Instead of trying to point out obvious conflicts such as evolution. I have collected a few ideas that discredit Christianity.

Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy = Mass and Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Thus, where is there a place for a creator?

Mithraism = Primary religion of the Roman Army prior to Christianity. Mithras was born a virgin birth on December 25. He had twelve disciples. He was mankind's savior, and he died and was resurrected. One striking difference was their baptisms were so much cooler. They would take a shower in a bull's blood.

These glaring facts are hard to argue with, but I am interested in who will abandon logic first and initiate credibility attacks.

Just to save these attackers time and effort of blaming all my research on wikipedia. I absolutely detest that site and only deal with scholarly sources, such as online journals and writings available through my University's library.

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:

Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy = Mass and Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Thus, where is there a place for a creator?



I'm not xian, but if I were I'd answer like this:

The Bible doesn't say that God created energy. It says he created the universe.

Energy is like Gods play dough with which he moulded the universe.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

The Bible doesn't say that God created energy. It says he created the universe.

Energy is like Gods play dough with which he moulded the universe.

But if you apply Occam's Razor, then God becomes irrelevant and it makes more sense to simply say the universe was always here and happened "naturally" through slow changes. Then again, that's never bothered Christians before...

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

But if you apply Occam's Razor, then God becomes irrelevant and it makes more sense to simply say the universe was always here and happened "naturally" through slow changes. Then again, that's never bothered Christians before...

Occam's Razor isnt logical, therefore I dont see any reason to use it in a serious discussion.

Occams Razor might tell me the moon is made of cheese, but that doesnt make it so, does it?

At any rate, Stephan Hawking says the same thing that religious people do: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/14/172226&from=rss

quote:Mithraism = Primary religion of the Roman Army prior to Christianity. Mithras was born a virgin birth on December 25. He had twelve disciples. He was mankind's savior, and he died and was resurrected. One striking difference was their baptisms were so much cooler. They would take a shower in a bull's blood.

Which has what to do with Christianity?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Which has what to do with Christianity?

Because the idea that Christianity was somehow BRAND new., is ridiculous. Most christians think that Jesus burst onto the scene with NEW IDEALS! NEW MORALS! A NEW WAY OF LIVING!

FUCK THOSE ROMANS! THIS IS THE TRUE PATH!

Bullshit, what most people don't realise is that christianity is just rehashed bullshit from the hundreds of other religions that were around before then. Mostly roman in origin.

Do you have any idea whatsoever what Occam's Razor is? It's one of the cornerstones of science. It doesn't mean "the simplest explanation is the right explanation" it says "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."

Therefore, God should be shaved off because it makes no difference and has no evidence.

quote: According to Hawking, the origin of the universe can be depicted as bubbles in a steam in boiling water. Small bubbles that appear and then collapse represent mini universes that expand only to disintegrate.

A few “bubbles,” Hawking said, will grow to a certain size until they are safe from collapse, and will begin to develop galaxies, stars and eventually human life.

“The universe began with accelerating expansion which we call inflation, because the universe grows in the way prices go up in some countries,” Hawking said. “It expanded in a million trillion trillionths of a second.”

His appearance was one of the most popular events ever hosted at Zellerbach, with one of the fastest ticket sales and a 400-name waiting list.

“I wanted to see his views on the universe,” said freshman David Litwak, an electrical engineering and computer science major. “I didn’t want to miss an opportunity to see a great scientist.”

Gee, yeah, that really sounds like the Christian explanation for the origin of the universe.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-28-2007).]

Christians say it happened from nothing and so does Hawking. Read between the lines, genius.

Occam's Razor still does not mean anything. At one point in time we thought the Earth was flat and had more evidence to say so than for a round earth. We also thought the sun revolved around the earth because the science said so. Even still, the aether.

Just because one makes sense now, does not invalidate any other contending theory. In each of those cases, science proved otherwise to strongly held beliefs.

Also, there are extremely profound implications if God were found, so it does make a difference whether or not God made the universe or it just popped into existence.

You are using the Razor in a situation where it is useless: in a non-scientific debate. The Razor, properly used, will say that God should not be searched for in science of origins, because there is no evidence to support him. But this is not a scientific debate, but rather an ideological one. Therefore, the Razor has absolutely no meaning here.

what an idiot that Harry Geist

quote:Originally posted by mustache rider:

what an idiot that Harry Geist

what a fucking troll that mustache rider.

Anyway, one of the best questions i like asking people is "Why christianity?" They can't tell me any reason why they picked one religion over another (like believing in Zeus etc...) Most religions are rehashed from old ones.

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:

Instead of trying to point out obvious conflicts such as evolution. I have collected a few ideas that discredit Christianity.

Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy = Mass and Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Thus, where is there a place for a creator?

Mithraism = Primary religion of the Roman Army prior to Christianity. Mithras was born a virgin birth on December 25. He had twelve disciples. He was mankind's savior, and he died and was resurrected. One striking difference was their baptisms were so much cooler. They would take a shower in a bull's blood.

These glaring facts are hard to argue with, but I am interested in who will abandon logic first and initiate credibility attacks.

Just to save these attackers time and effort of blaming all my research on wikipedia. I absolutely detest that site and only deal with scholarly sources, such as online journals and writings available through my University's library.



WOOT WWOOT! you just set yourself up to get owned! (dont take that offensivley its just a joke)

first i dont know bout that one guy really dont care! honestly sounds conspiracyish to me! not saying everything is a conspiracy its just some stuff does sound like it so i point it out!

Now on to my point when you said mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed you were correct to a certain degree but not quit! when they say that, that doesnt mean that it wasnt created nor can die! we cannot create it yes and we can not DESTROY it but it does have a timeline of sorts!

explanation- quarks make up energy wich makes up matter! over time quarks die and if quarks make up energy then energy dies aswell( more dissapears in a way). yes i swear that quarks do die and energy is not infinate and it is estimated that in trillions of years from now all energy will have dissapated into nothing! this is not some religous arguement, instead this is actually a scientific statement! i guess they found this out when they created proton accelerators!o and quarks make up protons and neutrons!



So BOOM SHAKALAKA!!! theres your room for creation!

ps. o and if it can die than it at one point had a beggining!



[This message has been edited by Masta Thief (edited 03-28-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:



explanation- quarks make up energy wich makes up matter! over time quarks die and if quarks make up energy then energy dies aswell( more dissapears in a way). yes i swear that quarks do die and energy is not infinate and it is estimated that in trillions of years from now all energy will have dissapated into nothing! this is not some religous arguement, instead this is actually a scientific statement! i guess they found this out when they created proton accelerators!o and quarks make up protons and neutrons!

Jesus masta please stop spouting this tired shit. You post it in just about every thread.

CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT? Because so far you cannot and it's getting boring hearing you repeat it ad verbatim as though it is true.

Post a god damn source or don't post at all.

quote:Christians say it happened from nothing and so does Hawking. Read between the lines, genius.

Let’s see, Christians believe there was an all-powerful, all-knowing God who was always around but didn’t live in anything before creating the heavens and the earth (even though a being implies a world since you can’t have world without being and you can’t have being without world), Hawking says that the world was caused by tiny bubbles. They imply it came from something because it can’t come from nothing! He implies it comes from nothing.

Also, did you note that he hadn’t proven his idea yet?

quote:At one point in time we thought the Earth was flat and had more evidence to say so than for a round earth. We also thought the sun revolved around the earth because the science said so. Even still, the aether.

This has nothing to do with Occam’s Razor and shows a major problem in your comprehension of science.

quote:Just because one makes sense now, does not invalidate any other contending theory. In each of those cases, science proved otherwise to strongly held beliefs.

I never said otherwise, nor does Occam’s Razor. Again, it says “the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.”

It says nothing about whether the hypothesis or theory is right, just that as many assumptions as possible should be shaved off - therefore God should be shaved off.

quote:Also, there are extremely profound implications if God were found, so it does make a difference whether or not God made the universe or it just popped into existence.

You totally misunderstand me and Occam’s Razor. I’m not denying that there would be profound implications if it were discovered God created the universe. What I am saying is that based on all current evidence, the concept of God is superfluous and has no evidence and is therefore useless for the theory.

quote:You are using the Razor in a situation where it is useless: in a non-scientific debate. The Razor, properly used, will say that God should not be searched for in science of origins, because there is no evidence to support him. But this is not a scientific debate, but rather an ideological one. Therefore, the Razor has absolutely no meaning here.

Occam’s Razor had meaning in context in that it was a reply to Beanie’s text showing why that interpretation is absurd.

Now, care to retract your statement that Occam's Razor isn't logical?

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-28-2007).]

The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy doesn't really discredit the idea of one god as a creator, as it only applies to the physical world we live in now, post-universal creation. It's something that a lot of scientists argue about concerning the big bang theory as well. While it may be simpler and make more sense scientifically to leave a god out of the picture, that doesn't have anything to do with conservation of mass/energy, and the law itself doesn't present a flaw with Christianity.

Personally I thought it was irrelevant to my post. I was speaking in the context of xianity.

In other words he said: "energy can't be created so god didn't create it."

I said: "The bible never said that god created energy, only the universe."

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Personally I thought it was irrelevant to my post. I was speaking in the context of xianity.

And I was showing why your Christian interpretation is scientifically absurd.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-28-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

It's something that a lot of scientists argue about concerning the big bang theory as well.

Big bang isn't the creation of the universe, but the earliest recorded event and what really set into motion the universe as it is now. No one knows how that little, hot ball of energy got there. It could have possibly always been there, but we'll have to wait and see whether or not Hawkins idea can stand up as a theory.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-28-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Big bang isn't the creation of the universe, but the earliest recorded event and what really set into the motion the universe as it is now. No one knows how that little, hot ball of energy got there. It could have possibly always been there, but we'll wait and see whether or not Hawkins idea can stand up as a theory.



I guess I should note the difference between universal creation and universal emergence. The main point is that conservation of mass/energy itself doesn't imply flaws with the Christina idea of creation.

[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-28-2007).]

I fail to see how these ideas discredit christianity. I must be too stupid to put it together.

bulls blood? that *does* sound cool...

quote:Originally posted by Totyai:

I fail to see how these ideas discredit christianity. I must be too stupid to put it together.

bulls blood? that *does* sound cool...

The conservation of mass/energy eliminates the need for a creator.

Second, Mithraism existed hundreds of years prior to Christianity. And Christianity almost copied it completely and just changed the guys name. Kind of like paint by numbers, but with a religion.

Good job. Rarely have I been so quickly discouraged from posting further in these idiotic threads, Geist. You have proven yourself quite clearly to be lacking in comprehension of ideas and concepts that you refuse to believe might be true.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Good job. Rarely have I been so quickly discouraged from posting further in these idiotic threads, Geist. You have proven yourself quite clearly to be lacking in comprehension of ideas and concepts that you refuse to believe might be true.



EDIT - PS, congratulations for jumping to conclusions. I've been seriously considering Judaism these past few days, which refutes your assumption that I refuse to even believe that might be true. I'm always in two minds about this stuff, hence why I'm an agnostic-atheist.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-28-2007).]

z0mg lyk FLAWS in CHRITIANITY?

FUCKING PPPPPPPPPOOOOOOOWWWWNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDD this topic with my topic! Eat it bitches!

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

WOOT WOOT! You just set yourself up to get owned! (don't take that offensively it's just a joke)

First I don't know about that one guy, and I really don't care! It Honestly sounds conspiracyish to me! I'm not saying everything is a conspiracy. It's just that some stuff does sound like it, so I point it out!

Now, on to my point. When you said mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, you were correct to a certain degree, but not quite! When they say that, that doesn't mean that it wasn't created and it can't be destroyed! We cannot create it. Yes. And we cannot DESTROY it. But it does have a time line of sorts!

explanation- quarks make up energy , which makes up matter! Over time quarks die and if quarks make up energy then energy dies as well( more disappears in a way). Yes I swear that quarks do die and energy is not infinite and it is estimated that in trillions of years from now all energy will have dissipated into nothing! This is not some religious argument, instead this is actually a scientific statement! I guess they found this out when they created proton accelerators! Oh, and quarks make up protons and neutrons!



So BOOM SHAKALAKA!!! there's your room for creation!

PS. Oh, and if it can die than it at one point had a beginning!

Stop posting!

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

FUCKING PPPPPPPPPOOOOOOOWWWWNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDD this topic with my topic! Eat it bitches!

Wrong. You're just a fucking idiot.

Stop ending every sentence (if you can even call it that) with an exclamation point.

quote:Originally posted by Punk_Rocker_22:

Stop posting!

No! i told how he was wrong in my other topic which i made just because of arguements here! so i destroyed his arguement he had here! you on the other hand have no relavance in the posts so you stop posting!

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:



Mithraism = Primary religion of the Roman Army prior to Christianity. Mithras was born a virgin birth on December 25. He had twelve disciples. He was mankind's savior, and he died and was resurrected. One striking difference was their baptisms were so much cooler. They would take a shower in a bull's blood.



This may surprise you considering your narrow mindedness but people just celebrate it on the 25th why:A long time ago(not that long ago i dont know the exact date but you know what i mean)people celebrated christmas all over the calender (1 happening to be Hitlers birthday but this was before his birth so it is just coincidence) and they wanted to make a universal date for christmas so they could all celebrate it on the same day so they asked the pope(or a cardinal i dont know much about the workings of catholicism other then that it is very corrupt)and he happened to celebrate it on december 25th so everyone adopted it and it was the best holiday ever concieved(mostly because it was about the birth of our Lord and Saviour come to save us from all sin so that those who call upon his name shall be saved)



[This message has been edited by SAMMY249 (edited 03-29-2007).]

December 25th goes back even further to pagan religions. It is the shortest day of the year. People would sit around praying that the sun would come back the next day. Its a very interesting holiday. Also shepherds wouldn't have been out with their flock at that time of the year. There are so many glaring holes and documented truths, but you want to cling on to your bronze age mysticism.

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:

December 25th goes back even further to pagan religions. It is the shortest day of the year. People would sit around praying that the sun would come back the next day. Its a very interesting holiday. Also shepherds wouldn't have been out with their flock at that time of the year. There are so many glaring holes and documented truths, but you want to cling on to your bronze age mysticism.

I guess i should have forseen this so il add what i shouldve added in my last post.

Many things the Bible describes of the events around Jesus birth points to it NOT being in winter with that being said i believe i should ad since you apparently didnt pick it up in my last post Yes it is true 25th was a pagan holiday so what,it was the pope(or cardinal see above post) who made it the 25th not the Bible so you are extremely retarded to imply that i believed Jesus was born on the 25th of december.

[This message has been edited by SAMMY249 (edited 03-29-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

No! i told how he was wrong in my other topic which i made just because of arguements here! so i destroyed his arguement he had here! you on the other hand have no relavance in the posts so you stop posting!

..

to bad you were wrong....

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

I guess i should have forseen this so il add what i shouldve added in my last post.

Many things the Bible describes of the events around Jesus birth points to it NOT being in winter with that being said i believe i should ad since you apparently didnt pick it up in my last post Yes it is true 25th was a pagan holiday so what,it was the pope(or cardinal see above post) who made it the 25th not the Bible so you are extremely retarded to imply that i believed Jesus was born on the 25th of december.



If you don't agree with this commonly agreed upon point, what makes genesis right?

quote:Originally posted by inuteroteen:

If you don't agree with this commonly agreed upon point, what makes genesis right?

1.What commonly agreed apon point?

2.Facts.