Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
YouTube videoLove the ending...so ironic yet true. Cool music too.
I love it when people state an un-defined, and un-proven theroy as fact, then condemn religions for stating their beliefs as fact. 🙂
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
True, Marked. Personally, I'm still trying to understand what supposedly caused the big bang. And where it came from, from a scientific standpoint, because science allows little room for faith.
unlike religion, in science an answer of "I don't know" must be acceptable
Once upon a time, 14 billion years ago, a cosmic explosion released an immense amount of heat and pressure. All the particles and energy in our universe, once confined to a space about the size of a dime, raced away from one another at tremendous speeds. As the hot particles cooled and continued to expand into space, matter formed and the stars and galaxies of our universe were born. And so, the story of our universe began.
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed... then how did all of the matter of the universe fit into a space the size of a dime... The law of conservation of matter disputes the big bang theory... hmm... This subject is hearby dropped... Just bringing it up as food for thought...
http://scienceline.org/2006/08/21/ask-snyder-bang/
http://books.google.com/books?id=GZm3YCW4woIC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=%22matter+can+be+neither+created+or+destroyed%22&source=web&ots=W9Wsvlg4aI&sig=Oy_F8-gQXO8LhZTQl97ka19ZgcY
Originally posted by inimalist
unlike religion, in science an answer of "I don't know" must be acceptable
Actually, in religion the answer "I don't know" absolutly HAS to be accepted, or else there would be no faith. In truth, I have found that the ones who don't accept an "I don't know" answer are only the ones who are trying to condemn it, and they place alot more weight on the single "I don't know" than the multiple questions that were answered.
On the other hand in science, things have to make sense, or else they can't exist, however, sometimes things are over looked, which makes for a complecated field of study with several holes, and alot of circular thinking.
In truth, if you stand back and look at it as a whole, Science is as un-reliable as many people claim religion is.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Theoretically, all the matter could be super compressed down to almost nothing. Of course, setting off an explosion that would fling it outward at such a velocity to escape its gravitational pull might be a tad more difficult.
True, Marked.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Actually, in religion the answer "I don't know" absolutly HAS to be accepted, or else there would be no faith. In truth, I have found that the ones who don't accept an "I don't know" answer are only the ones who are trying to condemn it, and they place alot more weight on the single "I don't know" than the multiple questions that were answered.On the other hand in science, things have to make sense, or else they can't exist, however, sometimes things are over looked, which makes for a complecated field of study with several holes, and alot of circular thinking.
In truth, if you stand back and look at it as a whole, Science is as un-reliable as many people claim religion is.
so the 10 commandments are proof that the bible does not know how people should behave, the creation story proof that the bible does not know how the world created?
Hey, and I have a great way for you to show the part about religion being more reliable. The next time you want to post, just pray for it.
Originally posted by inimalist
so the 10 commandments are proof that the bible does not know how people should behave, the creation story proof that the bible does not know how the world created?Hey, and I have a great way for you to show the part about religion being more reliable. The next time you want to post, just pray for it.
Elaborate, please.
Just what it says. If you think that the answers to questions are found in the bible, "I don't know" isn't the answer you are looking for. The 10 commandments give very clear ways that people are supposed to behave. Its not morally ambiguous if you can worship a golden cow, the is no uncertainty in religious type knowledge.
And ya, if you think religion is more reliable than science, pick any single goal that we can observe you attempting to achieve. Try it using science or religion. We can then see what is more effective.
A big point that you are missing is that, a Religion is defined by specific facts about what it believes, (jesus, trinity, mohammed, etc) whereas science is a method. No single fact ever needs to be believed for itself, but because it is what the method produces.
Other than that, I'm giving your religio-science way more credit than it deserves and probably just giving you better memes to throw around on other message boards to those unlearned in science. Debate against religious people is generally detrimental to the goals of science.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Actually, in religion the answer "I don't know" absolutly HAS to be accepted, or else there would be no faith. In truth, I have found that the ones who don't accept an "I don't know" answer are only the ones who are trying to condemn it, and they place alot more weight on the single "I don't know" than the multiple questions that were answered.
What questions are answered? If a religion requires faith in it for a person to believe, what can be definitively said about anything religion claims, since those claims can't be verified or tested, or even logically deduced?
This is the problem....the idea that "I don't know" is good enough. Of course religions value faith. If they didn't, no one would believe in them because the fail utterly at rational arguments and reasoning on multiple levels.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
In truth, if you stand back and look at it as a whole, Science is as un-reliable as many people claim religion is.
Problem with this statement is, a lot of science is absolutely right, and we can test it and verify it. And if science isn't right, it changes. Scientists question something, form new hypotheses, test things, etc. until we have a better understanding of things. It adapts, it is willing to admit its mistakes and improve upon them.
On the other hand, religion is dogmatic and final. If a religious sect claims something, adherents believe it no matter what. There isn't a system for improvement because they decide upon something and accept it as the final truth, not something they may need to adapt upon new evidence. And then religion is dis-proven in many areas by science, and they either have to assimilate science and alter their beliefs, or they have to argue against science. ID advocates choose the latter, because they see scientific fact as an affront to their precious irrational faith.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
What questions are answered? If a religion requires faith in it for a person to believe, what can be definitively said about anything religion claims, since those claims can't be verified or tested, or even logically deduced?This is the problem....the idea that "I don't know" is good enough. Of course religions value faith. If they didn't, no one would believe in them because the fail utterly at rational arguments and reasoning on multiple levels.
Tell me, do you study religions at all? do you look into other beliefs, beside your own, and try to understand their beliefs? Or do you look at the surface level, and cast it off as nonsense?
I must depart, now. because I have a french project that must be completed. If I finish with any of the day left to me, I'll return, and see what's going on. Have a great day! 🙂
Originally posted by queeq
Why unlike religion? Religious people can't say 'I don't know"? Since when?
with regards to issues that their religion has deemed as important, not really.
Individual difference and all, but at the very least, saying "I don't know that God exists" would appear to be an i don't know that religious people don't say.
from there, the I don't knows would depend on the doctrine. However, as you are talking about individual religion, and not religion as a whole, of course there will be differences. I'm not in the business of saying who or who isn't following what part of a religious faith.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Tell me, do you study religions at all? do you look into other beliefs, beside your own, and try to understand their beliefs? Or do you look at the surface level, and cast it off as nonsense?
This didn't address any of my points. All it did was dodge the issue(s).
And why does everyone on this forum seem to think that they're the only ones who think critically about their religious beliefs? If I bothered to get upset at condescension, I would've been gone from this forum ages ago.