| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| The Great Religious Debate of 2017 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 28 2017, 01:49 PM (13,389 Views) | |
| Tinny | Aug 29 2017, 07:05 PM Post #271 |
![]() ![]()
|
You seem to be under the impression that I think the original religion mirrors contemporary culture hundreds of years from it's creation. If the phrasing doesn't make it clear, I do not. You also seem to also be under the impression than what Mohammed, Bhudda, or Jesus wished means that much in today's climate. It doesn't, see the countless various branches of these religions and as you've said, the mental gymnastics mainstream religion does compared to the radicals. Why is the mainstream the mainstream if they have to do all that? Because all that allows it to agree with the culture of the congregation. People and culture shape religion far more than vice versa, and religion will always bend to the whims of the culture it's in. It is as malleable as any other symbol, and anyone reading it literally and taking it literally likely has a reason to do so, in which taking a passage literally serves or justifies this agenda, which is fueled by other things (like ethnic tensions for example). What the books say is near meaningless, with taking passages that serve the agenda or purpose being the norm. Conflicts are not fueled by religion alone, they at best only tell a part of the story, giving any more credit to religion is naive at best in my experience, and frankly a fantasy of it's own. "If we get rid of the religion, we can bring and these problems will disappear!" I realize not all are this naive, but that was the argument I read from Ginyu and is a general sentiment I see in athiest thought. Edited by Tinny, Aug 29 2017, 11:24 PM.
|
![]() Above signature created by Graffiti
| |
![]() |
|
| Bad User | Sep 3 2017, 08:51 PM Post #272 |
![]()
|
Apart from what I've mentioned before, maybe the only 2 things I resent about religion is: - Brainwashing people. I saw a lot of cases of extremism. We also have this saying coming from our medieval ancestor which sounds something like 'Believe and don't do research!', and some other would be 'Do what the priest says, not what the priest does!'. They are extremely popular around here, unfortunetaly. - Church's immixture in state's business or even political life. Apart from what I had learned in history class about church being a privileged institution, nowadays it's founded from the public budget. They are even constructing a huge bell worth 500,000 euros. But if someone would ever take a look at our public services, roads' state and so on and so forth, they'll feel disgusted. I'm not feeling comfortable at all, to have even a small percentage of my salary going towards a religion and some services I'll never use. Edited by Bad User, Sep 4 2017, 08:22 AM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Zoom | Sep 12 2017, 10:11 AM Post #273 |
![]() ![]()
|
I gave you enough time to do research and come up with a counter. If its easy to conclude or according to you 'isn't that impressive' that the earth suspends over nothing than why did all the powerful empires (Greeks, Rome, Egyptians, Indians) for centuries got it wrong? If its just a flip of a coin (probability of 1/3) then why an empire (Greeks) that contributed mathematics and physics to society got it horribly wrong with the origin and what supports the earth? Why is it that a bunch of sheep herding uneducated people got it right? http://watvseminar.org/the-source-of-life-in-the-universe-is-our-heavenly-mother/ https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/origin-human-mitochondrial-dna-differences-new-generation-time-data-both-suggest-unified-young-earth/ I give you and EMIYA a pair of potara earrings so you two can combine your powers and come with a response. I allow OFG and Strawberry to do the fusion dance and combine powers to. I'll be waiting for your responses. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 12 2017, 02:15 PM Post #274 |
![]()
|
Greece "Speculation about the cosmos was common in Pre-Socratic philosophy in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Anaximander (c. 610 BC–c. 546 BC) described a cylindrical earth suspended in the center of the cosmos, surrounded by rings of fire. Philolaus (c. 480 BC–c. 405 BC) the Pythagorean described a cosmos with the stars, planets, Sun, Moon, Earth, and a counter-Earth (Antichthon)—ten bodies in all—circling an unseen central fire. Such reports show that Greeks of the 6th and 5th centuries BC were aware of the planets and speculated about the structure of the cosmos. Also, a more detailed description about the cosmos, Stars, Sun, Moon and the Earth can be found in the Orphism, which dates back to the end of the 5th century BC, and it is probably even older. Within the lyrics of the Orphic poems we can find remarkable information such as that the Earth is round, it has an axis and it moves around it in one day, it has three climate zones and that the Sun magnetizes the Stars and planets. The Ancient Greeks developed astronomy, which they treated as a branch of mathematics, to a highly sophisticated level. The first geometrical, three-dimensional models to explain the apparent motion of the planets were developed in the 4th century BC by Eudoxus of Cnidus and Callippus of Cyzicus. Their models were based on nested homocentric spheres centered upon the Earth. Their younger contemporary Heraclides Ponticus proposed that the Earth rotates around its axis. A different approach to celestial phenomena was taken by natural philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. They were less concerned with developing mathematical predictive models than with developing an explanation of the reasons for the motions of the Cosmos. In his Timaeus, Plato described the universe as a spherical body divided into circles carrying the planets and governed according to harmonic intervals by a world soul. Aristotle, drawing on the mathematical model of Eudoxus, proposed that the universe was made of a complex system of concentric spheres, whose circular motions combined to carry the planets around the earth. This basic cosmological model prevailed, in various forms, until the 16th century. In the 3rd century BC Aristarchus of Samos was the first to suggest a heliocentric system, although only fragmentary descriptions of his idea survive. Eratosthenes, using the angles of shadows created at widely separated regions, estimated the circumference of the Earth with great accuracy. Greek geometrical astronomy developed away from the model of concentric spheres to employ more complex models in which an eccentric circle would carry around a smaller circle, called an epicycle which in turn carried around a planet. The first such model is attributed to Apollonius of Perga and further developments in it were carried out in the 2nd century BC by Hipparchus of Nicea. Hipparchus made a number of other contributions, including the first measurement of precession and the compilation of the first star catalog in which he proposed our modern system of apparent magnitudes. The Antikythera mechanism, an ancient Greek astronomical observational device for calculating the movements of the Sun and the Moon, possibly the planets, dates from about 150–100 BC, and was the first ancestor of an astronomical computer. It was discovered in an ancient shipwreck off the Greek island of Antikythera, between Kythera and Crete. The device became famous for its use of a differential gear, previously believed to have been invented in the 16th century, and the miniaturization and complexity of its parts, comparable to a clock made in the 18th century. The original mechanism is displayed in the Bronze collection of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, accompanied by a replica. Depending on the historian's viewpoint, the acme or corruption of physical Greek astronomy is seen with Ptolemy of Alexandria, who wrote the classic comprehensive presentation of geocentric astronomy, the Megale Syntaxis (Great Synthesis), better known by its Arabic title Almagest, which had a lasting effect on astronomy up to the Renaissance. In his Planetary Hypotheses, Ptolemy ventured into the realm of cosmology, developing a physical model of his geometric system, in a universe many times smaller than the more realistic conception of Aristarchus of Samos four centuries earlier." India "Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya (499), propounded a computational system based on a planetary model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to the Sun. He accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the periods of the planets, times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon. Early followers of Aryabhata's model included Varahamihira, Brahmagupta, and Bhaskara II. Astronomy was advanced during the Shunga Empire and many star catalogues were produced during this time. The Shunga period is known as the "Golden age of astronomy in India". It saw the development of calculations for the motions and places of various planets, their rising and setting, conjunctions, and the calculation of eclipses. Indian astronomers by the 6th century believed that comets were celestial bodies that re-appeared periodically. This was the view expressed in the 6th century by the astronomers Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu, and the 10th-century astronomer Bhattotpala listed the names and estimated periods of certain comets, but it is unfortunately not known how these figures were calculated or how accurate they were." Egypt "The precise orientation of the Egyptian pyramids affords a lasting demonstration of the high degree of technical skill in watching the heavens attained in the 3rd millennium BC. It has been shown the Pyramids were aligned towards the pole star, which, because of the precession of the equinoxes, was at that time Thuban, a faint star in the constellation of Draco. Evaluation of the site of the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak, taking into account the change over time of the obliquity of the ecliptic, has shown that the Great Temple was aligned on the rising of the midwinter sun. The length of the corridor down which sunlight would travel would have limited illumination at other times of the year. Astronomy played a considerable part in religious matters for fixing the dates of festivals and determining the hours of the night. The titles of several temple books are preserved recording the movements and phases of the sun, moon and stars. The rising of Sirius (Egyptian: Sopdet, Greek: Sothis) at the beginning of the inundation was a particularly important point to fix in the yearly calendar. From the tables of stars on the ceiling of the tombs of Rameses VI and Rameses IX it seems that for fixing the hours of the night a man seated on the ground faced the Astrologer in such a position that the line of observation of the pole star passed over the middle of his head. On the different days of the year each hour was determined by a fixed star culminating or nearly culminating in it, and the position of these stars at the time is given in the tables as in the centre, on the left eye, on the right shoulder, etc. According to the texts, in founding or rebuilding temples the north axis was determined by the same apparatus, and we may conclude that it was the usual one for astronomical observations. In careful hands it might give results of a high degree of accuracy."
Contrast that with what the Bible says: Isaiah 40:22: It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; Job 26:10: He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness. Job 26:7: He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing. Exodus 20:11: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. ... And with what we know to be scientifically inaccurate in the Bible: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Problem-of-the-Bible-Inaccuracies-contradictions-fallacies-scientific-issues-and-more-20120517 http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html Who are these sheep people, and how did they get it "right?" What counts as "right" to you?
Young Earth? Our Heavenly Mother? Wow, you'll have to really do a good job at convincing us that these articles aren't a load of nonsense. I read through them both, and they're pretty laughable. I shouldn't have to prove them wrong--a simple google search can do that for you. |
![]() |
|
| + Steve | Sep 12 2017, 04:18 PM Post #275 |
![]()
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
![]()
|
How does evolutionary history for humans mean anything for how old the Earth could be? Literally all that last article amounts to is "Evolutionists might not have the history of human evolution 100% right therefore they can't be 100% right about the history of the Earth" Which in no way validates the whole 6000 years thing, it literally only means scientists aren't 100% right about every time period which...should be obvious? Any mention of time periods for that kind of things are really just estimations, no scientist of any merit would ever tell you that something happened exactly this many thousands of years, days, hours, minutes and seconds ago because it's literally impossible to be that accurate without time travel. Just because a bunch of seemingly intellectual people can write thousands upon thousands of words about something doesn't mean they aren't talking utter nonsense. It's extremely easy to take one point and stretch it out in to a huge a*** essay to make it sound like it must be more valid. Even though carbon dating refutes any notion of the Earth being 6000 years old. And even if that could somehow be proven, it's clearly impossible for the universe to be that young since we can look at events billions of years in the past due to the relativity of time. At that point you have to invent reasons why any God would bother to create a universe that deceives us at every turn instead of just making a universe that supported religion and made people continually fuel it's ego. |
![]() Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
![]() |
|
| Strawberry | Sep 12 2017, 05:44 PM Post #276 |
![]()
Chiaroscuro ♥
![]()
|
I love how we're directly challenged to answer to links with graphics like this one. Hm. ![]() You know what, I'd happily answer (not today, just got back from a trip and I'm going to spend the rest of the day unpacking, relaxing, catching up with the boi and all that jazz, because you know, priorities, but I may do it over the course of the week if I find myself in a suitable mood), but first I'd like you to take the content from the links you posted and, in your own words, actually form a sustainable and comprehensive argument for us to reply to -- one that isn't a collection of unnecessarily complicated DNA calculations filled with numbers and illegible graphics or quotes about finding a heavenly mother that is the ark of the covenant -- because to be quite frank it kinda feels like you just googled "justify the bible in the most scientific looking way possible" and got us a couple links filled with fancy nonsense to feel like you've won the lottery in irrefutable debating, when in reality these are topics you probably have as much clue about as me or your average Joe. But I could be wrong. And if so, please take the time to form your own argument in a contextualized and clear way so we can understand what you're trying to get at without having to first sit and analyze the average marrying age by country in African nations. That'd be swell. |
![]() ![]() ♪ ♥ ♫ Across The Universe
| |
![]() |
|
| + Steve | Sep 12 2017, 09:57 PM Post #277 |
![]()
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
![]()
|
Yeah that's the equivalent to when anti-vaxxers just go "Here is one article from one hack scientist who says vaccines give people Autism, he wrote a lot of words and he's a scientist so he's probably right even though 99.999% of other scientists disagree with him" The line of logic religious people feel compelled to follow is really no different from conspiracy theorists who make up anything to validate what they believe is the truth. Like the people who think the footage of the moon landing is fake and "slowed down" even though at the time it was literally impossible to record that much slow-mo footage at once, conspiracy theorists just claim that "Actually the government had much more advanced cameras to do it" because they have to invent something to validate what they want to believe. Being stubborn about something doesn't make you right. If God came out and said "Uh heey guys, yeah I totally exist btw" almost every atheist and scientist on the planet would accept that aside from the delusional. But if it was somehow proven that God didn't exist, religious people would never accept that. Not that I think it's really possible to prove God doesn't exist. Probably the only option there would be to invent time travel and see that due to some time nonsense we actually created the universe ourselves. Sorry if that sounds mean by the way, anyone can certainly believe whatever they want but when you present your opinion as fact and don't accept anything being disproven about it then this is just what happens. Anyone can believe in God and God might certainly be real and perhaps it's a swell dude/dudette/corporeal mass of writhing tentacles and despair. But the Earth is billions of years old. There is no way to dispute that besides using fantasy. |
![]() Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
![]() |
|
| lazerbem | Sep 13 2017, 04:33 AM Post #278 |
![]() ![]()
|
How do you think conversions work? Seriously, this makes no sense at all. Religious people absolutely do change their beliefs, I don't know why you think otherwise when most of religious history is in fact by necessity based on the assumption that changes occur(unless you're just saying that whenever a new religious group cropped up and spread, they were doing no conversions at all). |
![]() Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
![]() |
|
| + Steve | Sep 13 2017, 08:32 PM Post #279 |
![]()
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
![]()
|
Devout religious people rarely do, only those who's belief isn't very strong. Beliefs only change frequently in the sense that people pick and choose what they want to believe or follow from their religious text, like all the people who ignore "Love thy neighbour" in favour of "A man shall not lie with another man" because they hate homosexuals. How often do you hear stories of people who are clearly devout suddenly saying they don't believe any more or suddenly believe in a different God? If anything that's sort of insulting to the whole idea of faith isn't it? Just makes it sound like a fad or something. "Actually this God is WAY cooler, I'm going to believe in it now. Free candy and eternal life upon death" Conversions happen but the whole religious side of the world would not casually accept that there's no God, were that a thing that could be proven. |
![]() Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
![]() |
|
| Tinny | Sep 13 2017, 10:35 PM Post #280 |
![]() ![]()
|
Steve... You seem uninformed regarding religion. People's realization of religion is not a "fad." This kind of realization is powerful, with and I quote (myself), with George William Russel describing an intensely intimate realization of the beauty of the world and the glory that we are simply blind to most of the time. Many others struck by this realization of the ultimate reality regard it similarly, as a deeply personal, transformative, and intense experience. Second, regarding the whole people going for a better god thing with that I would like to point out does happen to very religious people. Just look at modern day Hinduism for how much it's changed, in part, to get a "better religion" Shiva can now protect, create, and destroy despite before (that being hundreds of years ago) only being the destroyer. And that also applies to Vishnu and Shakti. Third, the religion is almost always adapted into the people's lives. Christmas incorporated former paganist holidays, and many mythological figures from lore, especially germanic or celtic lore were re-imagined in a Christian context. Edited by Tinny, Sep 13 2017, 10:35 PM.
|
![]() Above signature created by Graffiti
| |
![]() |
|
| + Steve | Sep 14 2017, 12:48 AM Post #281 |
![]()
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
![]()
|
But what I mean is that strongly religious people don't just suddenly stop believing in mass. Occasionally people will lose their faith but mostly people are stubborn about it and would prefer to adapt what they believe rather than say it's false.
Never said it didn't but you'd have a hard time convincing me that all the religious people in the world would just accept being told that God definitely isn't real. Again to bring that back to conspiracy there's literally thousands(maybe millions?) of people who think the world is flat even though that's clearly not true at all. Belief is a stubborn thing for people who believe strongly. The rest isn't really what I was getting at anyway, people can occasionally hop about religions or change their own to fit new things they want to believe but ultimately they're still clinging to some form of belief there rather than just saying screw it, there is no God. Which again does happen sometimes but there definitely wouldn't be as many religious people around if it was super common. It's not like 1 in 2 people have a flimsy belief and will stop at a moments notice, aside from those who only really follow a religion to keep up appearances with family/culture. |
![]() Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
![]() |
|
| POOHEAD189 | Sep 14 2017, 04:16 AM Post #282 |
![]()
|
Same with avid athiests.
But your initial point was that you said religious people wouldn't accept God isn't real if it was proven to them, instead of just told to them. |
| Tha gaol agam ort. <3 | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 20 2017, 01:14 PM Post #283 |
![]()
|
I don't think that's the case though. When a religious person accepts the position that a god doesn't exist, their whole world changes, along with their entire line of thinking. That can be very hard for any person to deal with. If God was suddenly proven to exist, I would believe it. It wouldn't change anything about my life. It would, hypothetically, be a lot easier for an atheist to accept that God exists than it would be for a religious person to do the opposite, which is why you see so many religious people refusing to change their minds. And that doesn't just boil down to the god argument either. Many Christians find it hard to change their mind about anything--abortion, gay marriage, what the bible actually says, etc. It took me years to get my parents to change their minds about abortion, gay marriage, and evolution because any alteration in their thinking puts them in the line of fire. "Will I go to hell now? What will my Christian friends/family members think of me?" Christianity puts you in a moral box, so to speak. Hmm... I wonder where Zoom went. |
![]() |
|
| Zoom | Nov 29 2017, 09:00 PM Post #284 |
![]() ![]()
|
Sorry, I finished my last semester, I went on holidays. And before that I was busy with my masters and work. @Strawberry We can argue about: 1) Evidence for The Bible/GOD a) Accurate Data b) Authentic Text c) Historical Accuracy d) Scientific Accuracy e) Prophecy Accuracy Question: How would you like to this debate? Do you want me to go first and post all those data and then wait for you to reply or should be just focus on one topic at a time? Respond to Offensive Girl: You need to re-check the dates again, YES, the ancient Greeks introduced science (knowledge) and mathematics (pythagoras theorem et cetera). Check what date did they date the dead sea scrolls and the oldest Hebrew scripts. I give a proper response to this later. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 30 2017, 01:51 PM Post #285 |
![]()
|
Why call me "Offensive Girl?" It's not the best way to get someone to respond to you. I also don't see what the date on the dead sea scrolls or the oldest Hebrew scripts matters, and I don't remember what the conversation was even about. We can debate whatever if you want though, so long as you don't ad hom me. |
![]() |
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:53 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy




























4:53 PM Jul 13