[jackhunter21]

Originally Posted by The Krokodil ↗

.. and yes i messed up on spelling my bad

I turned a couple of my athiest friends into believers after I told them many facts of things. One person did say one day: "Religion and The Bible where created to control humans." if that is right then Shit just gets deeper! He also mentioned that marriage is one of the main things to keep us busy fucking up etc. I honestly don't know but at the end its what we choose to belive cause everything that we know might be a lie.

I agree. It's a matter of statistics. 1 in 7 million chance of getting the order of creation right by guessing yet the bible does. Christianity is fully compatible with science because science is just an observation of what God created. Unfortunately science is a very politicized, biased and circular field just like with the military/educational/police/prison/healthcare industrial complexes. All these supposed scientists are taught by the same people and get funded by the same governments and businesses. How can they be objective and think freely.

[spycosis]

Originally Posted by jackhunter21 ↗

I agree. It's a matter of statistics. 1 in 7 million chance of getting the order of creation right by guessing yet the bible does. Christianity is fully compatible with science because science is just an observation of what God created. Unfortunately science is a very politicized, biased and circular field just like with the military/educational/police/prison/healthcare industrial complexes. All these supposed scientists are taught by the same people and get funded by the same governments and businesses. How can they be objective and think freely.

If you think that the universe requires a creator, then you risk locking yourself into a question of infinite regression.

The theist argument says this :

The universe was created from nothing. To do this, there has to be a cause for it, one that is neither spatial, physical nor temporal, since space, matter and time were created by the big bang. Therefore the cause must be supernatural and intelligent.

However, you then have to ask, Who made God ?
Using the logic of the theists, everything must have a cause. After all, it is this logic that they use to prove the need for a creator.
However when asked of the origin of God, the theists are forced to backtrack and use contradictory logic to justify it.
God does not need a cause, they say. He always existed.

To believe that something always existed, before time, is oxymoronic thinking.

Also, to refute the idea of intelligent design, it took 13.799 billion years to create us "in God's image" which is a little longer than the 6 days claimed by Genesis.
One would imagine that an intelligent designer would have been able to do it more efficiently than that.
I know if I get some builders in to do a week's work and it overstretches to the tune of about 14 billion years, I would seriously doubt their competence and intelligence.

Yes the universe appears to show signs of fine tuning, but there is no evidence to show that this happened in the first attempt. It may have taken countless trillions of failed universes before this one expanded to fruition.

I hear theists say that it is amazing that this universe supports life, yet by default that is the only remark that a living being could make on the subject. We cannot live in an uninhabitable universe and make remarks about how shit it is, because nobody would be alive to experience it.

My opinion is that if God needs no cause, then neither does the universe. After all, cause and effect are concepts that only have meaning within a framework of time. Cause happens before effect. Without time, there does not need to be a cause for anything.
Therefore before the Big Bang, the rules were different.
We may be in the millionth big bang already, there is no way to tell. Time may have existed before, and ended. Time could be repeating in a loop and we would never be able to notice it. Realistically to go back in time would erase your memory of the present, as it has not 'happened' yet. So we are extremely limited in what we can observe. We should guard against allowing these limitations to influence the way we describe metaphysical events.

The probability that God does not exist is high.
The universe is our real God, it made us all from stars, so that we could contemplate it's existence. And it can make us again. In fact, by the nature of consciousness, it is inevitable that we will not experience death, but the time that passes until we are created again will be less than the blink of an eye. We will only know life. We will live again, by all probability whether it be in a trillion years or longer, it does not matter.
Of course there is no possible way to take memories to the next life experience as these are made of chemical and electrical interactions, that are located in the brain, which obviously will rot when we die.
I do not claim to know the absolute truth, but I think science has reached a point where we are able to look in the right direction of the truth, and this is way more wonderful than any fairytale about a watchful, punishing dictator in the sky.
I also find it no coincidence that the God as described by the monotheistic religions shares many characteristics with that of Big Brother from Orwell's 1984.
Vengeful, punishing, all-seeing, capable of convicting you of thought-crime, and if you fail to bow down to His Majesty there will be pain and torture the like of which you could never have imagined.
And this is the God that loves us all....

The whole thing stinks to me, like an attempted form of social control over us, even beyond the reaches of the law. And now that science has proved them wrong, the theists say, "Yes, God was even cleverer than we thought..." Well that's not what they said for the last 2000 years, indeed they have burned many people to death for claiming what they now also admit to be true.

[spycosis]

Originally Posted by jackhunter21 ↗

Science is nothing more than heard mentality. All these "scientists" go to the same universities which are funded by the same governments and get jobs funded by the same said governments and universities. Science can be made to say whatever the scientists and those backing them want it to say. How many times have we heard vitamin c is good then bad or alcohol is good then bad or saturated fats are good then bad or that so and so increases Cancer rates and then they say it lowers it.

Science has never claimed to be absolute truth.
It is systematic experimentation, based on observation and the collection of empirical and forensic evidence. It is the quest for truth.

You can not make science say whatever you want it to.
You can only draw conclusions based on data. Therefore if you have insufficient data, it is possible to draw the wrong conclusions.
This is why one of the foundations, upon which modern science is built, is the concept of experiment repeatability.
This is how we now know the boiling point of water to be 99.9839 Celsius as opposed to 100 Celsius.
It is not the case that science was wrong, but rather that the equipment of the past was less precise so the data produced was also insufficient, by todays standards.

Science does not fail, it only becomes more exact, which can produce contradictory conclusions. To draw a conclusion requires a human, and this is where the errors may occur, as not all scientists are infallible.

In response to this -

'How many times have we heard vitamin c is good then bad or alcohol is good then bad or saturated fats are good then bad or that so and so increases Cancer rates and then they say it lowers it.'

- I think you are confusing pop science with the real thing. The Daily Mail are good at producing that sort of bullshit. They use statistical manipulation to demonstrate 'facts' , they do not employ scientific manipulation. In short, you can make statistics say almost anything, not science.
For clarity here are some facts. Real scientific ones.

1) Vitamin C is essential for human life. Always was, and always will be. Don't eat a kilogram of the stuff though.

2) Alcohol is not healthy, it never was nor will ever be. It is a hydrocarbon solvent and it damages every single type of cell in the body. It is also carcinogenic. The only use for it in vivo where it could remotely be considered a good idea would be to displace methanol and similar substances from the body in cases of poisoning.Moderate use won't harm most people, but it sure won't do you any favours.

3) Saturated fats have a nutritional worth, but if eaten to excess, will be stored in the body which causes a problem. Polar explorers usually consume huge amounts of these in order to survive. They generally metabolize what they eat so suffer no ill-health effects from it.

4) I have never heard of a substance that prevents cancer per se.
The idea that a previously known carcinogen has now been found to prevent cancer is preposterous. I think you made that last one up.