Atheism has increased fivefold in United States (1 in 20 Americans)

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by Bluntzilla420, Aug 15, 2012.

  1. yeah i guess the way he worded it doesn't make it an ad hominem but there's so many people on this site and the internet in general that spout that 'uhh why would i argue with someone who cant sp3ll' shit
     

  2. Ohhhh yeeaaa aint that the truth.
     
  3. Toner, how old do you believe the Earth is?
     
  4. #204 tonerboner, Aug 24, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2012
    Well its life span isn't accurate but siencevtells us it's 6.4 billion yrs. But the bible insist on only 3-4 thousand years old. There has been discoveries of remains of a civilization on a island near sicali(?) greece that dates back to 10000 BC. Sumeria 4500 BC. There is evidence to suport human life was around well before the bible states, so i believe that the bible is illinfomed or was edited by humans to achive what ever goals they had.

    Short and simple 6.4 billion give or take couple mil. What about you?

    Don't get me wrong because there are events inthe bible science can collaborate. Yet there is some it can't. Go figure.
     
  5. 4.6 bil i believe it is.




    What events in the bible can science corroborate?
     
  6. #206 tonerboner, Aug 24, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2012
    What I mean is events,people, and places in the right time can be collaborated with other ancient text. Now when I said that I don't want you to think it was the "miracles" Im talking about.

    One quick one is Sodom and gomorah, they have found the silica in the sand had been turned to glass and can only happen by exposing silica to extream heat.(Ie 2000 degrees celcius) a process know as ventrification. We use it now to make glass these days, although we use special equipment. The bible said god rained down fire onto the wicked. We cant explain what did it but we know it's done.

    On another note the same thing is found in Peru at the acient site of the incas named ma-chu-pichu. The differences is that the stone which the walls are constructed seem to be fused together. Not even a peice of paper would fit in between them.

    Don't know how credible this site is as I found while looking for the spelling but here it is.
    Vitrification

    Tu shay on the age. Some times I feel I am deslexic, and not just numbers but worsd also. <<< left it as is lol
     
  7. Actually we can explain it, there are multiple geological theories that explain desert glasses which utilize phenomena we already know to exist. We just don't have a definitive explanation yet.

    Also, Sodom and Gomorah are quotes by the bible to have existed near the Dead Sea, not 500 km west of the Nile, where Libyan Desert Glass is found, in a place that hasn't seen a major city in all of recorded human history.

    Not to mention that this glass is dated 25-30 ma, well before the evolution of modern humans by two full magnitudes.

    Doesn't work, mac.
     
  8. #208 tonerboner, Aug 24, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2012
    Granted on the Sodom and gamorah subject I don't have legitement proof becuase I haven't searched but explain the rest found around the world, not just the the lybian desert. Your argument is pointed toward desert glas, there are stones ( 2-5 ton used to make 6 ft walls one ontop of another ) vitrified together in Peru, some 6-8 thousand miles away?

    My point is that there are things that sience can't explain and puzzle scholars all over the world.

    What about the domestication of plants and animals? If we are presumed to evolve from apes why does alot of written history start in mesopitamia? Maybe they migrated but why didn't they leave evidence on the way? What was the course they took? There alot of descrepincies in sience also. That's why we need to continue asking questions and quit thinking like arrogant animals, becuase remember that's all we are.


    Sam_Spade quote:
    Actually we can explain it, there are multiple geological theories that explain desert glasses which utilize phenomena we already know to exist. We just don't have a definitive explanation yet.

    That not just with this. That line applies to alot of science man that's why I tend to stay open minded to every thing. Becuase as we all know NOTHING is impossible.
     
  9. #209 Sam_Spade, Aug 25, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2012
     

  10. I'm not kidding you, I never said that the apes learning sign language was evolution. In fact, I said it obviously isn't because they aren't catching on.

    Actually, I do know how to work on an engine. That's a good example of where my grandfather gets pissed. While growing up, I didn't show a shred of interest in engines (both cars and engineering in general), yet I still know more about them than he does. I just started college and even though I don't know the equations off the top of my head, I can still do as much engineering as he can. It's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of interest and I have yet to come across something I couldn't understand.

    Just because I depend on technology doesn't mean I don't know enough about simple mechanics to still do swimmingly pre-industrial revolution. You can take electricity away from someone, but you can't take away their education and ingenuity. :rolleyes:

    I'm not an atheist...

    So, you can stop with your silly assumptions and I'll argue about the things I know about all I want. Considering we support people with Downes Syndrome and allow them to breed goes to show how much natural selection applies to the human race. Obviously evolution doesn't stop just because you remove that one element that makes it more noticeable. IQ is still a polygenic trait that changes from generation to generation and gradually improves with time. :rolleyes:

    If you read my post correctly, I was in fact arguing for technological advancement while questioning the role of evolution, with an emphasis on not being able to deny that we are gradually becoming more capable of complex thought.


    "Intelligence" = "The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"

    No, it's arguable that the man is more knowledgeable than the child, not smarter or more intelligent. Smart implies intelligence, not knowledge and knowing something isn't as significant as being able to learn and understand even more complex knowledge, which is what intelligence is.

    As far as the IQ of humans, it's shown to be increasing, so even though I agree that the ancients were less learned and not quite as dumb as we assume, I still think we're currently more capable than they were.
     
  11. [quote name='"Malvolio"']

    Ok, so we'll ignore the thousands of years of misery, ignorance, pain and suffering that religion has caused. Religion has held society back more than it has helped. Had we not fallen under the veil of religious ignorance that was the "dark ages", we would have reached our current stage of technological advancement much earlier.[/quote]

    That's not biased. Besides the fact that the Romans and Greeks were also religious and the fact that every great civilization has been. Or the fact that all suffering in the world would be just as bad without religion

    Religion has also been responsible for human risk taking , a faith in God makes a person believe they are doing something for a greater cause or power than themselves ,

    There's even some evidence for a God neuron that makes humans predisposed to wondering about their existence and what not.
     
  12. [quote name='"KenjaminK"']

    I'm not kidding you, I never said that the apes learning sign language was evolution. In fact, I said it obviously isn't because they aren't catching on.

    Actually, I do know how to work on an engine. That's a good example of where my grandfather gets pissed. While growing up, I didn't show a shred of interest in engines (both cars and engineering in general), yet I still know more about them than he does. I just started college and even though I don't know the equations off the top of my head, I can still do as much engineering as he can. It's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of interest and I have yet to come across something I couldn't understand.

    Just because I depend on technology doesn't mean I don't know enough about simple mechanics to still do swimmingly pre-industrial revolution. You can take electricity away from someone, but you can't take away their education and ingenuity. :rolleyes:

    I'm not an atheist...

    So, you can stop with your silly assumptions and I'll argue about the things I know about all I want. Considering we support people with Downes Syndrome and allow them to breed goes to show how much natural selection applies to the human race. Obviously evolution doesn't stop just because you remove that one element that makes it more noticeable. IQ is still a polygenic trait that changes from generation to generation and gradually improves with time. :rolleyes:

    If you read my post correctly, I was in fact arguing for technological advancement while questioning the role of evolution, with an emphasis on not being able to deny that we are gradually becoming more capable of complex thought.

    "Intelligence" = "The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"

    No, it's arguable that the man is more knowledgeable than the child, not smarter or more intelligent. Smart implies intelligence, not knowledge and knowing something isn't as significant as being able to learn and understand even more complex knowledge, which is what intelligence is.

    As far as the IQ of humans, it's shown to be increasing, so even though I agree that the ancients were less learned and not quite as dumb as we assume, I still think we're currently more capable than they were.[/quote]

    In your own definition you say

    Intelligence=the ability to aquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    The man is applying his skills from knowledge gained, while the high IQ child would have no clue how to fix the car.

    Its your opinion that the child is smarter, but according to you definition, the child is missing half of the equation, so it is arguable that the man is more intelligent in that act
     

  13. lol...you just described a MILITANT atheist. I would reckon that a small percentage of atheists could be described as militant. I don't have t-shirts supporting atheism. I don't hold rallies.

    I don't know where people get off saying atheists just pounce on religion 24/7/365. They don't.
     
  14. Atheists might respond to religious people. It wouldn't be our fault if religious people are on 24/7/365.
     
  15. [quote name='"dankydankk"']

    In your own definition you say

    Intelligence=the ability to aquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    The man is applying his skills from knowledge gained, while the high IQ child would have no clue how to fix the car.

    Its your opinion that the child is smarter, but according to you definition, the child is missing half of the equation, so it is arguable that the man is more intelligent in that act[/quote]

    That's not opinion, it's logic. If the child has a greater IQ than the man, then the child has a greater intelligence.

    Intelligence is not knowledge or skills, it is your ability to acquire and apply these things. The child simply has a greater ability to acquire new knowledge and skills as well as apply current knowledge and skills than the man, meaning he is more intelligent, by definition.

    It is not arguable that the man has a greater intelligence than the child because IQ measures intelligence and the child has a greater IQ. You misread the definition and are incorrect. It is only arguable that the man is more knowledgable.
     

Share This Page