Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The bible mentions unicorns a relatively new myth, also mentions fairies pixies mermaids and giants. Revelations mentions a dragon and as ive stated elsewhere a discarded bible story had jeasus as a babe meeting dragons.
You asked what evidence there was to support the exodus part of the bible, I hope I answered your question.
I don't think that changing the subject on how ridiculous all the claims of the bible are has anything to the with the OP.
I replied to your comment but my second comment was separate from that. That should have been apparent.
You just reminded me of something its off topic but applies to your post.
Newton a famous theist created an equation to predict gravity. He stopped there by saying god could only have created the marvellous dance of the solar system. Had he investigated more he could have accomplished great things. The inaccuracy of his equation is what inspired Einstein to investigate and come up with the space time equation.
Religion impacts science by not questioning why or how because the answer is god not to mention deliberate suppression of knowledge.
s
Hey off topic but just seen something a fkin mazing. Tesla WAS RIGHT wireless electricity transfer coming out in 2015 its called witricity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'nn
Where to begin?
You all should really work on your reading comprehension skills. In my comments there are no arguments or assertions as to my personal beliefs for the inerrancy of The Bible or the existence of a creator.
In my initial comment I was responding in good faith to what I thought was a request for information. I am now informed that that's not the case. I might point out that the form of the question was actually an assertion assuming the truth of the consequent - begging the question.
From Jeff: "well there is one of your mistakes right there.
Supernatural things do not exist period."
From Merriam Webster:
"su·per·nat·u·ral adjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc."
What is the implied subject of "unable to be explained by science" other than a thing.
From LMale:
"You just reminded me of something its off topic but applies to your post.
Newton a famous theist created an equation to predict gravity. He stopped there by saying god could only have created the marvellous dance of the solar system. Had he investigated more he could have accomplished great things. The inaccuracy of his equation is what inspired Einstein to investigate and come up with the space time equation."
Newton had no indications that his equations were incorrect because at that time the instruments used to find the inconsistencies did not exist. Einstein was inspired, in part, by subsequent observations of variations in the perihelion of Mercury.
LMale: "The origin of life is not unanswerable in point of fact the problem is there are too many answers. We have discovered amino acids deep within meteorites that are older than the planet."
The existence of amino acids in no way explains the origin of DNA. The analogy frequently stated is that if you give a monkey a pencil and a piece of paper what are the chances that it will write "cat"? Or stated differently, what are the chances that if you shake a box of Legos the result will be some construct that reasonably approximates something that a 5 year old child might produce?
"The origin of life is not unanswerable in point of fact the problem is there are too many answers."
Unfortunately none of those answers have stood up to scrutiny. There are lots of answers but they are all incorrect. See http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf .
From gregpek: "My word - we have only known about DNA for a few dacades and we are making massive progress. Genetic engineering and modification are now regular."
All of genetic engineering and modification start with already existing biological materials. They are transformed by an intelligent designer.
"Over time the unexplained does become explained via science and study. This is not always possible given the age of some events, but it is a consistent experience.".
Actually, no. As our scientific knowledge has expanded so has the number of unsolved problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_unsolved_problems
To assert that further knowledge will explain the unexplained is an article of faith, commonly known as scientism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
From Jeff: "You believe in him since you believe what the priest/church say about your god. He is just/merciful/loving/all knowing/can do everything/etc... If he wasn't all of these it wouldn't be your god right?"
Nowhere in my comments have I given any indication as to my belief in or the nature of God.
Some of you have questioned the extent of my scientific knowledge. Without listing my credentials I will simply say that I understand the entirety of the above referenced document about DNA and the origin life.
Thoughtful post, Roy. Thank you.
I've one question...you said, "As our scientific knowledge has expanded, so has the number of un solved problems." Would those actually be problems that have expanded or would they rather be questions begging answers?
If the latter is the case, then perhaps thinking the answers will come is not a matter of faith, but instead a logical supposition based on experience.
Your thoughts?
They are, for the most part, entirely new problems encountered when discoveries of new phenomena contradict established theory.
For example, when Max Planck experimented with black body radiation the results were at complete odds with the existing wave theory of light. He started from scratch, rather than existing theory, to imagine what could account for the behavior. His conclusion was that light (a photon) was not a wave but rather a particle. He didn't believe his own theory for quite some time. He, and the world, finally came to believe as a result of Einstein's experiments with the photoelectric effect. Incidentally, it was this theory that gained Einstein his only Nobel Prize rather than his more famous papers on relativity. This was the beginning of the study of Quantum Mechanics.
The history of science is replete with incidents of seemingly trivial inconsistencies shattering old and accepted theories. Surprise, surprise!
Having said that, the confidence that science will eventually solve these problems assumes that there is some underlying principle that is amenable to predictability. We know from theories of mathematical complexity and chaotic systems that there are an unknown but vast number of problems that can not be resolved by any imaginable computer in a finite amount of time.
Perhaps an extremely simple example might illuminate the point. The pendulum is the simplest, most predictable machine imaginable. Its behavior can be completely described by pre-calculus mathematics. However, if we make a slight modifibation the system becomes chaotic and completely unpredictable.
Short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU
Thus, a logical extension based upon experience is fallacious based both upon mathematical theory and experiential evidence.
"By any imaginable computer in a finite amount of time" makes assumptions that what we can imagine today is all that can be imagined tomorrow.
" if we make a small modification the system becomes chaotic and completely unpredictable" assumes the tools we may have in the future to measure and predict are limited to the tools we have today.
Examples, not too very long ago, we were pretty bad at predicting who would get certain diseases. We didn't have the tools to do so. And then came items like the microscope. For most of human history these tools were not imagined or imaginable.
Yes, the history of science is full of incidents that shatter old ideas. That is the beauty of science. Those in science are not anywhere near as obstinate about admitting they may have been wrong than those entrenched in religion. As an atheist, I'd suspect you would agree, eh?
""By any imaginable computer in a finite amount of time" makes assumptions that what we can imagine today is all that can be imagined tomorrow."
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete
From the article:
"Although any given solution to an NP-complete problem can be verified quickly (in polynomial time), there is no known efficient way to locate a solution in the first place; indeed, the most notable characteristic of NP-complete problems is that no fast solution to them is known. That is, the time required to solve the problem using any currently known algorithm increases very quickly as the size of the problem grows. This means that the time required to solve even moderately sized versions of many of these problems can easily reach into the billions or trillions of years, using any amount of computing power available today."
Lest you seize upon the "billions or trillions" part I direct your attention to "even moderately sized versions". When taken to the limits, the common formulation is "no conceivable computer in a finite amount of time".
Now admittedly our understanding of the physical world has changed many times as new phenomena are discovered. However, this is mathematics. It is never invalidated. True, new insights are gained and new branches of mathematics appear but 2+2 always equals 4 and nobody expects that to change..
Chaos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
"The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as follows:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.".
Then there are systems where we can't possibly determine the initial conditions of all the elements because the act of measurement changes the system.
Placing your confidence in the expectation that the cavalry will show up just in time or you will win the lottery so you can pay the rent or that future discoveries will confirm your speculations is wishful thinking. Who knows?. You might get lucky. It is not acceptable as the premise of an argument.
"Those in science are not anywhere near as obstinate about admitting they may have been wrong than those entrenched in religion."
Think so, huh? When reputation, position, power and money are on the line they're absolute mules.
"“[a] new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die," - Max Planck.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373380/
"As an atheist, I'd suspect you would agree, eh?"
Again, I have not revealed my beliefs about religion. I have, however concocted a speculation that is founded on current scientific consensus:
Cosmologists have observed anomalies in the rotational speeds of individual stars in galaxies that don't square with The Theory of General Relativity. To account for this they have postulated that most of the universe is composed of "dark matter".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe."
I think it not unreasonable to speculate that dark matter is not a single particle but perhaps, as in ordinary matter, consists of two stable particles - analogous to the proton and the electron. This implies chemistry which implies atoms and molecules and stuff kinda like you find on the tip of your nose. Given the overwhelming preponderance of DM in the universe perhaps we humans are the ghosts.
Implausible? Definitely. But the logic is consistent and the validity is dependent on the truth of each premise. This differs in degree from the assertion that we'll find out someday.
"There is no known efficient way..." Known is the operative word there. What is known changes regularly.
2 plus 2 does not always equal 4.
You did indeed reveal yourself as atheist in your bio. You can go change that but I can't un-see it.
Some scientists are mules, perhaps, I agree with that. What I was talking about is the matter of degree of rigidity between scientists and religious folks.
I dont understand how dna formed nut i know it wasnt magic the entire genesis is proved inaccurate.
We have traced all life on earth back to luca the last common ancester we will figure the rest out its just a natter of time.
Youve found a few historical regerences that were easily explained by the fact many of the storied were written after events but lied about when they were written.
Newton had instruments accurate enough to know he was wrong but he missed it because he simply gave god credit and stopped investigating. Sure he wouldnt get everything but i reckon hed have understood time moved differently on the moon and that would be a good start.
But either way the fact is newton was wrong. Yet theists use him as an example of intelligent theism. My post was exaggerated to show the potential he stunted by saying god did it.
"I dont understand how dna formed nut i know it wasnt magic the entire genesis is proved inaccurate.
We have traced all life on earth back to luca the last common ancester we will figure the rest out its just a natter of time."
Please see my response to CiberLN above.
"Youve found a few historical regerences that were easily explained by the fact many of the storied were written after events but lied about when they were written."
Citations please.
"Newton had instruments accurate enough to know he was wrong but he missed it because he simply gave god credit and stopped investigating. Sure he wouldnt get everything but i reckon hed have understood time moved differently on the moon and that would be a good start."
Newton died in 1727. The anomalies in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit were not shown to contradict Newton's theory until 1859.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)#Advance_of_perihelion
"but he missed it because he simply gave god credit and stopped investigating."
Gravitation is still in the province of God. Theories have been proposed but there is no consensus that we understand its nature. It is mysterious.
"but i reckon hed have understood time moved differently on the moon"
The very notion that time might progress differently in different places was first introduced by Einstein's Special Theory of Realativity in 1905.
I concede your beyond my knowledge as im unable to learn (personal) but did you consider we are building a new type of computer based on the human brain.
The processors are wired up like the brains neurones each having 4 connections to other processors or more. This is potentially a huge leap forward in computer power.
From Jeff: "well there is one of your mistakes right there.
Supernatural things do not exist period."
From Merriam Webster:
"su·per·nat·u·ral adjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc."
What is the implied subject of "unable to be explained by science" other than a thing.
That is where you repeat your mistake again.
You are making a HUGE claim without even knowing it.
You are implying that there are things that cannot be explained by science no matter what.
You are wrong. Since you are making a claim without justifying it.
If you rephrase your wording like:
"unable to be explained by science" YET , then and only then you would be making correct statement.
Like it is, it is so absurd, and stupidly put, that makes people think you are spamming.
As I informed you, the supernatural word is a term invented by humans to nick name things that they think are not natural.
The problem is that this term is wrong, since no one has proven yet that something that is not natural exists.
EG:
The flying spaghetti monster is a fictional character, it is invented,
If i find one around the corner, I cannot say that the supernatural exists, because the moment i found it, I made it a natural thing, maybe uncommon but still natural.(good luck proving that).
The supernatural cannot possibly exist, it is a term fiction uses, it is not a scientific term.
It is an other word for fiction/imagination.
So when you say something stupid like, the supernatural exists, you are actually saying that fiction exists.
Yes that stupid.
I feel a summary would be good at this point.
While theres some questionable evidence that some of the history mentioned in the bible thats easily explained by the timing of the writing.
Theres nothing that proves anything in the bible that appeared supernatural burning bush the flood etc.
The rest is off topic tbh.
Pages