Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[JoeMorgue]

"Gotcha quote from a well known intelligent person taken out of context that actually meant in it's original context the exact opposite" therefore Woo.

 

[dudalb]

I have no problem with the WSJ printing the article, but have real problem with their billiing the author as a "scientests".

 

[jimbob]

@ Elf Grinder 3000

Please listen to the arguments that are counter to your beliefs that are presented in this thread. Not all that long ago, I was you. A fundamentalist, born again, young earth creationist. I used to argue with scientists on forums (not this one) about how they were wrong. I knew my god spoke the universe into being in just six days roughly six thousand years ago. I knew I was right, and the godless scientist were all wrong.

Then I actually tried to answer a question that a godless scientist proposed to me. I was disputing the age of the earth. He said the scientific evidence supports the view that the earth is billions of years old, and pointed out that radioactive decay was just one piece of scientific evidence that supports it (among others).

My rejoinder was along the lines of "well God created the earth with the decay built in" as well as "the distance between stars was set when God created them, and he created them so their light would already be able to be seen on earth". (goddidit)

The fellow then asked me a question that changed my life (though slowly, it has taken 15 years to get to this point). He asked "If god were so powerful and good, why did he have to make the earth and stars look like a lie? Why does he make them look like they are billions of years old if they are only six thousand? What is god hiding?"

He was right. If god was real, if the biblical creation claim is true, why is god hiding it? If he created the universe, why can we not scientifically see it? Why does not all of creation point to god, instead of away from him? He is god, he supposedly wrote an infallible book. Why does what we can test and observe scientifically not match what he wrote in his book? If science is wrong about all of this, why is it right about so much other stuff? How can scientist get us to the moon and back, but can't figure out the actual age of the earth?

The only way I could still believe in a creator is by ignoring all the scientific evidence that contradicts him. If one is right, then the other is wrong. Either the bible got it all wrong, or all the scientist are getting it wrong. There is no middle ground. You can't pick and choose. This is something that is black and white. Either the bible is true, or it isn't. Either the science is right, or it is all wrong.

I offer this advice humbly, as a former fellow traveler. Science has not yet answered all the questions, but there is nothing else even close to answering those same questions.

Son of Inigo

The take of my Christian colleagues is slightly different but related. Not looking at the evidence that God has written into his creation is a misuse of one's God-given talents.

ETA: like a significant number of European Christians (including the pope FWIW) they believe that God created the universe 4.5 billion years ago and that evolution is true.

 

[Slowvehicle]

@ Elf Grinder 3000

Please listen to the arguments that are counter to your beliefs that are presented in this thread. Not all that long ago, I was you. A fundamentalist, born again, young earth creationist. I used to argue with scientists on forums (not this one) about how they were wrong. I knew my god spoke the universe into being in just six days roughly six thousand years ago. I knew I was right, and the godless scientist were all wrong.

Then I actually tried to answer a question that a godless scientist proposed to me. I was disputing the age of the earth. He said the scientific evidence supports the view that the earth is billions of years old, and pointed out that radioactive decay was just one piece of scientific evidence that supports it (among others).

My rejoinder was along the lines of "well God created the earth with the decay built in" as well as "the distance between stars was set when God created them, and he created them so their light would already be able to be seen on earth". (goddidit)

The fellow then asked me a question that changed my life (though slowly, it has taken 15 years to get to this point). He asked "If god were so powerful and good, why did he have to make the earth and stars look like a lie? Why does he make them look like they are billions of years old if they are only six thousand? What is god hiding?"

He was right. If god was real, if the biblical creation claim is true, why is god hiding it? If he created the universe, why can we not scientifically see it? Why does not all of creation point to god, instead of away from him? He is god, he supposedly wrote an infallible book. Why does what we can test and observe scientifically not match what he wrote in his book? If science is wrong about all of this, why is it right about so much other stuff? How can scientist get us to the moon and back, but can't figure out the actual age of the earth?

The only way I could still believe in a creator is by ignoring all the scientific evidence that contradicts him. If one is right, then the other is wrong. Either the bible got it all wrong, or all the scientist are getting it wrong. There is no middle ground. You can't pick and choose. This is something that is black and white. Either the bible is true, or it isn't. Either the science is right, or it is all wrong.

I offer this advice humbly, as a former fellow traveler. Science has not yet answered all the questions, but there is nothing else even close to answering those same questions.

Son of Inigo

 

[Dinwar]

ETA: like a significant number of European Christians (including the pope FWIW) they believe that God created the universe 4.5 billion years ago and that evolution is true.

This is very much worth noting: It's only the YECs and a small sect of atheists that believe evolution and Christianity are incompatable. Everyone else--including numerous atheists and theists, including some of the leading minds in both--agrees that the two don't really speak to one another. The reason is simple: there is a long tradition in the Church, starting well before the age of the Earth was determined, of viewing the first parts of the Bible as alegorical. Viewing it as literal is a modern heresy, NOT the standard views of the Church.

 

[tsig]

@ Elf Grinder 3000

Please listen to the arguments that are counter to your beliefs that are presented in this thread. Not all that long ago, I was you. A fundamentalist, born again, young earth creationist. I used to argue with scientists on forums (not this one) about how they were wrong. I knew my god spoke the universe into being in just six days roughly six thousand years ago. I knew I was right, and the godless scientist were all wrong.

Then I actually tried to answer a question that a godless scientist proposed to me. I was disputing the age of the earth. He said the scientific evidence supports the view that the earth is billions of years old, and pointed out that radioactive decay was just one piece of scientific evidence that supports it (among others).

My rejoinder was along the lines of "well God created the earth with the decay built in" as well as "the distance between stars was set when God created them, and he created them so their light would already be able to be seen on earth". (goddidit)

The fellow then asked me a question that changed my life (though slowly, it has taken 15 years to get to this point). He asked "If god were so powerful and good, why did he have to make the earth and stars look like a lie? Why does he make them look like they are billions of years old if they are only six thousand? What is god hiding?"

He was right. If god was real, if the biblical creation claim is true, why is god hiding it? If he created the universe, why can we not scientifically see it? Why does not all of creation point to god, instead of away from him? He is god, he supposedly wrote an infallible book. Why does what we can test and observe scientifically not match what he wrote in his book? If science is wrong about all of this, why is it right about so much other stuff? How can scientist get us to the moon and back, but can't figure out the actual age of the earth?

The only way I could still believe in a creator is by ignoring all the scientific evidence that contradicts him. If one is right, then the other is wrong. Either the bible got it all wrong, or all the scientist are getting it wrong. There is no middle ground. You can't pick and choose. This is something that is black and white. Either the bible is true, or it isn't. Either the science is right, or it is all wrong.

I offer this advice humbly, as a former fellow traveler. Science has not yet answered all the questions, but there is nothing else even close to answering those same questions.

Son of Inigo

 

[tsig]

This is very much worth noting: It's only the YECs and a small sect of atheists that believe evolution and Christianity are incompatable. Everyone else--including numerous atheists and theists, including some of the leading minds in both--agrees that the two don't really speak to one another. The reason is simple: there is a long tradition in the Church, starting well before the age of the Earth was determined, of viewing the first parts of the Bible as alegorical. Viewing it as literal is a modern heresy, NOT the standard views of the Church.

Is the resurrection scientific?

Truth by revelation is incompatible with reality.

 

[Lorentz]

The take of my Christian colleagues is slightly different but related. Not looking at the evidence that God has written into his creation is a misuse of one's God-given talents.

ETA: like a significant number of European Christians (including the pope FWIW) they believe that God created the universe 4.5 billion years ago and that evolution is true.

Why are they in denial by a factor of three?

 

[Dinwar]

Why are they in denial by a factor of three?

My guess is, it's a common speaking error. Correct me if I'm wrong, jimbob, but as I understand it the Pope accepts that the Earth is 4.6 ga, while the universe is 13.5 ga or so. (ga=giga annum=billion years, for those not up on geology lingo; ma=mega annum=million years, ka=kilo annum=thousand years.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can we stop pretending that Biblical Literalist are some tiny statistically insignificant minority that is ruining it for everybody else?

In 2011 one in three Americans say they interpret the Bible literally according to Gallup. They aren't some statistical anomaly we are cherry picking to make religion look bad

 

[jimbob]

My guess is, it's a common speaking error. Correct me if I'm wrong, jimbob, but as I understand it the Pope accepts that the Earth is 4.6 ga, while the universe is 13.5 ga or so. (ga=giga annum=billion years, for those not up on geology lingo; ma=mega annum=million years, ka=kilo annum=thousand years.)

Indeed

 

[xjx388]

@ Elf Grinder 3000

Please listen to the arguments that are counter to your beliefs that are presented in this thread. Not all that long ago, I was you. A fundamentalist, born again, young earth creationist. I used to argue with scientists on forums (not this one) about how they were wrong. I knew my god spoke the universe into being in just six days roughly six thousand years ago. I knew I was right, and the godless scientist were all wrong.

Then I actually tried to answer a question that a godless scientist proposed to me. I was disputing the age of the earth. He said the scientific evidence supports the view that the earth is billions of years old, and pointed out that radioactive decay was just one piece of scientific evidence that supports it (among others).

My rejoinder was along the lines of "well God created the earth with the decay built in" as well as "the distance between stars was set when God created them, and he created them so their light would already be able to be seen on earth". (goddidit)

The fellow then asked me a question that changed my life (though slowly, it has taken 15 years to get to this point). He asked "If god were so powerful and good, why did he have to make the earth and stars look like a lie? Why does he make them look like they are billions of years old if they are only six thousand? What is god hiding?"

He was right. If god was real, if the biblical creation claim is true, why is god hiding it? If he created the universe, why can we not scientifically see it? Why does not all of creation point to god, instead of away from him? He is god, he supposedly wrote an infallible book. Why does what we can test and observe scientifically not match what he wrote in his book? If science is wrong about all of this, why is it right about so much other stuff? How can scientist get us to the moon and back, but can't figure out the actual age of the earth?

The only way I could still believe in a creator is by ignoring all the scientific evidence that contradicts him. If one is right, then the other is wrong. Either the bible got it all wrong, or all the scientist are getting it wrong. There is no middle ground. You can't pick and choose. This is something that is black and white. Either the bible is true, or it isn't. Either the science is right, or it is all wrong.

I offer this advice humbly, as a former fellow traveler. Science has not yet answered all the questions, but there is nothing else even close to answering those same questions.

Son of Inigo

Well, as my cousin might say, God created the universe and all its evidence against him in order to test your faith.

 

[Trakar]

Can we stop pretending that Biblical Literalist are some tiny statistically insignificant minority that is ruining it for everybody else?

In 2011 one in three Americans say they interpret the Bible literally according to Gallup. They aren't some statistical anomaly we are cherry picking to make religion look bad

This isn't a problem of religiosity, it is a problem of a poor education and a fundamental unfamiliarity with their own religion's tenets (as well as more than a little politically inspired disdain for science in cases where they feel that it contradicts their public policy preferences).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This isn't a problem of religiosity, it is a problem of a poor education and a fundamental unfamiliarity with their own religion's tenets (as well as more than a little politically inspired disdain for science in cases where they feel that it contradicts their public policy preferences).

Come talk to my MoBap relatives.

 

[Trakar]

Come talk to my MoBap relatives.

I'm not saying that there aren't any religions that teach YEC and whose members adhere to it. Merely that outside of these exceptions, most of the larger Christian denominations accept and acknowledge the general scientific discoveries of the last few hundred years, regardless of the beliefs of their church members. The Catholic Church, for instance, which is the largest Christian denomination on the planet (~1.2 Billion members) does not teach either YEC or biblical literalism. Many of the evangelical churches do hold these teachings but this is only represented by ~third of the Christian denominations in the US.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not saying that there aren't any religions that teach YEC and whose members adhere to it. Merely that outside of these exceptions, most of the larger Christian denominations accept and acknowledge the general scientific discoveries of the last few hundred years, regardless of the beliefs of their church members. The Catholic Church, for instance, which is the largest Christian denomination on the planet (~1.2 Billion members) does not teach either YEC or biblical literalism. Many of the evangelical churches do hold these teachings but this is only represented by ~third of the Christian denominations in the US.

It's not an exception so much as you think.

 

[pipelineaudio]

This is very much worth noting: It's only the YECs and a small sect of atheists that believe evolution and Christianity are incompatable.

And those who actually read their bibles

Ken Miller aside, the book Evolving out of Eden makes a compelling case that they are, in fact, incompatible.

I find it rather dishonest to pretend that they are compatible. I think it might be better just to rip the band-aid off all at once

 

[Puppycow]

If science proved god then there's no need for faith.

Without faith, god is nothing!

Therefore the existence of the babelfish proves that god doesn't exist!

 

[Trakar]

It's not an exception so much as you think.

Note: with regard to "exceptions" I was talking about the tenets of the denominations, not the individuals in a congregations or members who self identify as a particular denomination. I know Roman Catholics who spout YEC and biblical literalism rhetoric, but they fall under the shadow of my first response (This isn't a problem of religiosity, it is a problem of a poor education and a fundamental unfamiliarity with their own religion's tenets.)

 

[Pixel42]

And those who actually read their bibles

Ken Miller aside, the book Evolving out of Eden makes a compelling case that they are, in fact, incompatible.

I find it rather dishonest to pretend that they are compatible. I think it might be better just to rip the band-aid off all at once

The idea that God guided evolution, which is how the Christians I've talked to seem to reconcile evolution with their faith, is certainly not compatible with the theory of evolution by natural selection.