Lets Bash Religion...or Not

[RexoftheFord]

I don't feel bad. And I said certain phenomena in religious texts could be proven scientifically. Not religion itself.

Plus, I see you're following the Popperian model of Scientific research. That theories have to be able to be disproved. But lets say you created a theory that did rely on empirical data that couldn't be disproved. Would this mean it wasn't scientific? I suppose it would. Because then it would fail to be a theory and would ascend into knowledge. So what you are saying is that science is a search for knowledge and when something can no longer be disproved it has reached certain knowledge?

You will have to give examples of that phenomena before I can revoke your feel-bad status. For example, you cannot prove Noah's Ark occurred, no can you prove it is probable that it did occur. I'm sure there are instances in religious texts where we know from science now that what happened could very well have happened.

And, basically, yes. Science is not designed to handle religious ideals and tales. When we cannot disprove something, it cannot be scientific, even if it is most likely correct. Theories have to be worded in a way to where there is room for someone to say, "No. You're wrong, and here's the experiment/observation to prove it."

For example, we can assume based on the number of galaxies in the universe that there is most likely another planet somewhat resembling Earth out there. However, just having the data that says it's probable does not mean it is proven. We have reached our limit on knowledge.

You can very well say God (or any deity of your choosing!) exists, but you cannot say God (or any deity of your choosing) exists and that your statement is scientific. You cannot conduct an experiment to disprove that God (or any deity of your choosing) exists.

It's why I get bothered when people attempt to insert religion into science. The entities should remain separate to keep their integrity.

Well if you could control my emotional status, I'd say you could revoke my feel-bad status. Considering you don't, you're just a git for implying you could control my actions. lol but onto the other topics.

There are historical documents and scientific studies in the Mesopotamian region that speak of a very large flood that covered the region. This is evidence for a possible Noah's Ark situation, or just the Great Flood. Remember that most people considered the "World" in their time as whatever regions they've traveled to or could see at a distance. Not as we've come to know it.

Two, according to your example, nothing can be proven scientifically, because each theory would have some sort of hole in it that can be patched up. This would make everything a probability, so using scientific proof as a term would be a misnomer. It would really be scientific probability.

Also, if a theory is meant to be written in a way where someone can go "hey you're wrong here," are you saying that the goal of science is to be wrong? Or to lack knowledge? Or is the ability to be disproven just something that arises in science due to our limited understanding of natural principles?

 

[SilentHunter7]

See moronic "SIN" reasons like that are what kept the rule of "no talking about religion within this household" active throughout most of my life

Okay, more simple is:
Confessing is saying that you're sorry.
Repenting is actually being sorry, and owning up to it.

 

[Kubanator]

Something cannot happen for no reason. So the Big Bang just happening can't be valid. Something had to generate it for the universe to start. If that's your theory of choice that is.

Very very bad science. Quantum mechanics dictates that a big bang will randomly occur approximately 10^1056 years. Also, guess what? Time could exist forever. When ever a big bang occurs, anything that happened before it is irrelevant. A singularity breaks causality. Anything that happens before a big bang does not effect what happens after it. Hence time is reset. The universe's gravitational pull could cause a repetition of big bangs, each one resetting time.

 

[SendMeNoodz84]

Something cannot happen for no reason. So the Big Bang just happening can't be valid. Something had to generate it for the universe to start. If that's your theory of choice that is.

Well just because we don't have anything to form a hypothesis off of doesn't mean there isn't anything. Just because there is no data does not mean you should write it off as the work of a god and leave it at that. Besides, have you heard of the multiverse theory, in which black holes act as "umbilical chords" to other universes; where the point of singularity in the black hole gives off a "big bang"-like phenomenon in the child universe?

PEOPLE PEOPLE, please. Republicans didn't run the economy into the ground, deregulation and corruption in our Capitalist system did!

Again, something has to create these black holes..or something has to set the motions in which they are created.

And where did I say God in my argument? I haven't. Not yet. God is a possible explanation, but I haven't even written that I believe it. So how can you infer that, considering I'm at a state of indecision right now?

Funny.

What's funny is that in the Bible there's a prediction that on 10/15/09 a man would create an extremely flammable thread.

Coincidence?

 

[Kubanator]

There are historical documents and scientific studies in the Mesopotamian region that speak of a very large flood that covered the region. This is evidence for a possible Noah's Ark situation, or just the Great Flood. Remember that most people considered the "World" in their time as whatever regions they've traveled to or could see at a distance. Not as we've come to know it.

1. Provide the documents.
2. It still makes the tale wrong.

Two, according to your example, nothing can be proven scientifically, because each theory would have some sort of hole in it that can be patched up. This would make everything a probability, so using scientific proof as a term would be a misnomer. It would really be scientific probability.

For example? If you're going to use the illusion of reality argument, there's a reason axioms exist.

Also, if a theory is meant to be written in a way where someone can go "hey you're wrong here," are you saying that the goal of science is to be wrong? Or to lack knowledge? Or is the ability to be disprove just something that arises in science due to our limited understanding of natural principles?

It's not scientific if it has no evidence backing it. If you cannot create evidecne it cannpt be proven or disproven, hence not scientific.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Something cannot happen for no reason. So the Big Bang just happening can't be valid. Something had to generate it for the universe to start. If that's your theory of choice that is.

Very very bad science. Quantum mechanics dictates that a big bang will randomly occur approximately 10^1056 years. Also, guess what? Time could exist forever. When ever a big bang occurs, anything that happened before it is irrelevant. A singularity breaks causality. Anything that happens before a big bang does not effect what happens after it. Hence time is reset. The universe's gravitational pull could cause a repetition of big bangs, each one resetting time.

Again, something would cause these big bangs to happen ultimately higher than nature to cause them. Something outside the scope of our natural principles would be causing them.

Nothing is random.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Religions in my books are wrong. How the heck are a bunch of hairless pink/brown/yellow/red hairless apes whos latest form has only been around for 3000 years supposed to know who created all life, what happens after death, and why would he possibly give a crap about a 3000 year old race of warmongers? Yeah religions give good morales and yeah give you a fake sense of security. Of course look up WW2 what did the Germans do to the Jewish that a pope said was fine? What was the main reason behind the Spanish Inquisition? What were the Crusades about? How many bloody sacrifices were made to the Aztec gods? What did the Catholic Church do in the Dark Ages? The witch hunts? How many deaths came out of all this? MILLIONS! AND WHY RELIGION!

So my view on things is this, someone had to make us and this earth, and hopefully theres an afterlife. So if this post didn't change your mind, this might. Religions each year take in millions of dollers and pay no taxes, yet they always need more and they say it goes to charity. Well if thats the case we shouldn't have many poor countries left or funds to fund and, say didn't you commisioned that church with the fancy decorations? So now I'm gonna leave you to your thoughts on your beliefs.

 

[SilentHunter7]

*snip*

Actually he is forgiven in the eyes of God the moment the priest says he is.
"Whatever you hold true on earth, I'll hold true in heaven." gave them carte blanche to make shit up whenever they want and god has to honour it.

Triple lawyered!

First, God doesn't *Have* to do anything. He's fucking God. He wouldn't be God if he was bound by something.

Second, this is where having a good bullshit detector comes in handy when dealing with Religion particularly Catholicism. I highly doubt Jesus actually said those words, and I think some jackass wrote that in in the 11th Century to excuse all the Church's hypocrisy. Hell that entire book is suspect, considering that noone even knows if Matthew even wrote it or not.

 

[grimsprice]

But they're just theories, and I'd say that evolution has more evidence. I don't know why you keep talking about evolution, why is that an issue? I'm saying the Big Bang is just a theory, evidence or not. It's not fact.

You're right. They're theories. They explain an observation in the world. Congratulations, you've admitted there is something that needs explaining. In this case, the expansion of the universe. How do you explain the expansion of the universe without saying that it was small at some point in the distant past? "It was small, then it expanded" is quite possibly the shortest and most butchered version of the big bang, but hey, thats about all we can prove. The rest we are working on. Doesn't make it wrong though.

Its a relatively new theory, it hasn't had 200 years of refinement and evidential support by the scientific community. Give it time.

 

[Kubanator]

Again, something would cause these big bangs to happen ultimately higher than nature to cause them. Something outside the scope of our natural principles would be causing them.

Nothing is random.

Quantum mechanics. Proven to be random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_consequences

 

[Blatherscythe]

I don't think any atheist "knows for sure" that God doesn't exist. That extends into anti-theism. Atheists are usually the "scientist" type, meaning that, for now, our current theories like evolution, big bang, etc., are much more likely than a God. If evidence to the contrary were presented, and if the theories we accept could be broken down, most atheists would probably convert. But we find that this hasn't occurred yet.

Yeah probably will happen with Atheists or the otherway around and Religius people will forget their beliefs when something proves either belief wrong

 

[Flos]

I don't feel bad. And I said certain phenomena in religious texts could be proven scientifically. Not religion itself.

Plus, I see you're following the Popperian model of Scientific research. That theories have to be able to be disproved. But lets say you created a theory that did rely on empirical data that couldn't be disproved. Would this mean it wasn't scientific? I suppose it would. Because then it would fail to be a theory and would ascend into knowledge. So what you are saying is that science is a search for knowledge and when something can no longer be disproved it has reached certain knowledge?

You will have to give examples of that phenomena before I can revoke your feel-bad status. For example, you cannot prove Noah's Ark occurred, no can you prove it is probable that it did occur. I'm sure there are instances in religious texts where we know from science now that what happened could very well have happened.

And, basically, yes. Science is not designed to handle religious ideals and tales. When we cannot disprove something, it cannot be scientific, even if it is most likely correct. Theories have to be worded in a way to where there is room for someone to say, "No. You're wrong, and here's the experiment/observation to prove it."

For example, we can assume based on the number of galaxies in the universe that there is most likely another planet somewhat resembling Earth out there. However, just having the data that says it's probable does not mean it is proven. We have reached our limit on knowledge.

You can very well say God (or any deity of your choosing!) exists, but you cannot say God (or any deity of your choosing) exists and that your statement is scientific. You cannot conduct an experiment to disprove that God (or any deity of your choosing) exists.

It's why I get bothered when people attempt to insert religion into science. The entities should remain separate to keep their integrity.

Well if you could control my emotional status, I'd say you could revoke my feel-bad status. Considering you don't, you're just a git for implying you could control my actions. lol but onto the other topics.

I'm from the Internet and I'm here to be completely serious. You're so cool you've reached absolute zero.

There are historical documents and scientific studies in the Mesopotamian region that speak of a very large flood that covered the region. This is evidence for a possible Noah's Ark situation, or just the Great Flood. Remember that most people considered the "World" in their time as whatever regions they've traveled to or could see at a distance. Not as we've come to know it.

That does not prove that Noah could have gathered up two of every animal on the planet and gone sailing around, but I understand your position. It is possible for the story of Noah's Ark to have some truth to it.

The ark tale is a bad example to begin with because it is older than the bible itself. The Mesopotamians have a story that closely relates to Noah's Ark to the point where you can seriously doubt if Noah's Ark was nothing more than a modified version of a story passed through the years.

Two, according to your example, nothing can be proven scientifically, because each theory would have some sort of hole in it that can be patched up. This would make everything a probability, so using scientific proof as a term would be a misnomer. It would really be scientific probability.

That's my point. Ask any scientists - you can never prove anything scientifically. In order for something to be scientific, it has to be able to be disproved. If someone came along and was able to disprove Newton's laws of motion the scientific community should readily accept it (they won't but, principally, they should).

Also, if a theory is meant to be written in a way where someone can go "hey you're wrong here," are you saying that the goal of science is to be wrong? Or to lack knowledge? Or is the ability to be disproven just something that arises in science due to our limited understanding of natural principles?

The goal of science is to be wrong in order to learn. You can do a million experiments that prove something right, but all it takes is one experiment to prove you wrong and everything falls apart. Because we currently don't know everything it would be foolhardy to assume that everything we know is correct. Scientists have to work in a way so we can be proven wrong as to not seem like the gits who thought the sun revolved around the earth and executed freethinkers for it.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Something cannot happen for no reason. So the Big Bang just happening can't be valid. Something had to generate it for the universe to start. If that's your theory of choice that is.

Well just because we don't have anything to form a hypothesis off of doesn't mean there isn't anything. Just because there is no data does not mean you should write it off as the work of a god and leave it at that. Besides, have you heard of the multiverse theory, in which black holes act as "umbilical chords" to other universes; where the point of singularity in the black hole gives off a "big bang"-like phenomenon in the child universe?

PEOPLE PEOPLE, please. Republicans didn't run the economy into the ground, deregulation and corruption in our Capitalist system did!

Again, something has to create these black holes..or something has to set the motions in which they are created.

And where did I say God in my argument? I haven't. Not yet. God is a possible explanation, but I haven't even written that I believe it. So how can you infer that, considering I'm at a state of indecision right now?

Funny.

What's funny is that in the Bible there's a prediction that on 10/15/09 a man would create an extremely flammable thread.

Coincidence?

People create flame out of their own wills. If you have noticed any of my posts, I've been quite civil. And as I've said, this is a free speech zone. If there is flame, that's because someone has decided to bring it in from the outside.

If you give someone Free Speech, first thing they'll do is abuse it.

But thanks for your hilarious comment.

 

[grimsprice]

Something cannot happen for no reason. So the Big Bang just happening can't be valid. Something had to generate it for the universe to start. If that's your theory of choice that is.

Very very bad science. Quantum mechanics dictates that a big bang will randomly occur approximately 10^1056 years. Also, guess what? Time could exist forever. When ever a big bang occurs, anything that happened before it is irrelevant. A singularity breaks causality. Anything that happens before a big bang does not effect what happens after it. Hence time is reset. The universe's gravitational pull could cause a repetition of big bangs, each one resetting time.

Again, something would cause these big bangs to happen ultimately higher than nature to cause them. Something outside the scope of our natural principles would be causing them.

Nothing is random.

As its been said, the multiverse theory has a lot of supporters.

When the argument is boiled down it comes to this: something has to be eternal. Because of what caused the cause argument.

Do you want to say that God is eternal? Or do you want to look for an explanation that can be proven? The multiverse theory states that other universes can create more universes. The math is complex and beyond everyone here. However, if the scientists say the math works then fine, but the point is, the infinite number of universes stretching back forever keep creating more. No God is necessary, and it answers the what caused the cause argument.

 

[Bofore13]

Exactly I don't need laws to tell me what is and is not "right". Also a theory is a theory I know but until any evidence to the contrary comes along that falsifies it then it is in essence true. and don't even try to turn that one around saying that there is no evidence to the contrary to the existence of one or possibly more gods, because there isn't any evidence to support your claim either.

So tell me, what is my claim? That the Big Bang is a theory? You jsut confirmed that yourself. So what does tell your what is and isn't right? Hmm? It's society, parents, etc. Something will always be telling you what is and isn't right.

Ill tell you what guides my hand, and the rest of me, life experience combined with the personality that was programmed into my genetic code.

Also while I'm here I'd like to take this time to say that the human race is a pitiful species that does little more than constantly bicker amongst themselves about things that are meaningless when compared to the scope of all that already will be.

 

[shazlor]

*snip*

Triple lawyered!

Congratulations! You have qualified to be a dark ages priest. +10 to word play.
Please note however that Christians and Catholics in the future will resent you for making their life harder during the boon of athieism.

But yeah... in seriousness, you're twisting the doctrine a bit there buddy. If it's intentional, then good job, it's quite amusing. If not... umm... yeah... that's unfortunate.

 

[grimsprice]

But they're just theories, and I'd say that evolution has more evidence. I don't know why you keep talking about evolution, why is that an issue? I'm saying the Big Bang is just a theory, evidence or not. It's not fact.

You're right. They're theories. They explain an observation in the world. Congratulations, you've admitted there is something that needs explaining. In this case, the expansion of the universe. How do you explain the expansion of the universe without saying that it was small at some point in the distant past? "It was small, then it expanded" is quite possibly the shortest and most butchered version of the big bang, but hey, thats about all we can prove. The rest we are working on. Doesn't make it wrong though.

Its a relatively new theory, it hasn't had 200 years of refinement and evidential support by the scientific community. Give it time.

Okay, that's it, I'm quoting myself, and bolding it so you clever clogs can understand.

Dawkins is a fool, and I don't believe that. Evolution is a solid theory with more evidence than an episode of CSI but the Big Bang is such a mess sometimes. Seriously, anti-matter and matter cancelled each other out but there was more matter for some reason and now the universe exists? I belive the big bang happened, but I would say it's far from as credible as evolution.

LOL. Sorry. Pie.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Something cannot happen for no reason. So the Big Bang just happening can't be valid. Something had to generate it for the universe to start. If that's your theory of choice that is.

Very very bad science. Quantum mechanics dictates that a big bang will randomly occur approximately 10^1056 years. Also, guess what? Time could exist forever. When ever a big bang occurs, anything that happened before it is irrelevant. A singularity breaks causality. Anything that happens before a big bang does not effect what happens after it. Hence time is reset. The universe's gravitational pull could cause a repetition of big bangs, each one resetting time.

Again, something would cause these big bangs to happen ultimately higher than nature to cause them. Something outside the scope of our natural principles would be causing them.

Nothing is random.

As its been said, the multiverse theory has a lot of supporters.

When the argument is boiled down it comes to this: something has to be eternal. Because of what caused the cause argument.

Do you want to say that God is eternal? Or do you want to look for an explanation that can be proven? The multiverse theory states that other universes can create more universes. The math is complex and beyond everyone here. However, if the scientists say the math works then fine, but the point is, the infinite number of universes stretching back forever keep creating more. No God is necessary, and it answers the what caused the cause argument.

Where is the point of origin in these universes then? If a universe creates a universe that creates a universe, you still haven't satisfied the what caused the cause argument or question. You've just basically said "I don't know" and provided a fancy theory. Even if the stretch is infinite, there is a point of origin somewhere.

But maybe I'm just stupid.

 

[Misterian]

one should be simply tolerant, as long as no immoral acts are commited in the guise of a religion, I'd say it's better to just walk pass the next preacher you stumble into.

 

[RexoftheFord]

*snip*

Triple lawyered!

Congratulations! You have qualified to be a dark ages priest. +10 to word play.
Please note however that Christians and Catholics in the future will resent you for making their life harder during the boon of athieism.

But yeah... in seriousness, you're twisting the doctrine a bit there buddy. If it's intentional, then good job, it's quite amusing. If not... umm... yeah... that's unfortunate.

To be quite honest, I thought he was being ironic by coming off as an Atheist form of a Dark Age Catholic Priest.