Will the world end on Sept. 23?

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
From now on, whenever I feel

From now on, whenever I feel you are just misunderstanding my words (willfully or not), I'm just going to edit my post to make it clearer. That shouldn't be a problem for you, unless you are purposefully attempting to misunderstand.

Flamenca's picture
First, I'd like to apologize

First, I'd like to apologize to the readers of this thread, because John and I have gone far off-topic, but I think this is a very interesting issue and I need to reply.

1. We can't prove the brain is different, but the knowledge and tools, certainly are. That's my argument.

2. You're right. I'm not saying that Science is the antagonist of Christianity per se. What I meant is that modern Science won't ever assume something as truth if there's no single piece of evidence behind it. Christianity (and I'm referring to the religious postulates, not the community aspect) does.

3. Every Christian community has an authority, of course it does. Even yours. I read that you have a democratic system, which I applaud, but authorities nevertheless, who are able to change their interpretation of the "holy" book as they wish. For example, Catholics have the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests... Science only has experts, meaning you can challenge anyone's ideas, regardless it's Newton, Einstein or Hawking, who you're talking about. No Christian would dare to challenge Jesus' teachings, for example.

4. Science is a method of gathering information, yes, but the key point is that is peer reviewed in order to know the truth.The facts confirm an hypothesis, theories come after the test, not before.

5. I wish some of our atheist scientist friends to help clarifying it. Because I've listened some scientists question that part, but I lack the knowledge and skills to put it into the right words.

6. There's no such thing as the "first" persons... It's not like the homo floresiensis, for example, changed in a single generation into two homo sapiens (one female and one male) and they were the only human (meaning homo sapiens) on Earth, so they had to reproduce just betweeen themselves... Remember how evolution works...

7. Have a wonderful Saturday night!

P.S. It seems like we're still here! No end of the world! Yay!

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
2. Well, except that most

2. Well, except that most Christians will disagree. They obviously follow this religion because they believe its correct, and they believe its correct because they believe there's evidence for it. However, I think the distinction you are trying to make is that Christianity works through revelation and Science through investigation. Which I'd agree with, and see no problem either.

3. In my church in particular, authority figures are there for organizational purposes mostly, or spiritual guidance. They are not like the Pope, which can lift a finger and change any doctrine he wants. In fact my church doesn't even have doctrines per se, the Bible is the only thing close to a creed or a dogma that we have. What we do have are things called, fundamental beliefs, and they are there for cohesion in the church.

And of course no Christian would challenge Jesus lol.. that wouldn't even make sense. However, the disciples did question Him a lot, they disagreed with Him even. Moses got into arguments with God. Thomas doubted Him. So no, questioning Jesus isn't prohibited, if He's God then He can defend Himself.

4. You'll find that most theories come before the tests and hypothesis. In fact, the main purpose of a theory (besides explaining) is to produce these very hypothesis.

Flamenca's picture
2. Christianity works through

2. Christianity works through revelation and Science through investigation Yes, that's exactly the point. And I see a problem when you think there's no problem with that...

3. I'm glad you don't have an authority like the Pope. But I recommend you go one step further and question everything! ;)

4. I guess you're 100% right, it's idealistic of me to think that way... But even so, hypothesis must be considered, tests must be ran...

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
2. You don't believe there is

2. You don't believe there is a God, so of course you'll see something wrong with revelation. I would see something wrong with rain, if I didn't believe clouds exist. So instead of seeing something wrong with it, just turn it into a variable that's wholly dependent on the existence of a God.

3. Personally, I much dislike the notion of questioning. I prefer the concept of investigate instead of question. The reason being that most people take the act of questioning, as if it were itself the answer. In court for example, if a lawyer has no evidence for an idea, but wants to plant it in the jury, all they have to do is pose the question: "Did he really love his wife?" "Was she really as innocent as she claims?" Those questions alone are enough to make people think there is truth behind it when there isn't.

My approach instead is to investigate everything, and question things only where there is enough reason to.

Flamenca's picture
Next time, we should open a

Next time, we should open a new thread. xD

2. I may believe there's a God if sb could give some real good evidence but...

a) Every so-called miracle or fake mental power is eventually debunked, either for Science or for professional magicians. Vague predictions of the future also not good evidence for me.

b) When people change their life for the best (good choices, good luck, or both), God takes all the credit for it. When peoples' lives get worse (bad decisiones, bad luck, or both), you may be making bad actions, you're getting away from His path. You take the credit for the bad stuff. Individual change, not good enough for me.

c) Emotions (I feel HIM in my heart) are just proof of a feeling, not of an existing entity. I still remember what it's like to think you've God inside you. And I truly wish to live forever, to have another chance, in a differet world of Justice and well-being. But, and please don't take offense of my following words, because none is intended: I feel like I was living in a cozy bubble of certainty and wishful thinking. Just an opinion.

3. Dawkins once said that even for love you have to collect some piece of evidence: A particular look in your partner's eyes, their gesture, different pitch of their voice... I'd add loving expressions, nice talk, gifts, respect... There's usually many of these clues based on evidence everywhere.

"Questioning" means "investigating" too, but implies "defying", basis for some of the greatest scientific discoveries. Don't dismiss entirely that when it comes to religious claims.

Truth just means what's closer to reality, what seems to be more likely based on evidence... There's no such thing as a scientific truth vs religious truth. Truth is truth. Using a different standard to qualify evidence, it's being intelectual dishonest to yourself in a certain way.

P.S. To moderators: please, move our entire disgression to another thread, if you consider we've gone too far.

(edited 'cause of grammar mistakes)

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Yeah lol discussions tend to

Yeah lol discussions tend to branch out instead of narrow down.

2. Well that's what we're here for right? To debate the evidence, and how it should be interpreted.

a). So-called miracles aren't miracles. Even the Bible warns against them. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15).

c). I've never been the emotional type, unfortunately, so I can't relate to those feelings. Emotions aren't bad, but the Bible does warn against them. Emotions will often deceive you and lead you astray. People may say they feel something in their heart, but the Bible says "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). As Christian we are told to walk by faith, not feeling. That's actually what faith is: "Faith... is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods" (C.S. Lewis).

3. I agree truth is truth. I also agree with Dawkins' statement as you presented it.

My point is that skepticism is often as useless as blind belief. One accepts a proposal for absolutely no reason, the other rejects a proposal for absolutely no reason. By asking someone to question everything, you are asking them to doubt things without a reason to doubt them. Sure that leads to interesting philosophical question, where I can doubt your existence, or only accept that I exist and everything is a byproduct of my own mind. But its impractical, and its pointless unless they go out of their way to investigate.

So, I would only add that "investigating" implies there is a "question" to investigate. But "questioning doesn't mean or imply "investigation."

That's the big difference between philosophy and science at the end of the day. One only questions, the other takes those questions and investigates them.

Flamenca's picture
Conversations branch out

Conversations branch out until you figure out what you agree on and what you are not prone to agree on. I think we are close...

We coincide on 2.a), c) and the most part of 3.

I think an extraordinary claim such us having a supernatural being, creator, infallible, our 24/7 mind spy and punishing father, needs reeeally good evidence. Skepticism when it comes to coincidental subjectivity that compels people to dedicate a very important part of his life (time, money and emotions investments), and it's able to influence their behaviour and their view on the world, should be the right response.

P.S. I forgot to tell you, I reconsider my arguement about questioning. You are completely right.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Something interesting I

Something interesting I learned, people are more likely to think an idea is true if it rhymes or has symmetry: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good example of that. Spiderman's "With great power comes great responsibility" is another.

The first problem is that bias rules the day here. What you call extraordinary, I call ordinary. What you call supernatural, I call natural. Evidence is still evidence whether you think its "reeeally" good evidence or not.

People are often skeptical of the things they already don't agree with. In my post on the evolution of the eye, nobody stopped to question the narrative with me. People believe evolution is true no matter what, so they are skeptical of me and not the theory. That's a shame, because the same religious brain's that you are skeptical of, that thought the world was going to end this weekend, are the same scientific brain's that are doing research in labs and producing theories. People are not at all different.

Flamenca's picture
John, yes, and "The Rain is

John, yes, and "The Rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain" is also catchy, but so very untrue that I never use it. I don't think any sentence may be true just because it sounds nice or rhymes but because I agree on its content. And again, the existence of an omniscient, almighty, first creator, invisible entity etc. etc., it is something extraordinary. Calling this claim ordinary, just for the sake of the argument, is dishonest and you know.

I wrote "reeeally good evidence", because some people think that "coz-the-Bible-says-so" or "because I feel it inside my heart" it's valid evidence. We have addressed this issue in other threads. Also, a couple of days ago, I gave a list of what I refuse to call evidence, that is, what is no real evidence. Evidence is evidence, but what is evidence, I'd ask to some...

This is the first time I read a believer calling his god natural... If he was so, he would probably be easier to find... He seems pretty elusive.

I think it's unproductive to question a scientific theory on a post. Of course everybody will question your affirmations before questioning Evolution... If someone has proofs to debunk a theory like Evolution, there are better places to show to the world your genius that an atheist forum. You know how Science works: Evolution would be true no matter what, until a better theory comes along... In the meantime, this is our best shot, our more realistic approximation to truth, given the huge amount of evidence found.

I can't talk for all skepticals, but I disagree with your definition of skeptical, because I am so of what Science can't prove, whether I agree (or hope) or not, not the other way around...

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Its not dishonesty. I'm a

Its not dishonesty. I'm a Christian. God is as real to me as the atoms that make us up. Likewise He is no more of an extraordinary claim than that atoms exist. Whenever you request more evidence for one claim over another, it is due to bias.

I'm not the first believer to call God natural. As C.S. Lewis explains "The Naturalist thinks that nothing but Nature exists, the word Nature means to him merely ‘everything’ or ‘the whole show’ or ‘whatever there is’. And if that is what we mean by Nature, then of course nothing else exists." In other words, if your definition of natural is a synonym for all the exists, and supernatural a synonym for everything that doesn't, then God is natural, because He exists.

"I think it's unproductive to question a scientific theory on a post.... There are better places to show the world your genius than an atheist forum." Wow. So much for free-thinking.

Flamenca's picture
I was going to take a nap...

I was going to take a nap...

Its not dishonesty. I'm a Christian. I was a Christian long time ago, so I understand your point about the word "extraordinary", but for me you just happen to consider an objectively extraordinary entity, an ordinary one, because your belief system requires so.

I've read and listened to many people quoting C.S. Lewis, but I didn't know this one. I use "natural" as a synonym for all that exists on Nature, not the meaning for Christian theology (of previous state of grace). How do we know which things exist in Nature? Because we can measure them, observed them, predict their movements, etc. I took my last Science class when I was 15, so, please correct me if I'm wrong but I think even neutrinos leave track of their movements, of their existence... God, if something, is supernatural. For starters, none of his superpowers (he watches, listens, knows, creates everything) is found anywhere else in Nature.

"I think it's unproductive to question..." It was misworded and it sounds awful... I'm sorry if this seems an attack on freedom of thinking or speech, but it actually wasn't. What I mean is: If someone was making a claim which contradicted an elemental scientific/mathematical theory, as factual as Evolution, you'd be part of the roast.

(edited 'cause of grammar mistakes)

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
There's no such thing as

There's no such thing as objetively extraordinary things, extraordinary is a subjective label. Plenty of things can be considered extraordinary to some people and ordinary by others. Lightning for example.

I agree we know what exists in Nature because we can observe and measure them. You were once Christian, so you know we believe Jesus was God, and could be observed, measured, spoken to as a real tangible entity taking up physical space. You also know we believe God appeared to Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and the list goes on. Almost everything that is claimed about Him in Scripture goes against your notion that He is immaterial, evasive, unrealistic.

But again, its all subjective. I believe those claims, and you don't. Thus you think its extraordinary and I don't. Thus why you want extraordinary evidence before you believe it.

Flamenca's picture
I agree there's a subjective

I agree there's a subjective label, and I see you're willing to get into nuances...

Your God is ordinary for you, the same way Shiva and Kali are ordinary to hindus, because you voluntarily make Him so. Every any other deity is extraordinary and supernatural. You decide to make Him ordinary, it isn't an inherent quality of his.

I consider every superpowerful deity improbable and impossible to test, so not part of Nature, thus supernatural, therefore extraordinary, and I don't make any subjective exception like you do. I bet you think exactly the same way about any other, except for that little deity of yours. That's why I meant by objective "extraordinary", when you use the word based in inherent qualities, not in personal experience.

Btw. Kali, God Shiva's wife, would never be considered ordinary ;)... Look at her fashion complements: a sickle to cut throads, a necklace of human skulls and a skirt made of little hands. Take that, Mary!

P.S. I know, lightnin': Yes, it's ordinary in Florida, extraordinary in Sahara. But this is measurable, testable... it's part of Nature. Not just a inner experience of some... It's not the same to me.


Attach Image/Video?: 

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"I bet you think exactly the

"I bet you think exactly the same way about any other, except for that little deity of yours." If you're willing to bet on that, then its because you agree its subjective

"I consider every superpowerful deity improbable and impossible to test." If you can't test it, then whatever you claim about them isn't objective. Its based on your worldview and personal philosophy. You've rigged the game by using a label that essentially means fake to you. Unless you think the supernatural is a real category, anything you place in that category because automatically nonexistent just by being in that category. That's why I say God is natural, because nature just means something that exists to you.

But fine, lets suppose that's right. Do you think everything that can't be measured or tested is automatically supernatural?

Flamenca's picture
It's more likely not real

It's more likely not real (and it should make you at least suspicious) since we have zero scientific evidence. That it can't be observed in Nature or proven by any person in this entire planet has nothing to do with my personal view...

And maybe it's time to clarify some definitions:

- Natural, what exists in Nature. (what exists would be 'reality').
- Supernatural, over the limits of Nature.
- Extraordinary, 1. out of order of natural and common rule. 2. Unusual.
- Real: Existing in fact and not imaginary.

I think 'supernatural' is a real category, used to label improbable events or entities, extraordinary claims unlikely refutable by Science and likely false. Mythology and Religion (mythology with followers) belong there.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Ok. Usually people are not

Ok. Usually people are not born with down syndrome. Its something out of order of natural and common rule. That would qualify it as being extraordinary, correct? But no physician would request extraordinary evidence before diagnosing down syndrome. They don't care how extraordinary or ordinary a disease is, the process of diagnosis is the same.

As for the others, look at how your definitions are rigged: Supernatural is whatever is over the limits of nature. Natural is what exists, in reality. And reality is whatever is fact and not imaginary.

In other words, whatever you call supernatural, automatically doesn't exist. Because if it does exist, then you classify as natural. Thus, if God exists, then He does so in the natural, not the supernatural.

LogicFTW's picture
Down syndrome you can observe

Down syndrome you can observe with your senses, other can observe the same senses, test, repeat, look at the innards, apply tools to, see results, predict, and otherwise flows well with all other things we observe and test and so on.

None of that applies with the various god ideas. The god ideas require something extra, something special to make it work, faith.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
So extraordinary has nothing

So extraordinary has nothing to with how ordinary it is, it has to do with its ability to be observed? Surely you can think of plenty of things that can't be observed. For starters, me behind this computer, if I'm even here. I already know I'm extraordinary, but I'm definitely not supernatural. I suppose all these conversations you are having with me are based on faith.

LogicFTW's picture
I see what you are getting at

I see what you are getting at, but I feel we are arguing definitions and word usage.

I do not require proof that you are behind this computer or here. If I wanted it though, steps could be taken. You could send a picture of yourself sitting in front of the computer with the screen showing this conversation. You could give me your address and I could observe you and check your computer and see your log in. You could write another post in front of me, which shows evidence that the writing style has not changed. I could potentially pop in everyday and check again that you are, you. I could invite a friend and also have him observe, see if we come to the same conclusion. I could sit down at your computer and try typing to test that it is indeed a computer connected to the internet. The possibilities of testing the claim are plentiful.

Also the alternative is even more implausible, an incredible leap in computer AI chat technology the inventors decided to test unknown to users here on these boards? A lot less likely then you are actually just a person :)
Perhaps I unknowingly (or simply forgot) took some powerful psychotropic drug and I am currently hallucinating all this. But again, I could later test all this, I could ask a friend. (maybe I hallucinated the friend too, but then I think I got bigger issues then verifying the reality of you.)

You could say it is faith, I counter, faith that can be verified. But really we are just modifying the usage of the word "faith" as how I intended it to be used in this conversation to include another, (possibly agreed upon,) definition.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Well its not about

Well its not about definitions, its about perspectives. I don't care what you think is extraordinary, as long you know that it might not be extraordinary for other people. That doesn't become a problem until you start requiring extraordinary amounts of evidence, just because you don't believe something. That's literally what bias is, no matter how you justify it.

You hit the nail in the head when explaining how you can test if I'm real. They key point being, that even though you don't have evidence that I'm real, there's potential for evidence.

The same thing could be said about God. Even if you think there's no evidence (I do, but again, perspective), there's still the possibility for evidence. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And without that evidence, you can only call something supernatural, imaginary, or unrealistic, using something other than evidence, like your own personal philosophies.

Flamenca's picture
Hi, guys. For your last posts

Hi, guys. For your last posts, John, I infer that you think we ask more proofs for God's existence than we do in case of other extraordinary claims. I don't think so, but maybe we could open a thread on this issue, and it's about time, because we've already been off topic for a while...

I agree with Logic's words. We test Down Syndrome as much as it's been repeatedly proven to be needed in order to corroborate a case. Are we unfair? But which tests shold we run to confirm or dismiss an entity like God or Lord Xenu?

xenoview's picture
Sadly thousands if not

Sadly thousands if not millions of people believe this BS. If the world is going to end for humanity, we have no where to run to, were stuck on this mud ball of a planet.

MCDennis's picture
I was hoping for some goods

I was hoping for some goods news. Now I am going to change my vacation plans

Sky Pilot's picture
September 23, 2017. Is that

September 23, 2017. Is that the day the North Koreans will nuke us or is it the day that we will will nuke them?

MCDennis's picture
Ideally the christards I know

Ideally the christards I know will send me a check for their life savings on the 22nd

xenoview's picture
The funny thing is nothing

The funny thing is nothing will happen on Sept. 23 to end the world as we know it.

CyberLN's picture
It will indeed end for ~151

It will indeed end for ~151,600 people that day.

infidelriot's picture
The world is no more ending

The world is no more ending on September twenty-third than any other times in the past two thousand years that such predictions were shown to be false when the world continued on as it always has.

K FRAME's picture
Yes, it was going to end,

Yes, it was going to end, however I have decided to allow your species to survive a little longer. Just a little though, so prepare for the end time.

Oh whoa to you of earth and sea, for the devil sends the beast with wrath because he knows the time is short, let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is 666.

I was alone, my mind was blank, I needed time to think to get these memories from my mind...... UP THE IRONS!


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.