The Earth is 4.5 billion years old

>calling a belief system 'flawed' if it provides answers
>in an opening post that consists of nothing but answers

Fagnostics I swear

>posting a failed engineer

and an ugly bow tie.

It's not even an issue outside of backwards shitholes in the South

Trash talk is not an argument.

>Anthropogenic pollution is real and is destroying the atmosphere, by 2030 noticeable changes will begin occurring.

First it was global warming, then it was climate change, by 2030 (when Manhattan is underwater and India is a superpower) it will be atmospheric occurrence

This

youtube.com/watch?v=Uaz9Ks338c4

>Bill Maher

couldn't you at least search a legitimate source and show the issue in serious tone?

Trash talk is not an argument.

>Atheism as a belief system
Not so fast.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

Modern University summed up:

1. I believe that everything, in a universe that so enormous that it is almost beyond human comprehension, was once compacted to a size smaller then a marble.

2. I do not believe in the idea of the Great Universal Monad.

youtube.com/watch?v=9rFwaf2GaHE

youtube.com/watch?v=6jXazEYi3P8

"Theory of Creation". Nigga, pls, creation is self-evident, it doesn't need a theory.

Well of course it's not a a theory.
A theory implies a falsifiable hypothesis, which the "Theory" of creation clearly lacks.

How can you falsify a self-evident truth? That's the point, it's not a theory nor a hypothesis. If I say "the sky is blue", it's not a theory and can't be falsifiable.

youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

>Philosophy is important for a while, but also you start arguing in a circle. I think, therefore i am, what if you don't think about it? Do you not exist anymore? You probably still exist...

>Just keep in mind if you're spending all this money on college, a philosophy deegre may not lead you on a career path.

Creation is not a theory - it's just a revelation of the fact that the world has been created by an omnipotent Being from nothingness - there are no scientific explanations - there was not an scientific model or tool in the times of Moses neither - if Moses lived today Creation would've surely been influenced at least by scientific language and some concepts. But that's entirely beyond the point.

God in Genesis says He created everything as mature - all animals, all stars and everything else was created in one moment as a whole - already mature.

This means there was no evolution - God configured the animals so to speak and made them simply exist, mature and fully capable of reproduction and other survival tools - except that before man sin - death was not part of animal kingdom either - all animals should've lived eternally alongside humans.

>the sky is blue
But it isn't.

If your "science" can't even tell you the color of the sky, why shuld I believe when it says something about the Universe?

I never said you should.

it only needs one rule to be a belief system

and the one rule of atheism is ultimately based on a leap of faith like any other religious belief

But user I'm an agnostic.

If I were to look at the sky and it wasn't detectably blue in color that would falsify the hypothesis that the sky is blue because it wouldn't be blue, ignoring statistical significance and the possibility of errors on my part.

Falsification, my dear user, doesn't mean what you think it means.
If a hypothesis is unfalsifiable then it yields equal results regardless of whether the hypothesis is true or false.
If it is falsifiable then the results can potentially differ.

The sky also isn't always fucking blue.

Of course you said, you know that's the whole point of our discussion. Jesus, you're a fucking moron.

>and the one rule of atheism is ultimately based on a leap of faith like any other religious belief

yes, there really are people this stupid

You can't falsify personal experience. You can't falsify a self-evident truth.
When will you faggots understand science and falsifiability only works for common sense?

Explain how it is "self evident"?

ever look at the sky at night?

Everything exists, therefore it was created.

how is it not a leap of faith? you're making an assertion that is based on no evidence

ftr i'm agnostic

Sky is bue is not a theory, I told you a personal experience. If you can't read, that's your problem, not mine.

"Everything" includes God.

God is not a thing, that's the point.

>God is not a thing

So you are arguing God doesn't exist?

Every entity is a thing.

I should not have to explain what the most general meaning of "thing" is.

Doesn't follow. Unless you say "if it exists, i must've been created". In which case, God either doesn't exist or God itself was created. If God exists and wasn't created, then it isn't true that existence requires creation.

It's one of those self-defeating arguments.

>Can't falsify personal experience
Define personal experience. If someone claims with no evidence to have witnessed or intuited something that can't be verified or repeated then that's completely meaningless bullshit anyway. If you can do either of things then sure it can be falsified statistically.

>Can't falsify a self evident truth
Define a self-evident truth. Most of the self-evident truths that can't be falsified (And aren't just straight logic etc) aren't self-evident truths. Creation is clearly not self-evident otherwise I'd believe it and not evolution.

Also common sense is rarely sensible and rarely common. If there were a third word I'd Voltairepost.
Science tries to avoid common sense bullshit with falsifiability since falsifiability provides a way to prove the hypothesis wrong if it is actually wrong.

That's pretty shitty self evidence desu. Just because everything exists doesn't mean it was created or that this creator was god, I don't really claim to know what happened before the big bang even though I do refuse to acknowledge your idea of what happened prior because you can't know either. Moreover this doesn't cover YEC which really was what I thought I was debating since theory of evolution vs theory of creation was the topic of discussion.

Can't prove a negative claim but you can prove or disprove a positive claim, provided you create a falsifiable hypothesis for it. So statistically significant absence of evidence is evidence of statistically significant absence. Basically agnostic in terms of what that describes but I still think I'd describe myself as an atheist.

Says a man in his 20s

Carbon-14 is deceiving because materials can be easily contaminated. Note that example of the young trees that were millions of years old according to carbon measurement because they were near a volcano

Men has had to add more and more years to Earth age simply because evolution don't fit with how advanced civilization is

In this era of telecommunications is ridiculous you aren't aware of true miracles occurring worldwide annual. Check Napoli blood of Saint Geneseo or miracle of Lankiano

*Saint Gennaro

>atheism is ultimately based on a leap of faith like any other religious belief
Faith is more or less a synonym for belief.

I don't need to make a leap of any kind. I can observe the world and conclude that
1. Nothing really points to a god existing. Religions have always begun with people looking at things they don't understand and declaring that a god must be doing it, because that was the best explanation they could come up with.
2. No-one has ever observed a god
3. Most if not all belief systems involving gods have serious problems in logic and internal consistency

You can nitpick all you want, but the general point still stands. You need to be able to provide a positive claim that is falsifiable and then we can look at it, but we always start with the assumption that a god does not exist (a negative claim).

Now to the inevitable argument that will be made, either as bait or not, but it will be made:
>you can't disprove god
God is undisproveable by nature, and as such is always assumed disproven. The reason for this is that you can literally make the same argument about the easter bunny or a monkey that's stuck up your asshole that's completely undetectable through all means. You literally can't disprove that.

It definitely has rules in schools. I say let people believe what they want you do what you want and if you're doing it right people will fallow

>Men has had to add more and more years to Earth age simply because evolution don't fit with how advanced civilization is
See panspermia

Our theists were praticularly fanatical for a developed nation, and the militant Atheism is reactionary.

US theists are hardcore enough to irk people, but not bad enough to scare them into submission.

Y would India b a super power?

I'm struggling to understand where all of these non-arguments come from, a Kent Hovind video?

Are you seriously unaware scientists take contamination of specific sample into account?

How does evolution "fail to fit with how advanced civilization is"?

How about you check out the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba. Do you believe in those and in Hanuman the Monkey God or just the "miracles" you want to believe in?

>It definitely has rules in schools.
Examples?
>I say let people believe what they want you do what you want and if you're doing it right people will fallow
Some people believe that they have the right to hurt other people because of their belief system, so limits to what the fuck your religion allows you to do would be nice.

Agree with everything except for Carbon-14 dating because I don't have any knowledge about that.