It is God who gave man music and instruments in first place to worship him.
You say this thing, but I don't hear any proof. Can you prove this assertion?
Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 186. (Read 901528 times)
It is God who gave man music and instruments in first place to worship him.
You say this thing, but I don't hear any proof. Can you prove this assertion?
Moloch destiny is fire and brimstone. So don't follow a looser, it is not profitable at all.
At least I can spell loser...
It is God who gave man music and instruments in first place to worship him. All music therefore originates from God. it is not man invention by the way.
Moloch destiny is fire and brimstone. So don't follow a looser, it is not profitable at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7EZONzP4iE
First to the spirit realm then obviously to you aka m_l_ch or whatever fan you are of.
Where is your sense of eternity, let me post a song for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM_rQmF8Q-M
Where is your sense of eternity, let me post a song for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM_rQmF8Q-M
Christian metal... now that's amusing... is there anything Christians won't try these days?
Allen Ginsberg - Moloch (from Howl movie)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nonab6djMAA
Quote
They broke their backs lifting Moloch to heaven...
First to the spirit realm then obviously to you aka m_l_ch or whatever fan you are of.
Where is your sense of eternity, let me post a song for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM_rQmF8Q-M&list=RDwkScq3OveAw&index=10
BTW, do you know what is the future destiny of a person you have in your nickname? 
Let me tell you The Truth:
Jesus, the LORD and KING not only that HE exist, He rose from the dead 2000 years ago that you may have life and yet you are now rejecting that? Think.
Why rejecting the Lord of all things, the beginning and the end. Where is your profit in that. There is none.
And yes, i have heard of non biblical accounts. He that has a power over death can also raise from the dead.
BTW, do you know what is the future destiny of a person you have in your nickname?
Jesus, the LORD and KING not only that HE exist, He rose from the dead 2000 years ago that you may have life and yet you are now rejecting that? Think.
Why rejecting the Lord of all things, the beginning and the end. Where is your profit in that. There is none.
And yes, i have heard of non biblical accounts. He that has a power over death can also raise from the dead.
BTW, do you know what is the future destiny of a person you have in your nickname?
Does it have to be mentioned again that there is no measurable evidence for religion/God?
yes , there is no god no heaven no saving by jesus.. we are in the real world not in a delusional heaven..
Ok, and yet you ask of community to provide one for you. So what do you want to hear.
Now let me tell you what I want to hear:
Give me PROOF and EVIDENCE that atheism(which you are so eagerly preaching) is ACCURATE and CORRECT. Just ONE proof and i will be the first one to became a true atheist.
Atheism is not a religion, or a claim... it is a rejection of your claim that God exists
Christians made a claim... "God exists, and he is just like is says in this book here"... Atheists read the book, and dispute this claim for lack of foundation/evidence
It's as simple as, "We don't believe you"... what is there to prove?
I did not ask you to define atheism, I know what atheism is. Give me only one proof and evidence that will prove it 100% accurate and correct.
Let me help you.
Actually the quickest way to destroy my faith in God would be to show a naturalistic mechanism for resurrection of the dead. Then Christ's resurrection, which is the center of our faith, would be nothing special at all.
Of course people can't pop out of graves randomly. But God can raise people from the dead easily enough. But even that he has no obligation to do that. Your time here is measured, your days are numbered, remember that.
Nobody ever resurrected from the dead... not even Jesus... in fact, Jesus never existed at all
Have you ever heard of a non-biblical account of anyone rising from the dead? One that is verifiable, not some silly voodoo story? Dead people stay dead... sorry
Does it have to be mentioned again that there is no measurable evidence for religion/God?
yes , there is no god no heaven no saving by jesus.. we are in the real world not in a delusional heaven..
Ok, and yet you ask of community to provide one for you. So what do you want to hear.
Now let me tell you what I want to hear:
Give me PROOF and EVIDENCE that atheism(which you are so eagerly preaching) is ACCURATE and CORRECT. Just ONE proof and i will be the first one to became a true atheist.
Atheism is not a religion, or a claim... it is a rejection of your claim that God exists
Christians made a claim... "God exists, and he is just like is says in this book here"... Atheists read the book, and dispute this claim for lack of foundation/evidence
It's as simple as, "We don't believe you"... what is there to prove?
I did not ask you to define atheism, I know what atheism is. Give me only one proof and evidence that will prove it 100% accurate and correct.
Let me help you.
Actually the quickest way to destroy my faith in God would be to show a naturalistic mechanism for resurrection of the dead. Then Christ's resurrection, which is the center of our faith, would be nothing special at all.
Of course people can't pop out of graves randomly. But God can raise people from the dead easily enough. But even that he has no obligation to do that. Your time here is measured, your days are numbered, remember that.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time.
Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.
Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?
We try to understand how flawed your reasonning is. And believe me it's hard to understand how dumb you can be.
You're actually saying that it's not because the same experiment made 1500 times give the same result that this result is correct?
Well, thank you for showing us how dumb you can be by stating your inability to understand how dumb I can be.
Did I really say that about some experiment made 1500 times? I don't see, above, where I said anything about 1500.
You said carbon datation was not correct. Carbon datation has been made not 1500, but hundreds of thousands of times. And you're saying all those experiments are wrong.
Wrong? I don't know that "wrong" is a good word for this. Rather, inconclusive. Why? For at least two strong reasons:
1. There have been plenty of times that C-dating has given conflicting results, as reported on right in this thread;
2. Nobody knows what C-14 content was like in the past, beyond what we can date through other methods.
In other words, if we have used a "pottery" dating system to show that something is, say, 4,000 years old, we can examine the object for C-14, and determine what the C-14 results are for that object. The flaw in the C-14 dating system is to think that everything in the world follows that exact, same pattern, and that anything before that 4,000 years follows the C-14 pattern of that 4,000-y-o item at all. We don't know for sure. Good guesses, maybe. But entirely inconclusive. The point is, we don't know at all how old the earth is from C-14. Other evidence suggests that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. The best written record, the Bible, suggests that the earth is well under 10,000 years old.
That's because I allow for the fact I might be wrong. You should try it sometime -- you might learn something if you're not continually letting yourself be backed into attempting to explain ridiculous ideas with even more ridiculous ideas.
Problem is not even that he's sure of himself and his ideas...
I don't care that people are sure of how they think! Problem is there is NOTHING to back his reasoning, and when we try to make him define his arguments he just avoids the question...
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time.
Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.
Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?
We try to understand how flawed your reasonning is. And believe me it's hard to understand how dumb you can be.
You're actually saying that it's not because the same experiment made 1500 times give the same result that this result is correct?
Well, thank you for showing us how dumb you can be by stating your inability to understand how dumb I can be.
Did I really say that about some experiment made 1500 times? I don't see, above, where I said anything about 1500.
You said carbon datation was not correct. Carbon datation has been made not 1500, but hundreds of thousands of times. And you're saying all those experiments are wrong.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability
Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate
Quote
This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years
Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...
BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)
Mouhahahahaha xD
That's actually a good explanation!
But if Gods has nothing better to do he's really a douchebag xD
He's holding your life in His hands.
So what? If I come to your house and put a gun on your head I'm holding your life in my hands. Will it make me any different? Means I'm some kind of God to you?
organofcorti, what you're proposing is not easy. It's far easier to be a drone and repeat the same thing.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time.
Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.
Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?
I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh?
Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork?
Now there is a statement! Of course, there might be other reasons why you would ask me a question than because you are trying to get an answer from me.
I suspect that we all post opinions a times. And, like you, I probably dip over the line into opinion in some ways when I am stating facts. However, if I insult anybody intentionally, it's just that I am agreeing with their insults of themselves.
Is it going to bother you a lot if I don't answer your question in the way you want? Ask yourself the question, or go out and research it if you want.
So, you make lots of comments about carbon dating being inaccurate but you don't know enough about statistics to post even one simple type of analysis that you don't think is guesswork.
I don't think any of us should take anything you write seriously.
Well, you are right about the, "I don't think..." part, anyway.
That's because I allow for the fact I might be wrong. You should try it sometime -- you might learn something if you're not continually letting yourself be backed into attempting to explain ridiculous ideas with even more ridiculous ideas.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time.
Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.
Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?
I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh?
Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork?
Now there is a statement! Of course, there might be other reasons why you would ask me a question than because you are trying to get an answer from me.
I suspect that we all post opinions a times. And, like you, I probably dip over the line into opinion in some ways when I am stating facts. However, if I insult anybody intentionally, it's just that I am agreeing with their insults of themselves.
Is it going to bother you a lot if I don't answer your question in the way you want? Ask yourself the question, or go out and research it if you want.
So, you make lots of comments about carbon dating being inaccurate but you don't know enough about statistics to post even one simple type of analysis that you don't think is guesswork.
I don't think any of us should take anything you write seriously.
Well, you are right about the, "I don't think..." part, anyway.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability
Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate
Quote
This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years
Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...
BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)
Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball.
Are you just here to troll and be a douche?
Really poor representative of Christianity
Of course I have considered whether or not God exists... I spent 30 fucking years researching the subject! How about you ya little shit?
Yes, I am just here to act like I'm 12, and makes all Christians look stupid
That's what I thought
Did you actually thought that BD might be an atheist in disguise coming here to discredit religious freaks? Cause that works!
He's not an atheist. He is not coming to discredit atheists (religious freaks). He is coming to show them how they are wrong to be atheists, except if they really want eternal damnation.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability
Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate
Quote
This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years
Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...
BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)
Mouhahahahaha xD
That's actually a good explanation!
But if Gods has nothing better to do he's really a douchebag xD
He's holding your life in His hands.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time.
Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.
Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?
I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh?
Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork?
Now there is a statement! Of course, there might be other reasons why you would ask me a question than because you are trying to get an answer from me.
I suspect that we all post opinions a times. And, like you, I probably dip over the line into opinion in some ways when I am stating facts. However, if I insult anybody intentionally, it's just that I am agreeing with their insults of themselves.
Is it going to bother you a lot if I don't answer your question in the way you want? Ask yourself the question, or go out and research it if you want.
So, you make lots of comments about carbon dating being inaccurate but you don't know enough about statistics to post even one simple type of analysis that you don't think is guesswork.
I don't think any of us should take anything you write seriously.
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!
Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time.
Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.
Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?
Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?
We try to understand how flawed your reasonning is. And believe me it's hard to understand how dumb you can be.
You're actually saying that it's not because the same experiment made 1500 times give the same result that this result is correct?
Well, thank you for showing us how dumb you can be by stating your inability to understand how dumb I can be.
Did I really say that about some experiment made 1500 times? I don't see, above, where I said anything about 1500.
Jump to: