Religion Leads to Ignorance
That video was by 1611baptist and I can't help seeing the ignorance in this man. People these days are so damn stupid.
Islam is NOT an evil religion. A common argument to that statement is, "What about 9/11? You are on the terrorist's side! That's not American!" only a VERY VERY small amount of the Muslims in this world are terrorists. Most are very peaceful and just want peace. I might get flamed and downrated for this and I don't give a fuck.
I saw 1611baptist commenting and saying "Did Jesus respect peoples religions? You won't find that in scripture. Stop your sissy pansy attitude and be a man and get right with God!"
I replied saying, "Are you sure Jesus will like your attitude towards other religions? The Bible says "Love thy neighbor." Will you love your neighbor if he/she was Muslim? You and your aggressive beliefs is why I hate religion. Religion divides people, cause war and destruction over what? Over the thought that your religion is the best one. That it's the right choice. No religion is the right choice. People can believe what they want to. You have no right to say otherwise.
BTW: I believe in God, not religion."
I hope some of you will learn something from this. Lets all just live in peace.
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 13,097
RATE
80
Posted: 2009-12-23 15:25:24
Psst.
Responses (218) / Sorted by points
religion is just out there to scam faithful fools out of their money. yea some of it goes to a good cause but the rest is just to build the church up and get more money. How does anyone know what God wants us to do?
Being Different makes other people ignorant of you. I've found that out in life.
I hate when people say Islam is an evil religion. I am a Christian and go to church regularly. But I completly respect other beleifs and religions. I have never read the Koran(Islamic bible for you people who don't know.) but from what I understand Islam is a religion of love and peace just like christianity is supposed to be. Unfortunatly there are always some crazy people who skrew it up and create stereotypes for all of a group of people becuase they can take a few scriptures from their book and justify almost anything.
QUOTING THE KORAN: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard against evil. this means to kill if they dont believe in islam and when they beg for mercy, dont give any.
in the book "The Immunity" Chapter 9 verse 123 here:http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DI
V0&byte=282392
in the book "The Immunity" Chapter 9 verse 123 here:http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DI
V0&byte=282392
wolfman, that verse is used for muslims to remain steadfast and motivated. "fight those of the unbeleivers near you", an example for that phrase is what I'm doing right now. fighting with words and reason. F.Y.I: to fight doesn't necessarily mean kill without mercy. "let them find in you hardness" lets you know that if you reply with something stupid I'll just keep fighting back with truth
I'm not sure if I entirely understand which point/comment you're responding to, but if it's about Islam then hear this:
In order for one to be a Muslim, not only does he have to believe in Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), but also in all of the prophets before him (i.e. Moses, Jesus, etc. [P.B.U.T.]).
In order for one to be a Muslim, not only does he have to believe in Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), but also in all of the prophets before him (i.e. Moses, Jesus, etc. [P.B.U.T.]).
there was some comment about how if you didnt believe in it there was no way it could effect you. I think that is what I was commenting on but I can't remember and I couldnt find the actual comment but there is over 100 comments so I easily could have missed it when I just looked for it.
No problem about missing the comment there.
As for "if you didnt believe in it there was no way it could effect you", you have to believe in the other prophets as a Muslim. Muslims believe that all of the prophets are preaching for the same religion, but the difference is in the methods of worship.
As for "if you didnt believe in it there was no way it could effect you", you have to believe in the other prophets as a Muslim. Muslims believe that all of the prophets are preaching for the same religion, but the difference is in the methods of worship.
These things are mostly taken out of context, so take care. I've discovered that myself.
Which is why there are terrorists. They take the text out of context to justify their reasons.
I've read it and I assure you, those terrorists are taking their justifications out of context 100%. Terrorism has no religion; it's just extremists with lots of delusions that do that.
Posted: 2010-06-22 10:21:56 Report
Let's not start a Jihad here. But, BorneFree needs to learn his facts before presenting his 'facts' or as I see it all he has posted is fiction.
This discussion has come into nonsense. The original topic was that Religion Leads to Ignorance. Where the hell did we start talking about science and this shit?
Can we get back on topic?
Can we get back on topic?
I love your smartass enthusiasm. (Not Sarcasm.)
Different people have different religions, so what? It's just one of the few freedoms that human beings have left. Let them pick and choose as they please, however they are all right or wrong in someone's opinion no matter what. But this.. burning the Qur'an is just pointless, does not prove a point whatsoever. Besides the fact the guy who did it probably has no respect for people or their decisions at all.
Clearly religion has bred more ignorance than this guy realises. Unless in the southern United States he's managed to obtain an arabic copy of the Qur'an, unlikely since the cover reads THE Qur'an, strictly he's burning a 'translation of the Holy Qur'an' and not an actual Qur'an, which would be written in the original arabic as it was transcribed by Mohammed from the messenger of God. In Muslim countries it's usually not permitted to sell a book as 'the Qur'an' unless it's in the original language, or has it alongside the relevant translation (this guy's book doesn't seem thick enough).
Book burning fail.
Book burning fail.
I've been reading these posts for a while now finaly decided to step in and say something. No where in the Bible does it say that god is the only god only that he is a jelouse god, and i also like to believe that there are multible "true" religions all with there own god/goddess/other world being.
It says that in the ten commandments smart one. Which is in 100's of religions. Pay attention next time you want to make a comment like this.
Often, when God speaks in Genesis and the OT, he references multiple deities.
Ex.
Genesis 3: 22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."
This, among other thing, lends credence to the idea that the Biblical writers are inconsistent about the number of deities they worship.
Also, your ten commandments link had no elaboration on your point, seemingly proving nothing.
Ertrov: Zen Gnosticism and Buddhism.
Ex.
Genesis 3: 22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."
This, among other thing, lends credence to the idea that the Biblical writers are inconsistent about the number of deities they worship.
Also, your ten commandments link had no elaboration on your point, seemingly proving nothing.
Ertrov: Zen Gnosticism and Buddhism.
The Bible does not mention the Trinity. If the Bible clarified itself on that point, maybe you would have some backing. Yet it does not, so your point is simply wild speculation.
The trinity is a concept created to attempt to rationalize some inconsistencies in the Bible, after the Council of Nicea decided Jesus was to be divine. Find me a reference in the scriptures.
The trinity is a concept created to attempt to rationalize some inconsistencies in the Bible, after the Council of Nicea decided Jesus was to be divine. Find me a reference in the scriptures.
the bible does mention the trinity plenty of times both in the NT and the OT
We state it every day in the Catholic Church. In the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed.
Posted: 2009-12-24 15:51:07 Report
It's in the Catholic Bible, soooo it's in every denomination of Catholicism's Bible. Such as, the Lutheran Bible.
Yes, I have... Durrr otherwise I wouldn't being saying this.
Have you read, page for page, the bible supplied by catholics??
Catholicism, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal, Islam, Judaism, and all of Christianity.
Source:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm
Source:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm
firs of all Jofus is right most of them arent christian jsut similar and second of all if you paid attention to highschool you would know that there is a difference between Monotheisim (belief that there is only one god[lowercase which means that it is just an entity not the uppercase that is in the "bible"]) and all other religions are wrong like the traditional babtist or what is consideed "christian" and Monolatry which states that there are many gods but only one should be worshipped but this is confusing because a lot of christians these days sem to believe in the trinity but are monotheistic but believe in the "father, son, and the holy spirit/ghost" how is this only one god. But alas i digest what im trying to say is its impossible to believe that only one religion is correct and all others are completely wrong and im not trying to say join my religion because i really dont care what you believe until you start warring and try to force me to believe what you do.
Let's not start a jihad here, however, i do agree.
actually it only says
1.You shall have no other gods before me.
2.You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
so what if u dont believe in the christian faith or choose to believe in a diffrent god other then the christian god
honestly though i hate argueing over this crap this is what starts wars, crusades and other crap
1.You shall have no other gods before me.
2.You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
so what if u dont believe in the christian faith or choose to believe in a diffrent god other then the christian god
honestly though i hate argueing over this crap this is what starts wars, crusades and other crap
"It says that in the ten commandments smart one. Which is in 100's of religions. Pay attention next time you want to make a comment like this." CTUDirector also this only covers the bible and christian religions you are not including any of the Native American religions nor the myrid of other religions that people believe in
I notice I didn't point that out. However, in Native American religions they do prey to one spirit. Not multiple spirits, pending on what tribe you are part of.members.fortunecity.com/fretman/pray.html
www.nativevillage.org/Inspiration-/ten_native_american_comma
ndments.htm
In their ten commandments, it only mentions one 'great spirit.'
www.nativevillage.org/Inspiration-/ten_native_american_comma
ndments.htm
In their ten commandments, it only mentions one 'great spirit.'
It's not all your fault, more of BorneFree's fault.
To be quite honest if people are fucking stupid enough to devote their lifes to a 2000 year old book, they realy do need help.
Arguing over a book is pointless all religions are aload of crap. Not true at all. And if for any reason they are true then i will see every last religous person in hell. Because of all the wars, pain and suffering those people and their religions cause.
Also if there is a god, i suggest he starts his fucking job because as far as im concerned he belongs in hell because of all the shit thats happening in the world. If he is so high and mighty then why doesnt he get off his arse and do something helpfull for once.
And no offence CTUDirector but you talk about facts, yet i want facts and proof about your religion. A BOOK does not count. so before you start preaching about facts maybe you should find some yourself.
Arguing over a book is pointless all religions are aload of crap. Not true at all. And if for any reason they are true then i will see every last religous person in hell. Because of all the wars, pain and suffering those people and their religions cause.
Also if there is a god, i suggest he starts his fucking job because as far as im concerned he belongs in hell because of all the shit thats happening in the world. If he is so high and mighty then why doesnt he get off his arse and do something helpfull for once.
And no offence CTUDirector but you talk about facts, yet i want facts and proof about your religion. A BOOK does not count. so before you start preaching about facts maybe you should find some yourself.
besides the big bang theory, which, in my opinion, makes no f'ing sense.
Which leads to no more. Which leads to no more. So there is not a single point to even bringing up the big bang theory. Correct? or just my opinion?
why is this incorrect? religion has thousands of years of evidence behind it, and the big bang has only hundreds of years. ?
why? why? why do you post this in reply to this reply? Why? Why!?
What makes me laugh is when religious nut jobs say that the big bang theory makes no sence.... yet they believe a man can walk on water... a man can cure any disease and illness by waving his hand... and also believe that a woman was created out of a rib... yeah that makes sence doesnt it ;) ladies you are all tecnically ribs :)
Ergh, but we have faith and evidence to back all of our religious beliefs up.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
How about thousands of people witnessing these events?
What is your proof that they did?
And either way, fundamental universal principles trump eyewitness testimony.
I'll provide a source soon, I'm on my phone, but in I think Norway, around 6,000 people witnessed, collectively, the sun falling to the Earth.
This eyewitness testimony is rejected because, obviously, the sun seems to still remain in the sky.
And either way, fundamental universal principles trump eyewitness testimony.
I'll provide a source soon, I'm on my phone, but in I think Norway, around 6,000 people witnessed, collectively, the sun falling to the Earth.
This eyewitness testimony is rejected because, obviously, the sun seems to still remain in the sky.
This may be a 5month old post but i have to comment. Do religious people have to bash science? im not saying that my belives are correct, but neither are yours. but please don't come out with the same old "it came out of nowhere" cause there are many more aspects to science that prove religion wrong.
not only is there the big bang theory that is anti religion, but many more, if you were to read up on such theories you may understand why religion is seemingly a bunch of myths. yes they are just 'theories' but they have current evidence, not just what some guy did 3000 years ago.
Here is one, not such anti religion but a rather interesting point
1) Infinite universes. The theory of the big bang (an explosion) would make one belive it would slow down, as explosions do. But no. Red shit (the theory of stars and glaxies moving away from us) has solid evidence, the faster something is moving towards or away from us, would change its appearence due to light either being stretched or condensed. Red shift (stars appearing as a red tinge) would indicate whole galaxies moving away from us at a vast rate. Not only this but the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Now lets say the universe were made of 3 things : A, B and C.
Possible combinations would be:
ABC
ACB
BAC
BCA
CBA
CAB
Now if there were to be a 7th planet, it would have to use a previous combination. Now crank those figures up to many billion trillions of combinations. If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, and more and more stars and galaxies are forming, surely there will reach a point where... things must replicate? This theory therefore indicates heavily at the fact that a parallel universe will, if not already exist. And i mean PARALLEL. exact same people, exact same planet, exact same time etc. This is a theory that is heavily based on evidence. Now if religion were real, where does this fit in? This theory has more evidence and logical knowledge than any religion, yet defies them all. Not only this but the theory states infinite universes must exist (this one has less evidence). If they were to exist, in other univsers the laws of physics could be so much differnet, e.g time goes backwards, or energy Can be created.
Granted the second point is much more far-fetched, but just look at the first point. I am not saying your religion is wrong or incorrect, you are free to belive in what you want, but do not tell us that our theory is total bolox. Even if it is, just look at it from the knowledgeable point of view, how interesting is it. People who are anti-science are oblivious to the fantasitcally interesting theories it holds? Does it state you must be nice to one another? No, but it sure makes you seem worthless. And personally, i like to think im just some form of entropy.
not only is there the big bang theory that is anti religion, but many more, if you were to read up on such theories you may understand why religion is seemingly a bunch of myths. yes they are just 'theories' but they have current evidence, not just what some guy did 3000 years ago.
Here is one, not such anti religion but a rather interesting point
1) Infinite universes. The theory of the big bang (an explosion) would make one belive it would slow down, as explosions do. But no. Red shit (the theory of stars and glaxies moving away from us) has solid evidence, the faster something is moving towards or away from us, would change its appearence due to light either being stretched or condensed. Red shift (stars appearing as a red tinge) would indicate whole galaxies moving away from us at a vast rate. Not only this but the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Now lets say the universe were made of 3 things : A, B and C.
Possible combinations would be:
ABC
ACB
BAC
BCA
CBA
CAB
Now if there were to be a 7th planet, it would have to use a previous combination. Now crank those figures up to many billion trillions of combinations. If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, and more and more stars and galaxies are forming, surely there will reach a point where... things must replicate? This theory therefore indicates heavily at the fact that a parallel universe will, if not already exist. And i mean PARALLEL. exact same people, exact same planet, exact same time etc. This is a theory that is heavily based on evidence. Now if religion were real, where does this fit in? This theory has more evidence and logical knowledge than any religion, yet defies them all. Not only this but the theory states infinite universes must exist (this one has less evidence). If they were to exist, in other univsers the laws of physics could be so much differnet, e.g time goes backwards, or energy Can be created.
Granted the second point is much more far-fetched, but just look at the first point. I am not saying your religion is wrong or incorrect, you are free to belive in what you want, but do not tell us that our theory is total bolox. Even if it is, just look at it from the knowledgeable point of view, how interesting is it. People who are anti-science are oblivious to the fantasitcally interesting theories it holds? Does it state you must be nice to one another? No, but it sure makes you seem worthless. And personally, i like to think im just some form of entropy.
@Madmat155
who said its god's job to baby us and make sure nothing bad happens on earth? Also how you said all the war due to religion. Just because other Christians started wars doesn't make all Christians bad. Religion doesn't lead to ignorance only some people make it seem like it does.
who said its god's job to baby us and make sure nothing bad happens on earth? Also how you said all the war due to religion. Just because other Christians started wars doesn't make all Christians bad. Religion doesn't lead to ignorance only some people make it seem like it does.
Mad is right how can you say that your bible is right when 1. it isnt the first. 2. it has forced people to support it with violence. and 3. the religious ppl that support it have commited most of the sins that are said to be "deadly" just to get a quick buck and once again PAY ATTENTION TO FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY OR ANY HISTORY FOR THAT MATTER and you will know that im telling the truth.
Forgiveness is for what exactly? Blind forgiveness is the opposite of justice.
God is said to be both infinitely merciful and perfectly just. Yet, if he forgives sins for belief, he is not just. If he punishes sins to their full extent, he is not merciful. So which is it?
God is said to be both infinitely merciful and perfectly just. Yet, if he forgives sins for belief, he is not just. If he punishes sins to their full extent, he is not merciful. So which is it?
You know what, that's what faith is for. Plus i listed most of the religions in the world. (Mostly not including any african religions)
you mean of what we now call correct justice, back then they didn't care if they were politically correct, and it was already set in stone that Jesus would die.
Obviously, God's justice works differently than our sense of justice, since according to His sense, any sin dooms one to Hell forever. He also created justice, so if He says that a perfect (emphasis on perfect) sacrifice of a perfect being is enough, then it is.
Very fair CTUDirector, let me try again : ). Thanks for asking for clarification.
Ertrov said God's justice was different from humanity's. However, this makes debate physically impossible. If we cannot define something, we cannot debate on the subject.
The basis for debate is admittedly the human frame of reference. Thus, when someone claims god to be "just," the only basis on which I may argue is the human definition of justice, the one I gave above.
If the claim is made that our definition of justice is incorrect, then no debate can be had.
Also, if the definition is called into question, using the word "justice" is nonsensical. For if God is "just, but not in the human sense," God is not just. Justice is a human word, thus for something to be just, it must be just in the human sense.
God can be something else, other than just, but to be just, he must be just in the sense as defined above.
Did that help?
Ertrov said God's justice was different from humanity's. However, this makes debate physically impossible. If we cannot define something, we cannot debate on the subject.
The basis for debate is admittedly the human frame of reference. Thus, when someone claims god to be "just," the only basis on which I may argue is the human definition of justice, the one I gave above.
If the claim is made that our definition of justice is incorrect, then no debate can be had.
Also, if the definition is called into question, using the word "justice" is nonsensical. For if God is "just, but not in the human sense," God is not just. Justice is a human word, thus for something to be just, it must be just in the human sense.
God can be something else, other than just, but to be just, he must be just in the sense as defined above.
Did that help?
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:00:26 Report
By scientists, yes. But not by science itself. Personal scientists' opinions have nothing to do with making something a "scientific law." While many scientists have believed in God (less and less as time has gone on), science itself has never found any evidence for such a deity.
And they are propositions... as is every idea proposed... Nothing bad about a proposition.
And they are propositions... as is every idea proposed... Nothing bad about a proposition.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:29:47 Report
Logos, I am not sure that I understand your post. Can you put it in other words?
Posted: 2009-12-24 15:53:08 Report
Sort of. I guess. But God is the almighty, he makes all of the decisions of life. So, every justice made, is made by God. So in turn, our justice is his justice, which makes it perfect.
Understand the way I understand it?
Understand the way I understand it?
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:04:16 Report
The presupposition of God is really hard to prove, unless there is faith in every one.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:09:48 Report
The Big Bang Hypothesis might as well be the Unicorn Hypothesis. =]
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:14:56 Report
That is simply incorrect. For the Big Bang Theory (NOT Hypothesis) has evidentiary backing, unlike your divine proposition(s).
Namely Microwave Background Radiation, Homogeneity of the Universe, Redshift, the Expanding Universe, etc. If you would like more evidence, I will be happy to elaborate and source my post : ).
Namely Microwave Background Radiation, Homogeneity of the Universe, Redshift, the Expanding Universe, etc. If you would like more evidence, I will be happy to elaborate and source my post : ).
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:22:40 Report
Numbers are based on the foundational assumption of counting. Everything could change in science, yes, but only in light of evidence. This is because science explains the Universe, thus takes all evidence into account. This is a positive attribute of science, not a negative one.
2+2=4 was decided as a mathematical convention. It is this way because this is useful, and can be applied to the world around us, describing quantities. Saying 2+2=fish will never be accepted because it is completely useless.
I think, as I believe you know, you are grasping at straws to defend an unsubstantiated worldview. Rather than become defensive, I suggest calm review of fact and scientific literature. Maybe if one of your assumptions have been called into question, you should assess it instead of calling into question the foundation of science.
I have to go play a family game of Bananagrams now! Great game, highly recommend it. I'll come back to this in about an hour.
I hope to see evidence, sound argument, and a wealth of posts when I get back : ).
Have a merry christmas/happy holiday season all! See you in an hour or so : ).
2+2=4 was decided as a mathematical convention. It is this way because this is useful, and can be applied to the world around us, describing quantities. Saying 2+2=fish will never be accepted because it is completely useless.
I think, as I believe you know, you are grasping at straws to defend an unsubstantiated worldview. Rather than become defensive, I suggest calm review of fact and scientific literature. Maybe if one of your assumptions have been called into question, you should assess it instead of calling into question the foundation of science.
I have to go play a family game of Bananagrams now! Great game, highly recommend it. I'll come back to this in about an hour.
I hope to see evidence, sound argument, and a wealth of posts when I get back : ).
Have a merry christmas/happy holiday season all! See you in an hour or so : ).
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:48:20 Report
And in response to his bananagrams, I am off to watch season six of 24. I'll be back in a couple of hours to finish this discussion.
Someone post some evidence so we can get a real discussion going. I beg of you.
Someone post some evidence so we can get a real discussion going. I beg of you.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:56:11 Report
Religion has thousands of years of backing by scientists. Which would make it a scientific law. Correct? These are not propositions.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:24:38 Report
Everything in science can be changed at any second of time due to the fact that something else happens when you apply something else to it. So everything we learn in life is all a proposition. Whether tested and proven or not. Who the hell decided 2+2=4. What happens if a whole bunch people start saying that it equals fish? Then it becomes 2+2=fish or 4. See how easily it changes?
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:37:54 Report
Ertrov:
ERV stands for Endogenous RetroViruses. Endogenous RetroViruses are viruses that, through a mechanism I cannot explain in the text allotted here, actually alter the core DNA of an organism infected by them. This organism passes on these DNA alterations to every one of its descendants, and cannot pass them on through any other means.
Chimpanzees and Homo Sapiens share the exact same ERVs in the exact same places, 16 times. This is next to impossible without descent.
We descend from Chimps.
If you need more proof, try www.talkorigins.org.
The Big Bang has mountains of evidence behind it. What doesn't make sense?
ERV stands for Endogenous RetroViruses. Endogenous RetroViruses are viruses that, through a mechanism I cannot explain in the text allotted here, actually alter the core DNA of an organism infected by them. This organism passes on these DNA alterations to every one of its descendants, and cannot pass them on through any other means.
Chimpanzees and Homo Sapiens share the exact same ERVs in the exact same places, 16 times. This is next to impossible without descent.
We descend from Chimps.
If you need more proof, try www.talkorigins.org.
The Big Bang has mountains of evidence behind it. What doesn't make sense?
what the hell does this comment have to do with anything??
This comment was in response to:
Ertrov: Give me proof of evolution, then. There is no proof for any theory of how the universe came into being.
and You: besides the big bang theory, which, in my opinion, makes no f'ing sense.
It was not posted in the right place, my bad.
Now, in response to Ertrov: "It says everything came from a tiny reaction of elemental substances. Where did they come from? If you dig deep enough, evolution claims that everything came from nothing."
No, the Big Bang Theory does not say everything came to be through a reaction of tiny elemental substances. The Big Bang Theory deals with the mechanism of Spacetime expansion/the creation of our specific universe/spacetime. Before our space was in existence, energy (vacuum energy, a.k.a. energy without need of a medium) still existed. This energy fluctuated (fluctuations have been observed recently in the form of virtual particles) and began our Universe. The energy coalesced/condensed into the matter we see today.
"Evolution" means the "change in allelic frequencies in a population over time..." and is strictly a biological subject. It has nothing to do with cosmology.
And no one is claiming everything came from nothing.
Ertrov: Give me proof of evolution, then. There is no proof for any theory of how the universe came into being.
and You: besides the big bang theory, which, in my opinion, makes no f'ing sense.
It was not posted in the right place, my bad.
Now, in response to Ertrov: "It says everything came from a tiny reaction of elemental substances. Where did they come from? If you dig deep enough, evolution claims that everything came from nothing."
No, the Big Bang Theory does not say everything came to be through a reaction of tiny elemental substances. The Big Bang Theory deals with the mechanism of Spacetime expansion/the creation of our specific universe/spacetime. Before our space was in existence, energy (vacuum energy, a.k.a. energy without need of a medium) still existed. This energy fluctuated (fluctuations have been observed recently in the form of virtual particles) and began our Universe. The energy coalesced/condensed into the matter we see today.
"Evolution" means the "change in allelic frequencies in a population over time..." and is strictly a biological subject. It has nothing to do with cosmology.
And no one is claiming everything came from nothing.
But what made Space, energy, and all those other things mentioned in this reply??
The law of Conservation of MassEnergy dictates that both Mass and Energy, in some form, have always existed. The law of Conservation of MassEnergy is THE most substantiated scientific law around.
There is no need for a creation of such fundamentals.
There is no need for a creation of such fundamentals.
Without God, science would never have existed. And the Big Bang Theory would have never been thought of.
Grr. You prove that there was such thing as The Big Bang. and we'll talk.
Here ya go.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html.
There are many textbooks/sites dedicated to colloquially: "proving" the Big Bang Theory. I suggest you check them as well. Like the one above.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html.
There are many textbooks/sites dedicated to colloquially: "proving" the Big Bang Theory. I suggest you check them as well. Like the one above.
Given that this isn't a reliable source. Because it is only contributed by two people.
And I'm getting very tired of this topic.
I'm only a freshman in high school and I'm making a very reasonable debate over this topic. I've contributed my part.
And I'm getting very tired of this topic.
I'm only a freshman in high school and I'm making a very reasonable debate over this topic. I've contributed my part.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:31:52 Report
Age of evidence does play a factor in debate. Just like now, in PF Debate we are discussing merit pay for teachers based on student achievement. There is evidence from 1969, that I had made the opposition throw out of their briefs due to the fact that it was too old.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:41:38 Report
I meant age of the debaters. And really, age of evidence doesn't play a factor. Only the veracity of said evidence. Sure, some evidence is time-based (yearly statistics), but evidence we are discussing (observed universal facts) is not.
Another break after these! Mario Party : D!
Another break after these! Mario Party : D!
Posted: 2009-12-24 18:11:55 Report
I see what he's trying to say here, and Logos, you make a good point. I'll look into it. But explain to me this: where did the Big Bang come from? What caused it? And if you say there was a reaction of tiny gasses, then where did they come from?
Someone decided to uprate comments. The f'ing noobs have obliviously never been a part of a forum discussion before.
It's understadable for everyone to be entitled to their opinion and express it freely... but the true meaning of ignorance is a lack of knowledge or awareness. If someone is putting down another for their views, they are not ignorant - just very rude.
I honestly thought the Bible as a book full of very metaphoric ways to live your live the clean way. I respect those who did read it and just live by it. Not those that see it as a way to get to heaven and try to force their beliefs on others.
I completely agree with this, since right now I have to go to catechism to become a part of the church. The first thing they said, on the first day, was that the most important thing we could do to go to heaven is to go to church every week. I think thats wrong. What if I decide to help others instead? Am I going to go to Hell for helping others? I really dislike my church now, just for that one thing they taught us. I believe that no matter your religion, as long as you do good things for others and don't hurt people here on Earth, you'll be rewarded.
You REALLY know to get your point out and say it right :P
I disagree.
I am fully Christian. I was raised Christian, and I've been Christian since I could remember.
I think some people in the Christian religion are exactly mirroring those types of people in any other religion.
Think of it this way. A militant Islam tries to make his religion the only religion in the world. He tortures numerous people and religions, just because he is doing what he believes is right. Because of this, he gives other Islamic peoples bad names. In Louisiana (my home), muslims come in very few numbers. But I happen to know a muslim family with whom I went to school with, and another family who own a chain of gas stations. I never knew these people to be anything less than nice, hard-working people. I would even joke around with the muslim girl about her religion, but she knew I was playing because I was able to put up a fun, joking feel to the way I was playing with her.
Look at black people (not a racist). You have the hard-working black people, who don't commit crimes, have good marriages, etc. Then you have the group who grew up in the ghetto, became the gang members, likes to sag their pants to their knees, listens to the loud music. It's the same case with African-Americans as it is in anything.
Now, you have the Christians. You have my kind, who truly believe that our way is the one way, but I do believe I'm not God, and it is not my place to decide whose religion is right, whose race is the most powerful. Therefore, though I wish more families would believe the same as I do, I am not in any way going to force my beliefs upon these families. But you have the ones who have Anti-Gay rallies. I don't support homosexuality, but I understand that it is one's way of life. I don't support the "God Hates Fags" outlook.
I listed an example of each field. Race-Religion, Race, Religion. Each type of people, whether they be black, yellow, blue, green, Christian, Buddhist, Islam, Native Tribal - what have you - each of these types, will have a certain part of them that can be defined as totalitarian or militant. And because you only see bad news in the media, this is the picture we gain to see as an example of each group of people.
See, I can be Christian and Conservative, and be all about peace and love, and switching to alternative energies (which we know is more of a liberal outlook). I can say that greener technology is fine with me, just not all at once. It takes time to implement something like that into a nation. Also, I'm all for peace. But if someone is blatantly attacking us by unfair oil prices, crashing planes into towers, I believe that this is something that needs to be taken care of, before we can believe that the world will truly be a safer place. I have proof because of what I just stated. There will always be that certain group of people who believes they are better, and will stop at nothing to rule the earth.
I am fully Christian. I was raised Christian, and I've been Christian since I could remember.
I think some people in the Christian religion are exactly mirroring those types of people in any other religion.
Think of it this way. A militant Islam tries to make his religion the only religion in the world. He tortures numerous people and religions, just because he is doing what he believes is right. Because of this, he gives other Islamic peoples bad names. In Louisiana (my home), muslims come in very few numbers. But I happen to know a muslim family with whom I went to school with, and another family who own a chain of gas stations. I never knew these people to be anything less than nice, hard-working people. I would even joke around with the muslim girl about her religion, but she knew I was playing because I was able to put up a fun, joking feel to the way I was playing with her.
Look at black people (not a racist). You have the hard-working black people, who don't commit crimes, have good marriages, etc. Then you have the group who grew up in the ghetto, became the gang members, likes to sag their pants to their knees, listens to the loud music. It's the same case with African-Americans as it is in anything.
Now, you have the Christians. You have my kind, who truly believe that our way is the one way, but I do believe I'm not God, and it is not my place to decide whose religion is right, whose race is the most powerful. Therefore, though I wish more families would believe the same as I do, I am not in any way going to force my beliefs upon these families. But you have the ones who have Anti-Gay rallies. I don't support homosexuality, but I understand that it is one's way of life. I don't support the "God Hates Fags" outlook.
I listed an example of each field. Race-Religion, Race, Religion. Each type of people, whether they be black, yellow, blue, green, Christian, Buddhist, Islam, Native Tribal - what have you - each of these types, will have a certain part of them that can be defined as totalitarian or militant. And because you only see bad news in the media, this is the picture we gain to see as an example of each group of people.
See, I can be Christian and Conservative, and be all about peace and love, and switching to alternative energies (which we know is more of a liberal outlook). I can say that greener technology is fine with me, just not all at once. It takes time to implement something like that into a nation. Also, I'm all for peace. But if someone is blatantly attacking us by unfair oil prices, crashing planes into towers, I believe that this is something that needs to be taken care of, before we can believe that the world will truly be a safer place. I have proof because of what I just stated. There will always be that certain group of people who believes they are better, and will stop at nothing to rule the earth.
its ok to not understand something. that I can bare with. but when someone defiles something based solely on not understanding it...THAT is unacceptable. It is impossible to blame an entire group of people of something. Its like saying that all Christians wanted the Crusades, or all Muslims want to hurt America...have you been to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Yemen, Oman, Iran, etc..? and seen their pro-American sentiments.
Its only the actions of the few that characterize the facade of the many when it comes to an ignorant. heres that southern Christian white guy's logic: 9/11 was caused by Muslims..therefore all Muslims must be bad.
well here's my response- Christians were responsible for slavery, therefore all Christians are bad. Tell me if that is sound logic.....any takers? didnt think so.
I rest my case.
Its only the actions of the few that characterize the facade of the many when it comes to an ignorant. heres that southern Christian white guy's logic: 9/11 was caused by Muslims..therefore all Muslims must be bad.
well here's my response- Christians were responsible for slavery, therefore all Christians are bad. Tell me if that is sound logic.....any takers? didnt think so.
I rest my case.
This seems equal a belief as any other religion feel free to downrate or uprate i don't really care I think most of any religion is a joke...more like cults actually, however I do think that religions do provide youths with valuable morals and knowledge of right and wrong which can become mixed up in our modern days.
This is the best link ever have fun.
www.venganza.org/
also,+3 mienftw!
This is the best link ever have fun.
www.venganza.org/
also,+3 mienftw!
the only religion that is trully peacfull is Buddism
Any quote, from ANY book, religious or not, can be taken out of context and used to say whatever someone wants it too. The KKK use "biblical Truths" to prove that whites are the "Master Race". Personally I am a Christian. However, having said that, I repect each idividual person's right to study and figure out for themselves what they want to believe. I don't understund why people segregate themselves so much based on petty differences that in the end, really don't matter.
Religion doesn't always lead to ignorance. Yes, this guy is an idiot, but he seems like a redneck high school dropout anyway. And yeah, Islam isn't evil, it's just incorrect. I have a lot of Islamic friends, and they're great people. But there is only one way to Heaven, and that is through Jesus. So there is only one "right" choice.
No, but atomic theory is what we would call falsifiable. It is empirically testable, thus scientific, thus worthy of experiment.
The God Hypothesis, however, is not falsifiable. It's not scientific, not empirically testable, thus holds as much credence as the Invisible Pink Unicorn Hypothesis. None.
The only part of the God Hypothesis that is testable is the proposed effect God has on the natural world we observe. All of those proposed effects (the Flood, a 6 Day Creation, narrow genetic divergence, Pi being equal to 3, etc.) disagree with observation.
The God Hypothesis, however, is not falsifiable. It's not scientific, not empirically testable, thus holds as much credence as the Invisible Pink Unicorn Hypothesis. None.
The only part of the God Hypothesis that is testable is the proposed effect God has on the natural world we observe. All of those proposed effects (the Flood, a 6 Day Creation, narrow genetic divergence, Pi being equal to 3, etc.) disagree with observation.
SCREW SCIENTOLOGY, IT'S NOT IN THIS DISCUSSION.
And that view is much more compatible with scientific understanding. Of course doesn't prove God, but doesn't contradict science either.
Feel free to hold that opinion.
Except, remember that the verses discussing creation talk about the sun rising and falling, and morning and night. Giving credence to the idea that those days are, in fact, 6 Earth days. Also, many biblical scholars agree with that idea.
However, if you think otherwise, all the more power to you.
Feel free to hold that opinion.
Except, remember that the verses discussing creation talk about the sun rising and falling, and morning and night. Giving credence to the idea that those days are, in fact, 6 Earth days. Also, many biblical scholars agree with that idea.
However, if you think otherwise, all the more power to you.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:14:50 Report
SURPRISEEEE! WE FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING LOGOS!
LMAO
LMAO
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:45:21 Report
Well if you look at all the things in our planet and in our universe at how everything is just fis perfect together. Like our brains and bodies how complex they are that is the thing that makes me believe in god. I don't think that everthing so complex could just happen by chance and luck.
Posted: 2009-12-25 11:52:26 Report
Hmmm, I see this quite a bit Jofus. And let me say that everything does not fit perfectly together, and we don't show evidence of what some might call design.
Failings of the body:
1. Cancer
2. Breathing and eating through the same pipe. If there was a second pipe, there would never be a choking death.
3. Sinus troubles (ultimately due to the transition to bipedalism)
4. Wisdom teeth (remaining from their past necessity)
And, ultimately, over 99.99999% of the Universe's volume is completely uninhabitable to humanity. It doesn't seem to me like we were the intended result of creation...
And finally, Natural selection and genetic drift are far from what some call "chance and luck." They are well-oiled mechanisms guiding mutation and reproduction, geared toward improving an organism's genetic makeup and survival potential.
Suggested viewing: www.youtube.com/user/cdk007?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/3/tCKqj-2JX
Zg
Failings of the body:
1. Cancer
2. Breathing and eating through the same pipe. If there was a second pipe, there would never be a choking death.
3. Sinus troubles (ultimately due to the transition to bipedalism)
4. Wisdom teeth (remaining from their past necessity)
And, ultimately, over 99.99999% of the Universe's volume is completely uninhabitable to humanity. It doesn't seem to me like we were the intended result of creation...
And finally, Natural selection and genetic drift are far from what some call "chance and luck." They are well-oiled mechanisms guiding mutation and reproduction, geared toward improving an organism's genetic makeup and survival potential.
Suggested viewing: www.youtube.com/user/cdk007?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/3/tCKqj-2JX
Zg
Posted: 2009-12-25 13:39:12 Report
Why are you such a debbie downer Logos? Why?
Posted: 2009-12-25 13:44:48 Report
But still with our planet and universe for everything to be the way they are now all of the pieces of the puzzle had to be put together just right. I don't think that it could just happen by chance. I think their had to be an almighty power pushing things along. In my opinion that is proof that their is a god.
Posted: 2009-12-25 16:26:26 Report
The parts of life are what fits. Sorry if this is a tad reduntant but I will refer to an earlier point. For life to be created there are so many things that need to happen and conditions have to be just right with certain elements in place. Then for that life to evolve into something as inimaginably complex as human beings just can't happen by luck. Just think about how if the first living organisms that did originate on earth if they had originated on Venus.(even though they couldn't have in the first place which only helps to back up my point even more.). But those life forms could not have developed into what they are today. So many things had to happen just right.
Posted: 2009-12-26 17:25:31 Report
i didn't say that science wasn't a part. but both, religion and science should be kept separate.
Posted: 2009-12-24 15:29:11 Report
ok so what if islam is right and you not then your screwed there isnt a way to prove anybody is right. OK im pagan or wicca if you want to call it that and before you start knockin me about can you answer me a question. If jesus and God (because there is a difference between God with a capital and god with a lowercase) are so almighty why would they damn there "children" to a firey inferno of pain a suffering for all eternity just because they dont "believe"in them ok so lets say all religions are correct then were all going to hell or somthing close to it because we can belong to more that one religion. And in know that this was said on the post "hell explained" and thats why i uprated him on it. And another thing you hav no right to tell us what we should be and if theres is a heaven and a hell. I believe in the summerlands which is pagan and it says that we all go there once we die and our actions decide how long we stay there AND THEN WE GO BACK not its a flip of a coin about where we go for all eternity. And its not like you have to be perfect you can be terrible and still pass through then go back to civilazation. But if your above average for a while then the goddess may decide to make you a spirit to better serve her. And this is all watered down a bit for the non believers and the people who have no idea what im talking about but its the basic principal.
Evolution is based off the Big Bang Theory. Which the research ends very abruptly. What caused the Big Bang Theory? What caused the cause of the Big Bang Theory. See, just another failure.
Evolution does not relate in any way to the Big Bang Theory. Evolution is a strictly biological principle that explains the diversity of life. THe Big Bang is cosmological principle explaining the expansion of our particular spacetime. The two are completely unrelated.
I am discussing the Big Bang Theory below : ).
I am discussing the Big Bang Theory below : ).
I noticed, I just got done discussing that. But in order for us to become, there had to have been the Big Bang. So evolution is sooo related to the Big Bang.
Hey CTUDirector, how are you. At what stage of humanity do you think we, as a species were made and put upon this earth? Were we medievil, cavemen, roman empire? I only ask because I'm pretty sure that it wasn't that recently and since then we've achieved quite a lot on our own. There is no way I could communicate with you now without the invention of the internet, for example. Infact, everything we have achieved, from pointy throwing sticks to space travel we have done so to improve ourselves as a species. We have lenghtened our life spans, increased in mass due to a better diet (and no i don't mean 'become overweight due to macdonalds) and intergrated societies accross the globe due to advances in communication and social awareness. Infact, cometo think of it, whether the big bang created the universe, or God did, it could be suggested that from the moment we 'became' human, we've EVOLVED into what we are now. Just a thought.
Posted: 2009-12-26 06:06:58 Report
No, it is not. Evolution does not address anything but the diversification of life. Not even the origin of life: that's abiogenesis.
The Materialist/Naturalist worldview, however, certainly has to do with the Big Bang Theory. But "Evolution" is not a philosophy, just a scientific principle.
The Materialist/Naturalist worldview, however, certainly has to do with the Big Bang Theory. But "Evolution" is not a philosophy, just a scientific principle.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:17:19 Report
And Scientific Principles can be considered philosophies. I was in debate. Can we just end this interesting discussion?
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:18:34 Report
I get very angry, and tired very fast of debating these types of topics. So if I don't stop soon, eventually my computer will be in pieces. Scientific principles are considered philosophies because not everyone likes them and agrees with them.. clear?
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:27:40 Report
I'm sorry you get tired of debating these topics. And like I said, stop whenever you wish, take a break if you wish, do whatever you will. Personally, I enjoy debate of any kind! It's quite invigorating.
Liking something/agreeing with something does not affect its status as a philosophy. There is the "Philosophy of Science" in general... but that doesn't have much to do with this discussion. This discussion has to do with the objective scientific method, and its statements about the world we live in.
Liking something/agreeing with something does not affect its status as a philosophy. There is the "Philosophy of Science" in general... but that doesn't have much to do with this discussion. This discussion has to do with the objective scientific method, and its statements about the world we live in.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:32:14 Report
What's weird about this is, the original topic was that "Religion Leads to Ignorance"
Which has nothing to do with our almost 21 page long debates over science.
Which has nothing to do with our almost 21 page long debates over science.
Posted: 2009-12-24 16:34:54 Report
No one cares. Science doesn't answer everything.
It seems interesting that you distrust science to explain the Universe, but trust it when it explains your computer, your food intake, your shelter, your piping system supplying water, your electrical system, airplanes, the internet, etc... Take it or leave it : ).
But science as i said below, could've easily been altered to change. Then everything we have today may be different. Such as, if they might have changed something then maybe everything now would be holographic or not even exist. There are too many variables to take into effect,
I don't understand. Are you saying, "If things were different, then things would be different?"
Because the fact is that the way things are now are the way they are now, and science isn't changed on a whim, but only on the introduction of new evidence or new hypotheses to be tested.
Because the fact is that the way things are now are the way they are now, and science isn't changed on a whim, but only on the introduction of new evidence or new hypotheses to be tested.
I never said you could, I'm sorry if I was unclear. I used too many unspecified pronouns. All I meant was that cary139's statement, "no, the only right choice is atheism. it is scientifically proven" was incorrect.
Unless your response is to cary, then I apologize and you may disregard what is above.
I would like to say, however, that the nonexistence of a deity is the default position, or, "Null Hypothesis." Until another is proven, the most likely remains an atheistic worldview. This is for the same reason that Unicorns are considered to be not real. It's not to say we've proven they do not, it's just that the nonexistence of fantastical creatures/deities is assumed unless proven otherwise.
Make some sense? : ).
Unless your response is to cary, then I apologize and you may disregard what is above.
I would like to say, however, that the nonexistence of a deity is the default position, or, "Null Hypothesis." Until another is proven, the most likely remains an atheistic worldview. This is for the same reason that Unicorns are considered to be not real. It's not to say we've proven they do not, it's just that the nonexistence of fantastical creatures/deities is assumed unless proven otherwise.
Make some sense? : ).
Really? My personal thought on that statement is that you are putting somthing out there that has no meaning. The only true way to heaven is through Jesus? I disagree... Personally after my years of growing up in church I decided to check out other religions and personally I am pegan, so therefor your stating to me that I will not go to this place called heaven, but what if one doesn't believe in heaven?
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
Post a response
Related posts
I also have a hard time believing in the bible...a book that was translated from its original language by fallible humans and its contents were voted upon by a council. Mary Magdalene wrote gospels that were not included in the bible all because it was during a time when women were supposed to be "in the kitchen making a damn sandwich".
Paganism was earliest documented religion and I use paganism broadly because there are many forms...Sun worship, Animatism, Greek mythology. There are stories of a great flood that predate the bible. Epic of Gilgamesh is one example. It is one of the earliest known writings of Mesopotamia.
I think religion has good points too. It teaches good morals and having faith in something is healthy. The main thing that I dislike about religion is the hate that it brings. Truth is, for me at least, it isn't the religion itself but those single minded people who interpret its meaning and interpret its meaning from a hate filled place within themselves.