(July 6, 2014 at 8:39 pm)justindagar Wrote: My theories on how to disprove Christianity
1. According to modern estimates there are 4200 religions in the world. Lets say, for a moment, that one of these is correct and true. This therefore means that the other 4199 are a load of baloney.
Religions such as Christianity and Hinduism therefore have a 0.001% of being correct even if creationism is how the universe started.
2. If someone today wrote the Bible or other holy scriptures they would be regarded as a madman as almost everything written in them has been disproved by science.
The Earth is not 6000 years old and even the pope has to admit that, billions of years went by after the formation of the planet to when the first recognisable Humans evolved. The Bible states however that it was not billions of years but actually 6 days.
As the Bible was clearly written by someone with zero scientific knowledge of the universe he states 'In the beginning god created the Heavens and the Earth'. We know today that the Earth is an absolutely tiny part of the universe yet the is no detail into how God created all the other billions of planets and stars.
I would continue my arguments but it's getting late and my head is hurting as to how 21st century people believe in such drivel.
Goodnight
1. You would need to define what you mean by 'correct and true'. If that means 'provides comfort for its followers', which could be a valid definition, then they are all 'correct and true'. The purpose of religion is not just to exist, it has many social and personal functions, you need to define which of those you want to use for your classification.
2. Actually science has not disproved much of the bible, it has cast doubt on it. Unless scientists develop a time-machine they will never be able to disprove most of it.
Yes, the 6000 years old concept is odd, but some physicists are beginning to think that spacetime (and hence space and time) is an emergent property of quantum systems and not a universal constant. It is very possible that time - as we perceive it - was not present in the early Universe. This of course doesn't make the creationists right at all, but it could also render the traditional concepts of time in the early Universe redundant.
Science is not about hard and fast truths, it is about establishing a level of understanding through scientific method and empirical evidence that we can build on. Sometimes those concepts take a big hit, the advent of sub-atomic physics in the early 20th century seemed totally at odds with classical physics, and to this day we still haven't unified the two.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
