Why the religion of Atheizum?

916 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ellie Harris's picture
If you do not want to debate

If you do not want to debate a topic here, that's fine. But I'm going to leave this piece of the Debate Forum description here for all members.
"If you have ideas that genuinely intrigue you or could possibly intrigue others, it is a great idea to initiate and participate in a debate at Atheist Republic’s Debate Forum. Either you contribute to an existing thread or you can even start a thread of your own. Just remember to be respectful to all users since every individual is entitled to his or her own beliefs. Besides, you only stand to gain when you can engage with another in a comprehensible conversation. As most wise people are believed to have said, war was never the means for peace."

ex-christian_atheist's picture
Anyone who thinks the bible

Anyone who thinks the bible is literally true and especially that only the KJV is literally true, will have to answer why the Bible says the Earth is older than every other celestial body in the universe. Until then, I will consider it nonsense.

Lmale's picture
Good point i never considered

Good point i never considered that since we know the universe is 9.7 billion years older than the earth.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Have you ever seen brand new

Have you ever seen brand new furniture that someone made it to look old? I have seen some that were made by someone who was very good at what they could do, and if you sat the new one next to one that was old, you couldn't tell which one was older.
God said in 2 Peter 3:5 KJV
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

By the word of God the heavens were of old. He made them that way. God was able to speak the universe into existence. I don't think He would have a bit of a problem making His creation look like it is old

ex-christian_atheist's picture
So god intentionally decieved

So god intentionally decieved scientist who he knew would have the technology to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that things aren't the way they are said to be in the bible? I thought God wasn't a liar. The Bible says he uses his creation to prove to people that he exists. If that's true, why would he make everything look like he didn't create it? He either purposefully decieved everyone by making the universe look contrary to the creation account, or lied about not doing things like that.

Lmale's picture
Well said i made a point that

Well said i made a point that he believes god gave him a brain but would rather he didnt use it and just believed some unverified stories.

rpullumiii's picture
yes but there's this thing

yes but there's this thing called carbon dating which can accurately measure the age of an object meaning that with carbon dating it would be easy to see which one was new and which was old and the same can be used for celestial bodies (although you would have to use something other than carbon-14 because it's half life is too quick for most if not all planets and asteroids and other space stuff)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
apart from the half life,

apart from the half life, rocks and stone do not have much carbon in them, they are mostly made of silica.

carbon dating is usually used on living objects.

Zaphod's picture
I refuse to believe people

I refuse to believe people can be as stupid as Chuck Rogers is showing himself to be, whether they are religious nutcases or not and thus I believe, theorize, have faith, conjure, however you want to put it that this person is simply trolling the boards. This person can't be this uneducated or closed-minded, I refuse to believe it. I have worked with people in comas that showed more perception to what was going on in the world around them. I do suspect he has been here before was banned and is none other than soccergu back to waste our time and his.

Lmale's picture
Yup im done he just said i

Yup im done he just said i thought the moon was made by magic and he said that god made the heavens old like why? Theres no logical reason for creating a universe that looks 9.7 billion years old. I dont think he understands how we know the age of the universe its calculated by the time the light takes from stars to reach us and by calculating the speed galaxies are traveling and tracing them back to their origin and by the cosmic microwave background radiation left from the big bang.
Inorder to fake the age several laws of physics would have to be broken. Since theres no evidence they can be broken simply assuming a god did when even the precious holy books didnt mention it is ridiculous.
And why 9.7 billion why not round it off to 10 billion lol.

Lmale's picture
Oops i ment 9.7 billion years

Oops i ment 9.7 billion years older than earth which is 4-4.5 billion years old.

rpullumiii's picture
I wonder how many cycles of

I wonder how many cycles of life and then a cataclysmic event i.e. the big ass meteor that hit earth that killed of most of the dinosaurs (the rest of which evolved into birds) because the rock layers we drill into will eventually be recycled back into the Earth's mantle (although i'm not sure how long that takes) just imagine we could have had other intelligent life on this planet and not know about it.

Chuck Rogers's picture
I know that you people cry

I know that you people cry that we shouldn't bring this up because you can't give a good answer to it, but I'm going to try to say it in a way that hopefully you will think about it before you just say " it takes a long time".

If evolution is true, then considering that from the beginning of how evolutionists claim life began, and that things evolved. How much sense does it make that ever since the first mention of evolution, no one has seen any type of creature changing outside of color or size?
If evolution is true, then from the first cell that started by the rocks being rained on. And the rain hasn't stopped falling on the rocks, and there is now oxygen, and plants, and animals. And yet there is no proof that new cells are forming. And there are no new metamorphosis from those cells or the cells after that, or the creatures after that, or the creatures after that. And there should be ( especially the longer it takes to change) some sort of missing link between man and whatever we evolved from, and between all or at least one other creature that is part what it is evolving from to what it is changing into. But there is nothing like that happening anywhere. Cats are still cats, dogs are still dogs, frogs are still frogs. None of them nor anything else has a new kind of toe , finger, ear, nose, tail, or anything else. Nothing, nodda, nope, not anything. By there must not have been enough time, though you wouldn't have thought it all would have just stopped either.

CyberLN's picture
Do you get flu shots? Not

Do you get flu shots? Not only do viruses drift in their form, they completely shift as well, becoming completely different. They adapt to their environment and do so constantly, right before our eyes. They change. They are creatures that are indeed changing "outside of color and size."

Chuck Rogers's picture
Cockroaches adapt to certain

Cockroaches adapt to certain pesticides but yet itis still a cockroach. The virus is still a virus.

CyberLN's picture
Some viruses change so much

Some viruses change so much that they become a new species of virus. That is evolution. My house cat is not a lion. They are separate species.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Still just a virus. I don't

Still just a virus. I don't believe a house cat be mated with a lion, even with man's help. And if they can't then they are not the same kind.

Lmale's picture
Roflmao@u. You should be

Roflmao@u. You should be aware that your statement supports evolution. The fact is we have traced all felines (that means cats lions tigers etc) to one common ancestor.
The fact that they cant breed is proof they are a separate species. Thus supporting evolution roflmao.
Bloody hell arguing from ignorance is like fighting naked and unarmed against a fully armed and armoured soldier.

Zaphod's picture
Actually, house-cats can be

Actually, house-cats can be artificially bred with larger felines but the offspring are often miscarried and when they there are healthy enough to be born they often have problems that lead to them having to be euthanized the one that are healthy enough to keep they are often infertile they have been made illegal to own in the US they fetch big bucks and if you see one chance are a lot of money was spent to get it. I have seen them personally they look larger than house cats but much smaller than than real lions/pumas, cheetahs, tigers ect...They are about 3 to 4 times the size of a house cat and bred to look look more like the wildcat they are bred with so people can have a miniature lion, tiger ect...

I'm not sure the ones I saw were illegal at the time I saw them about 11 years ago but I did learn since then that they are illegal at least now. One was a crossed with lion though and looked just like a miniature lion the guy also had a leopard, cheetah, and at least one other of these cats. The person who had them told me he paid 60,000 each for them. He had about 4 or five in his house he also had some big snakes. At the time I did not know how cruel the process to make them was not sure he did either.

These cats would not breed successfully in nature even if it did happen the chances of survival of the offspring are low and then the chances of getting something other than a mule in nature would be close to nil no documented cases I can find of a non-mule cross breed between a house cat and a lion anyway. I was going to get into this with Chuck earlier but he ignored my questions. He refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of anything he think interferes with his perception of what exactly is real it not worth debating with him. It very hard to breed a house cat with a lion it had to be done artificially and many cats have to die or be stillborn or with defects to get a desirable cat. The reason for this is because of how far evolved away from each other a house cat and a lion have become and the differences in the DNA of each.

Anyways, Chuck would likely never believe any of this even if he were put in a lab where these things were being made.

Lmale's picture
Im glad his stooooopid kept

Im glad his stooooopid kept making me come back or i would not have learned that. Thanks chuck lol
I knew the lion and tiger can breed but the result a ligar is infertile i vagulely remembering one involving a leopard and another big cat possibly a cheetah. I had thought the cat was just to distantly related.
Hey google werecat a recently discovered mutation man it looks freaky.
Oh a horse and a zebra can produce an infertile offspring i think a donkey too.
I know wolves can still breed with dogs despite mans selective breeding of them they are still very closely related.

Zaphod's picture
Actually male ligars are

Actually male ligars are nearly infertile presumably due to low sperm count but females are not. However tions are infertile or at least no solid documented cases of a fertile one exist. though there have been rumors to the existence of one female that was able to reproduce. The whole range of options is incredible and worth studying. leopards are actually quite versatile.

Lmale's picture

I wonder whats the chances of a fertile female liger breeding with a male liger (would have to be invitro) and the offspring being fertile.
Indeed could a cross species race be bred Purely my scientific curiosity; actually doing it is messing with nature and thats not a good idea.

Zaphod's picture
It would likely produce

It would likely produce another liger where if female would be able to reproduce but if male would likely have a low sperm count/low fertility rate. The practice of intentionally breeding these is frowned upon though it does happen by accident occasionally and some people I am sure probably try to produce them in the black market because of the money they can fetch if you can find the right buyer.

Personally, I don't think its a good thing at all but I'm not one to ignore what can be learned by things I don't like or find immoral.

Lmale's picture
Even high school children

Even high school children know 155 years is not enough time for evolution its a slow process.
This guy is deliberately remaining ignorant or pretending lack of knowledge.
He says god made the universe look old to give people a choice science or 'the truth' roflmao
By the way new diseases occur quite often they are completely unrelated to anything ever encountered couldnt that say they were created in a similar fashion to the first cells. I know he SHOULD be aware single celled organisms cant be seen with the naked eye so finding new ones is like searching for a microscopic needle in a haystack the size of the planet. But with his demonstrated utter ignorance of anything scientific he may not know.
Oh and AGAIN ill say evolution DOES NOT try to explain how life was started.
Im not debating him anymore just came to comment on your post.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Like I said the more time it

Like I said the more time it takes for something tochange into something else the more we should see it happening. But we see nothing.

Lmale's picture
You are on the internet you

You are on the internet you have maybe heard if a little website called google. Type detected evolution. Im not doing your homework for you.

Lmale's picture
Not going to ask him hes too

Not going to ask him hes too dumb but i can ask you correct me if im wrong the fact that we have now have an atmosphere capable of deflecting cosmic radiation could be why no new life has been found.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
If you actually look for the

If you actually look for the evidence of things changing, you will find that there are thousands of examples of exactly what you claim we don't have. There are tons of examples of things changing anatomically. Have you ever looked at a dog's foot? Have you ever noticed the heel pad that never touches the ground and the 5th claw that isn't even attached to a muscle? Those are vestigial organs left over from the species that canines evolveed from that did have 5 usable claws and heels that touched the ground.

Lmale's picture
Thats micro evolution he

Thats micro evolution he wants to see macro evolution in 155 years.
He some how thinks the fact that macro evolution takes millions of years means the probability of it happening should be high roflmao.
I hate the concept of micro and macro evolution by the way. Like small changes in short time cannot possible add up to a big change in a long time typical illogical argument from a theist.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Right because you can prove

Right because you can prove with the missing link that that pad used to touch the ground. Question is your tail bone vestigial?


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.