- Posted by:
- jakematsui
- Rank: #165
Related Posts
-
Religion
+23 points / chat -
New feature - Sharenator Userbar
+42 points / ask -
how many lady persons still exist on sharenator
+305 points / misc -
Tell FBI: Recognize Westboro As A Hate Group
+19 points / misc -
What do you think about these lyrics?
+9 points / misc -
About Me: Life as Math
+50 points / misc -
Sports
+6 points / misc -
an atheist post dont open this and start a big war if you have religion -_-
+156 points / pics -
Anchor Man Quotes... GO!
+17 points / misc -
Just curious.... How?
+11 points / pics
Although there isn't much direct evidence, the indirect evidence is mounting. All of the math works out with unprecedented accuracy, all experiments with matter-energy conversions have been confirming the theory, etc.
All I mean is that there really is no need to say that something came from nothing, for it is likely that we never had nothing. We may have had a situation devoid of matter, but massenergy can never be created or destroyed, meaning it's always been here, whether in mass form or energy form.
you feel that theory, with enough support is a fact?
Look, this distinction you are trying to make here about theory vs. fact is meaningless.
Your argument is something like:
1. The big bang is a theory
2. Theory is not fact
3. Thus, the big bang might was well just be considered wrong.
4. Therefore, one may believe whatever they feel about Earth's origins, no matter how unsupported.
Thus is equivalent to this argument-
1. Gravity is theory.
2. Theory is not fact.
3. Thus, gravity may as well be considered wrong.
4. Therefore, one may believe anything they want about how masses interact, no matter how unsupported. Including that everyone's feet happen to be extremely sticky, thus we humans don't float. Or god forbid intelligent falling.
You can see why it's hard for me to accept your current position.
What I am saying is that to not believe in what the scientific community has deemed "theory" is to not believe in the scientific process itself. It would be what is known as "unscientific." I guess since I am such a science proponent, I assume no one wants to be unscientific. However, if you wish to be so, that is up to you. I apologize for assuming your goal was to be scientific.
I am using scientific consensus with evidentiary backing to refute your claim that "nothing comes from nothing." The scientific LAW of conservation of massenergy directly contradicts your claim that there ever was nothing, as does the Big Bang Theory, and many other scientific laws, theories, and facts. Something doesn't have to be a fact to be correct.
Theory: Contemplation or speculation; guess or conjecture.
Scientific Theory: systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. Theories must be falsifiable.
Source: Dictionary.com
Currently, the theories I am offering are the only conceivable correct ones. No current laws, observations, facts, logical arguments, etc. contradict the Big Bang. Many laws, observations, facts, and logical arguments support the Big Bang.
Currently, many laws, observations, facts, and logical arguments disagree with your statement of "nothing comes from nothing" in its current context. No laws, observations, facts, or logical arguments support your statement in its current context (of the discussion of the Universe's origins).
Thus, since all of the data points towards what I say, as do all of the laws, observations, facts, and logical arguments, I feel as if I am safe in assuming my position to be scientifically superior to yours. And the scientific community agrees with me.
What extraordinary circumstances are you talking about?
My "guess" is not a "guess." It's a scientific theory. There's a GIGANTIC difference in those two terms that you refuse to see. I'm getting tired of you not actually putting forth any sort of argument.
Please refer above to the definition of scientific theory I have already given you.
A scientific theory can never be a fact. Ever. It is an EXPLANATION, and explanations can, by definition, never be facts. You simply don't understand this- even if a theory is shown to be true/correct as a theory can be shown to be- it CANNOT ever be a fact. Ever. It is literally impossible for a theory to become a fact in the scientific realm.
Here are again some definitions:
Scientific Law: A rule the universe is observed to follow. Not a fact.
Scientific Conjecture: A guess without any scientific backing. It appears to be correct, but is completely unproven. This is synonymous with the colloquial definition of theory. Not a fact.
Scientific Hypothesis: The initial stage of an explanation. A testable explanation which is falsifiable. Not a fact.
Scientific Theory: The final stage of an explanation. A tested explanation which is falsifiable. It has been tested and not falsified. This is the highest status a scientific explanation can ever achieve, by definition.
First a testable explanation is an hypothesis. Second, an experimental procedure is drawn up to test such a hypothesis. Third, that experiment is done, and a conclusion is made based on the evidence. Fourth, that conclusion is published and submitted for peer review. Fifth, that conclusion is scrutinized, the experiment repeated, the hypothesis discussed, etc, worldwide. Six, if the hypothesis passes the process, it advances to the triumphant status of theory. WHich is the highest it can ever possibly go.
I am done attempting to explain the scientific process to you. If you want to discuss this more, please make sure you are using correct terminology and logical assertions. Otherwise I will not be responding.
as of yet you don't seem to understand that no matter how sound a theory is, its not a fact. since a theory is not a fact, there can be many different theories.
We use facts to either support or rule out theories. We also use laws to do the same. Your assertion (not on par with either hypothesis or conjecture yet) that the Universe began as nothing would start as one assertion, but then remain such an assertion until formalized and tested. It has been formalized and tested, and does not agree with one of the most fundamental laws of our universe- the conservation of massenergy. Thus, your assertion is ruled out.
The only current scientific assertion that has not been eliminated, and has been standing for quite some time, is the Big Bang Theory, which has passed the trials into the theory status. It is not the only IDEA concerning the subject, but IS currently the only THEORY. (I use caps instead of bolding, not meant to be inflammatory or to signify yelling. Just formal emphasis.) There could be many different theories, but on this subject, no hypothesis stood up to scrutiny but that of the Big Bang.
In every statement in the world, the speaker should back up his statement with evidence, and if he can't then the information in the statement is unreliable.
2. You make so many elementary school level grammar/spelling mistakes in your comments that you have no business questioning my comprehension of the English language. If anything, you're the one having trouble with it. There's also the hefty yet articulate response you got from logos as well. If between the two of us you still don't get it, you must be an idiot.
I won't waste anymore time with you. This is an old argument, I'm done feeding the troll.
Again, questioning my knowledge of vocabulary, after making several rudimentary grammar and spelling mistakes. Here's a lesson for you. Waist and Waste have completely different meanings. Hope you know them.
CONTRADICTION!??!?!?!?
CONTRADICTION!??!?!?!?
There are two spectrums:
Atheist vs. Theist
and
Gnostic vs. Agnostic.
Atheism: Lacking belief in a deity.
Theism: Belief in a deity.
Gnosticism: Knowing that a deity exists.
Agnosticism: Not knowing that a deity exists.
These are the 4 qualifications in this area, which combine to form these general positions:
Gnostic Theist: Knowing that there is a God and Believing that there is one. Very common.
Agnostic Theist: Not knowing whether or not there is a God, yet believing in one. Relatively uncommon.
Gnostic Atheist: Knowing there is no God, and not believing in one. Very uncommon.
Agnostic Atheist: Not knowing for sure whether or not there is a God, and not believing in one specifically. Very common.
It is my experience that most people who identify themselves as "agnostic: when they are in the "agnostic atheist" subset. Agnosticism is not a middle-ground between Atheism and Theism, it is a qualification to add to the two. Unless you believe in a god specifically, you are technically Atheistic : P.
EDIT: IN other news, Explosm kicks ass.
Also the avatar, well played.
I support organized religion when it's peaceful. Fundamentalists and those who refuse to have an open mind anger and annoy me.
i have a big interest in science and believe in using science to better understand God. (kind of like analysing a painting to understand the artist)
I like this quote@!
why?
because it is the safest of all
if you are wrong it doesnt matter you get born again or something in that way
if you are right you dont go to hell lol
if you believe in something else you go to hell
at least its what they say
I actually kind of believe in everything
the point of almost every religion is to be a good human and respekt other people
and if anyone would try to be that way the world would be okay
I mean in almost no religion it is okay to kill someone or do someone else harm
in europe not anything can be a religion
scientology isnt
therefor there arent alot different christians
anyway the point was that it doesnt matter in what religion you believe as long as you believe in something because almost every religion has certain rules that makes living with each other better
like not killing or stealing or respekt other people
Not killing and not stealing are principles that predate religion, and actually most likely originate in our biology. This is because of the evolutionary principle of beneficial reciprocation. If you have a gene that makes it so you don't steal or kill those near you, you will fit better in society, survive longer, and find a mate much easier and more often. Thus, those genes that prevent deleterious acts foster and spread, creating an innate moral code within our genetics. Of course it is a very basic moral code, but this is the reason why, in general, humans are adverse to extreme things like killing.
I don't know about you, but I am sick at the thought of killing- not because of the consequences of jail or society, but because something within me makes killing seem horrific. It just makes me sick, because of my inner impulses. That's all : P
and muslimic people do not have a problem with killing
sometimes they kill women because they wanna get a job
at least I read it once in the newspaper
and people who are in the army do not have a problem with killing either
they say it is for good reasons but anyway if really everyone would truly believe and try to obey the rules we probably wouldnt have war
or be killed by all the muslimic people lol
2. Many people in the army have a huge problem with killing. It's uncomfortable and scarring. So many, many people in the military return with depression partly due to the consistent effort they must put in to ignore their biological block against killing.
3. What do you mean "believe?"
4. We aren't being killed by the "muslimic" people.
people who do believe in the koran kill women because they weren't a virgin when they married them
and they said it is because of the religion
christians killed the last time as far as I know for religion like 500 years ago
and I never said that moslems are killing us what do you mean with us? I dont have anything to do with americans
I live with muslimic people they are in my class my neighbors are some and I actually live in a city with one of the highest amounts of people from the east which means people from iran, turkyie, arabic and so on and most of them believe in mohammed
and why the fuck are you going to the army when you have a problem with killing?
I wouldnt be a butcher if I am vegeterian
All the time I see one religion attempting to rag on another to bolster the rationality of their own- this is ludicrous. As you say, people who follow the Q'uran kill.... Yet people who follow the Bible do to. The Bible dictates the stoning of children, the killing of a woman if she is not a virgin upon marriage, etc. I will absolutely agree that Christians seem more sensible by and large, but that is purely because Christianity lacks access to power. If the US was a theocracy (as many advocate) then a comparison would be more apt.
People go into the army because there is a desire and/or need that overrides the biological block on killing. It is a truly admirable feat that I sincerely doubt I could do myself. However, often their biology comes back and haunts them once they have left. This phenomenon is commonly known.
I don't know why you said wtf?
No belief in a personal God, but the belief that the universe is majestic and worthy of reverence, and that science is the tool through which universal exploration is possible.
Subset of Atheism ; ).
Religion isn't even a useful source of morality either (Look at all of the violence religion has caused throughout our history, even today in the middle east.) Human behaviour is, as Logos already mentioned, genetic. If you need a 1000 year old book to tell you not to kill people or take thier stuff, there is something seriously wrong with you.
It's even slowed scientific progress (We achieved more scientifically during the renaissance than we had during the dark ages, when europe was ruled by the church.) The less religious society gets, the more it grows and evolves. Not just technologically, but socially as well. In this mordern day and age, faith is completely worthless.
Some books/Movies I'd recommend:
The God who wasn't there (Documentry)
Religilous (featuring Bill Maher)
The end of Faith by Sam Harris
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Nahh we're over the cheesy bit, I'm Christened a Church of England Christian (or Anglican) however, I don't believe in it so would call myself an Atheist.
As for socially, I am a Logistical. It's not a religion, persay, but it is more so in the ways of moral and respect. It's complicated, yet ever so simple once you understand.
Not trying to convert people, just saying everyone deserves a chance.
Busy people wouldn't have time for theistic ponder.
Tao Te Ching is sufficient for balanced morale without having to fear immanent entities.
:3