Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[organofcorti]

The real reason why atheists hate religion is, the devil has blinded their minds to the truth.

So, not just atheists then but anyone who has a religion other than one of the Judeochristian ones?

Even so-called Christians will always have an unclear picture of God. The thing that saves them is when they fill themselves on the Word of God, the Bible, so that the Holy Spirit has something to work with in them, to work salvation in them.

What about buddhists? Are they atheists or do they just hate religion?

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm    Check it out and learn.    

I asked for your opinion, not someone else's opinion. You have one, so what is it? out with it man! Don't be shy. Has the devil blinded Buddhist eyes to the Truth?

[blackbird307]

Of course he knows. Except that he just wants to make things a bit interesting before the end.

[mainpmf]

The real reason why atheists hate religion is, the devil has blinded their minds to the truth.

We don't hate it. We're just not interested in it. We're more interested in things that deal with facts.

No, you hate it. How do we know? You are unwilling to compare the dictionary definition of "religion" to atheism and see that atheism is a religion.

Jeez, dude! Have it your way. Call it however you want. Still we're not interested in it. That important detail escapes you still.

This doesn't escape me at all. The fact that you would rather live in a science fiction world than in a world of reality doesn't escape me at all.

Riiiiight. Cause God made cars, computers and everything you use in your house.

Essentially yes. And maybe precisely yes. Cause and effect is in everything, going back to the beginning.

Notice that you are attributing far greater abilities to God than I am. You say that His 14 billion year cause and effect made these things, while I say it was only a little over 6,000 years. You might be able to hit the cue ball and get the sixth ball into the prescribed pocket, but try doing it with more than 10,000,000 balls.

Still didn't explain why carbon datation isn't reliable.

Funny how you take only what you want?

I just answered this in a different thread. I am not supposed to know the why's of everything just like you aren't. Research it for the data so that you can see the facts that carbon dating is flawed.

Flawed to the point that it's 50k years false? Same goes for EVERY radioactive element we know and use?

The liter science and physics isn't flawed. It works just like it should. The things that are flawed is how we interpret that data, and how we use the science itself.

Data is crystal clear. Most radioactive datation gives data proving objects and earths are millions of years old! And you would make us believe it's only 6k years old?
Common what you're saying is plain nonsense! If the physics is correct then we can't be dozens of millions of years wrong EVERY TIME...

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.

So for you carbon radioactive activity is few thousands time slower today than 5k years ago? And this regardless of concentrations (as we take same concentrations samples to compare activities) so without any reason the activity decreased by four orders of magnitude without any reason?

[yugo23]

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.

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!

[Moloch]

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.

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

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

[xslugx]

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.

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

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

Of course it is reliable!
Usually Carbon 14 datation is wrong about 80 years. 80 years on a datation of dozens of thousands of years! Seems quite reliable to me too!!!

[craked5]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.   

[Moloch]

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.

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

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?)

[organofcorti]

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.

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?

[BADecker]

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.

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

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[Moloch]

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.

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

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 wasted 30 fucking years researching the subject!  How about you ya little shit?

[BADecker]

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.

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

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?

That's the exact point. I'm simply going along with your self-analysis.

When I agree with you, you call me a poor Christian, douche troll, and if I don't agree with you, you call me the same.

Now you admit that you are of low enough IQ that 30 years wasn't enough. What are you going to call me now that I point THIS out to you?

[Moloch]

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.

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

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

[BADecker]

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.

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

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

I was wondering how long it would take one of you jokers to get around to that. What are you going to do now? Edit it back?   LOL

[organofcorti]

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.

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?

[BADecker]

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.

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?

[organofcorti]

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.

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?

[valta4065]

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.

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?