternal Now. There is no past or future to God, and therefore the line of reasoning unravels.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
God sacrificing Jesus. If he's omniscient, he knew Jesus be resurrected. Some sacrifice.

You miss the point. It's not a matter of God giving up something or someone. He allowed part of himself to undergo temptation, suffering and death. He put Himself through everything we go through, in order to help us through it.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
My question which no one has yet answered: If God knew from the beginning how everything would work out, why bother? Why bother to set Adam and Eve up if you're know they're going to fall? Why not just make them sinless? An omnipotent being could do that, right? Why go through the whole spiel of sinning and redemption and revelation if you already know how it's going to turn out and you're controlling it all? I guess it must be really boring up there in heaven . . .

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
6) My question which no one has yet answered: If God knew from the beginning how everything would work out, why bother? Why bother to set Adam and Eve up if you're know they're going to fall? Why not just make them sinless? An omnipotent being could do that, right? Why go through the whole spiel of sinning and redemption and revelation if you already know how it's going to turn out and you're controlling it all? I guess it must be really boring up there in heaven . . .

Of course he could. It's a matter of wanting to. What would be the point of making creatures without free will? And once you've given a creature free will, it's only a matter of time before they use that freedom to do something you would prefer they didn't.

He could have created brainwashed humans. But brainwashed humans would be incapable of having the kind of relationship with Him that He wants.

[Khadrane]

Religion has convinced the world that there's an invisible man who lives up in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire and be tortured there until the end of eternity -- but he loves you.

Umm... about the hell thing, God doesn't want to send people there. He is just giving them what they want- they want to be completely out of the presence of God, and that is what they are getting.

[Khadrane]

Anytime. I'll meet you in the Grand Canyon and you explain how it all happened in 6000 years. There is no burden of proof on a theory since it doesn't claim, as the bible does, that is is the absolute and final truth.

The flood. This won't really explain anything to you, because you don't believe in the flood, but wouldn't hundreds of millions of tons of water carve a canyon quicker than normal? When Mt. Saint Helen's blew, a canyon one tenth or one hundredth the size of the Grand Canyon was carved in a day.

[Rána Eressëa]

Khadrane, have you personally talked to God about this? Because as far as I'm concerned that's your point of view, not his. He created Hell to send them there - if he didn't want to, he wouldn't. And first of all, they just don't believe in God, they don't, however, believe in pain and torture as fun. So what's the point in the torturing? Obviously, God wants to put them there to hurt them. If he was just "giving them what they want" he wouldn't let them be tortured. End of argument.