[TRIGGER WARNING] how does religion exist in educated first world countries?

[Ipquarx]

Concerning the age of the stars, maybe God just created them that way. After all, he did say "Let there by light" and there was light. The night sky wouldn't be nearly as lit so instantly if he had to wait for all the light from the stars to reach earth. I suppose I don't really have a evidence-laden rationalization, merely an explaination.
I'm half falling under my own fallacy here, but it's all I got.

What you seem to be insinuating is that he just created the universe as if it was 13.8 billion years old (To test our faith I suppose?), but only 6000 years ago. Like nothing before 6000 years actually happened. Now what's stopping you from saying that it was created... only 1000 years ago? 500 years ago? 1 year ago? How do you know all of history, your memories of the past, scars and body development weren't just placed there to test your faith?

I'll tell you what's stopping you from saying that: Evidence. Do you have any empirical evidence that nothing beyond 6000 years ago actually happened? If not, then why do you believe it? Ask yourself this seriously.

Also, the idea that we don't need an explaination for the world existing is more of a philosophical problem moreso than a logical problem. Heh.

It is a logical problem if you consider that everywhere else people are required to give actual evidence to back up their claims. You don't see me believing that vaccines cause autism when there's tons of proof that it doesn't and no proof that it does, do you? Or for that matter, you don't either! (Hopefully)

[Ad Bot]

[Clownfish]

this thread scares me
just a little
it's so borderline argumentative with some posts

[Moppy]

because this same book is full of a metric forget ton of contradictions

like god being defeated by iron chariots (judges 1:19) and being a lying forget (jeremiah 4:10) and not being capable of anger (isaiah 27:4) but then he changes his mind (nahum 1:2) yea

why would you trust a book with this many flaws and forgeted up stuff to guide your life

Oh for goodness bloody sakes. I can imagine there are things wrong with this but I don't even know where to start. You may as well be throwing a dictionary with half of the words with wrong definitions and ask me to find all of those and tell you why they're wrong and what to replace them with.
Most of these things are taken way out of context, and a lot of these are based on semantics that shouldn't even apply to a translation.
If you want me to diffuse the problem you cannot throw the world onto my back. Ask me about specifics and detail why they don't make sense.

What you seem to be insinuating is that he just created the universe as if it was 13.8 billion years old (To test our faith I suppose?), but only 6000 years ago. Like nothing before 6000 years actually happened. Now what's stopping you from saying that it was created... only 1000 years ago? 500 years ago? 1 year ago? How do you know all of history, your memories of the past, scars and body development weren't just placed there to test your faith?

I'll tell you what's stopping you from saying that: Evidence. Do you have any empirical evidence that nothing beyond 6000 years ago actually happened? If not, then why do you believe it? Ask yourself this seriously.
It is a logical problem if you consider that everywhere else people are required to give actual evidence to back up their claims.

You don't see me believing that vaccines cause autism when there's tons of proof that it doesn't and no proof that it does, do you? Or for that matter, you don't either! (Hopefully)

Dangit, man. I'm back to my original dillema. You bring up a dang good point, and yeah I guess I'm kind of stuck in a corner here. I'm going to rescind for now because I don't have time to remember and gather the evidence needed to support my claims. So yeah, I guess you guys win.
Still I stand by my points and my position. I may come back to this but I just don't have the time or mental energy to continue this argument. It doesn't help that there are like 5 guys against the 1 me. You guys have outlasted me.
GG.

At least I learned that I have much more to learn before I try this again.

[Steve5451²]

couldn't handle the overwhelming evidence that he's dense.

[Lego lad]

actually guys im god

sry ur all goig 2 hel now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Moppy]

actually guys im god

sry ur all goig 2 hel now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

more like this thread is gonna go 2 hel if this quality of post keeps up.

[Daswiruch]

actually guys im god

sry ur all goig 2 hel now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[otto-san]

As for the example that has already been provided: the Tiktaalik.

The problem with the Tiktaalik is that, while it claims to be the first example of a fish evolving into an amphibian, the progenetor of 4 legged land animals, it does not hold consistency with this particular fossil:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/
This fossil dates to be considerably older than the Tiktaalik, yet there are clear patterns of footprints from a time in which, theoritically, animals with such developed feed did not exist. This seems to pose a bit of a problem for our friend.
Even if it was just a late bloomer, there's another problem.
It's skeletal structure seems pretty far off from the land dwelling animals that live today. Maybe a fish could have gotten this far. There are fish that move along the bottoms of rivers and on the shallow shore using their fins, after all. To devolop full functional legs eventually would require massive restructuring of the bones and the gap between the Tiktaalik's "feet" and common feet are still a bit too wide to be considered a missing link.

dating one fossil doesn't indicate the origin of the species of course. tiktaalik could have been around for much longer than the fossil we found, just as we've been around a lot longer than abraham lincoln's skeleton. there's not much research behind that, but dating can only put a species on a timeline as far as "it definitely existed at this point," not necessarily "this is when it came to be"

[Lego lad]

yea

ur on blf

thats hell enough

[Juncoph]

this thread scares me
just a little
it's so borderline argumentative with some posts

it's actually really impressive it hasn't devolved into a shouting match yet

[Red Spy]

actually guys im god

sry ur all goig 2 hel now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Are there bitches in hel?

[Lego lad]

Are there bitches in hel?

no all dogs go to heaven

[Ducky duck]

Concerning the age of the stars, maybe God just created them that way. After all, he did say "Let there by light" and there was light. The night sky wouldn't be nearly as lit so instantly if he had to wait for all the light from the stars to reach earth. I suppose I don't really have a evidence-laden rationalization, merely an explaination.
I'm half falling under my own fallacy here, but it's all I got.

lol looks like someone hasn't taken any religious classes at all

If you actually paid attention in your own religion's classes, most of the teachers will tell you the creation stories are in-fact BS stories. The only thing they say is that God created everything. For all we know God started the Big Bang expansion of the universe.

[Daswiruch]

lol looks like someone hasn't taken any religious classes at all

high schools have religion classes?

[Foxscotch]

If you actually paid attention in your own religion's classes, most of the teachers will tell you the creation stories are in-fact BS stories. The only thing they say is that God created everything. For all we know God started the Big Bang expansion of the universe.

well, that's not what the bible says... so...
even if you think it's a metaphor, I don't see any way genesis could possibly be interpreted as a metaphor for the big bang