Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Great Religious Debate of 2017
Topic Started: Jul 28 2017, 01:49 PM (13,405 Views)
+ Pointer
Member Avatar
...

GinyuTokusentai
Jul 29 2017, 02:45 PM
Geralt of Rivia
Jul 29 2017, 11:52 AM
It s quite funny how the agnostics and atheists here tried to grasp the proof of gods existence when they supposed to " aint give a **** about it


As i have said above ... for a believer an evidence is not necessary. This thread ia like. Bashing the believers ( asking for proof of their beliefs) for what they believe in something which has no evidence. Cmon..


Btw ofg that big bang stuff is as much real as you think god is. You know the big bang is a Theory with zero proof. But it seems no matter how many times i tell this to you. You just flat out refuse to take it. The big bang is a theory. I think the better approach scientifically would be the string theory or the quantum gravity theory. But ppl still take this 50years old theory as some kind of truth. Yeah i know we have read about it in the early physics books when we were children. And thats why we believe it to be "true" but as every theory this has quite a few flaws in it thus It is not yet proven to be true not that so called theory of darvinism if i want to be precise.

Religions dont require any proof of their gods existance. I am a man of science i love every aspect of it. But i have also open mind which i use to examine both side of the same coin. I suggest you to do the same

The Big Bang Theory is not a theory with zero proof. A theory with zero proof does not exist. Scientific theories are the closest we can get to a truth. Do you deny evolution as well? How about gravity? Those are both theories as well. There's tons of proof for the Big Bang if you just bother to look for it. Ever heard of cosmic microwave background radiation? Primordial gas clouds?
Using the Big Bang theory it should even be possible to calculate the concentrations of certain isotopes in the universe, and guess what, we've made those predictions and they're right.
The Big Bang theory has lots of evidence.

As to why I don't bother to look at both sides of the coin as you put it: It's simple. Science is trustworthy, you can test it, re-test it and get the same results. You can predict using science. Science questions itself and wants to be proven wrong. Religion on the other hand has no foundation. You just have to belief in it and there's is zero confirmation of any of it being true. Without faith in a particular religion the religion doesn't get you anywhere, without faith in science, there's still science, whether you want it or not. The experiments and results are still there. It's observational and undeniable.

For those who wondered. I used to be catholic. I was raised catholic but slowly became atheist when I was about 11 years old. On Richard Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability I'd rank myself a 6: De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Oh yeah, and I guess I should say I'm agnostic, even though everybody is whether they like it or not.
Man .. look up the definition of theory. A scientific theory until it is proven true remains a theory . When it is proven it becomes a scientific fact like the law of thermodynamics

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Ginyu
Member Avatar
Leve Feyenoord 1!

Geralt of Rivia
Jul 29 2017, 03:21 PM
GinyuTokusentai
Jul 29 2017, 02:45 PM
Geralt of Rivia
Jul 29 2017, 11:52 AM
It s quite funny how the agnostics and atheists here tried to grasp the proof of gods existence when they supposed to " aint give a **** about it


As i have said above ... for a believer an evidence is not necessary. This thread ia like. Bashing the believers ( asking for proof of their beliefs) for what they believe in something which has no evidence. Cmon..


Btw ofg that big bang stuff is as much real as you think god is. You know the big bang is a Theory with zero proof. But it seems no matter how many times i tell this to you. You just flat out refuse to take it. The big bang is a theory. I think the better approach scientifically would be the string theory or the quantum gravity theory. But ppl still take this 50years old theory as some kind of truth. Yeah i know we have read about it in the early physics books when we were children. And thats why we believe it to be "true" but as every theory this has quite a few flaws in it thus It is not yet proven to be true not that so called theory of darvinism if i want to be precise.

Religions dont require any proof of their gods existance. I am a man of science i love every aspect of it. But i have also open mind which i use to examine both side of the same coin. I suggest you to do the same

The Big Bang Theory is not a theory with zero proof. A theory with zero proof does not exist. Scientific theories are the closest we can get to a truth. Do you deny evolution as well? How about gravity? Those are both theories as well. There's tons of proof for the Big Bang if you just bother to look for it. Ever heard of cosmic microwave background radiation? Primordial gas clouds?
Using the Big Bang theory it should even be possible to calculate the concentrations of certain isotopes in the universe, and guess what, we've made those predictions and they're right.
The Big Bang theory has lots of evidence.

As to why I don't bother to look at both sides of the coin as you put it: It's simple. Science is trustworthy, you can test it, re-test it and get the same results. You can predict using science. Science questions itself and wants to be proven wrong. Religion on the other hand has no foundation. You just have to belief in it and there's is zero confirmation of any of it being true. Without faith in a particular religion the religion doesn't get you anywhere, without faith in science, there's still science, whether you want it or not. The experiments and results are still there. It's observational and undeniable.

For those who wondered. I used to be catholic. I was raised catholic but slowly became atheist when I was about 11 years old. On Richard Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability I'd rank myself a 6: De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Oh yeah, and I guess I should say I'm agnostic, even though everybody is whether they like it or not.
Man .. look up the definition of theory. A scientific theory until it is proven true remains a theory . When it is proven it becomes a scientific fact like the law of thermodynamics
What!? Theories don't become laws. They are fundamentally different. Laws tell us what happens and theories explain how or why something happens.
Theories are built up from laws, they don't become laws.

My science teacher always put it like this: Laws are bricks, theories are houses. Houses don't become bricks. But bricks can built up houses.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
Ask GinyuTokusentai
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Out of curiosity, are there any major holes in the idea of the big bang?
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

Scientific 'theory' and the general definition of 'theory' aren't the same thing, although that has been explained to you a million times on here. A scientific theory doesn't become a theory until it has a basis of facts on which to be built. Scientific theory without the facts is called a hypothesis, which is more similar to the general definition of 'theory'. They label it a 'theory' because they are open to the idea that ideas and interpretations can change when new information comes to light, not because they don't believe it is true.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EMIYA
Member Avatar
"I am the bone of my sword."

See, the fact that you refer to the Big Bang as a theory with zero proof, indicates that you are completely ignorant on the subject. Heck, even I'll admit I'm not a professional on it. But it's easy enough to research such a thing and see how the data correlates. I've said it before, the idea of a Big Bang theory originated from Hubble's observations of celestial bodies moving further away from the Earth and years later, scientists theorized that if this material was moving away, it had to have a start somewhere. More data and information was added as the years went by, I can gladly send you several links to the Big Bang Theory and have you read up on it.

Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me the idea of someone trying to teach a racist person the flaws of their logic. They can show all the data, all the information, everything to show that these racist ideas are false and aren't worth following. They can show all the reasoning why there isn't a need to hold these ideologies or the major flaws of them.

But unless that racist, or sexist, or homophobe, or whoever is willing to take the chance to look at their own side and evaluate it, they will never change or amend their point of view. Whether any of you wants to admit it or not, religion is flawed. From all the stuff we gather, God is a very flawed individual. It was mentioned in the very first page, religious people have a tendency to pick and choose what they want, like a lunch menu.

That's flawed and frankly ignorant. If you believe in something, you should acknowledge all that it says. If you don't agree with it, then you should readily admit that, yes, there are parts of the religion that are flawed or outdated. Your religion isn't perfect. I don't know if it was here or another topic, but it was like Sigmund Freud. He was acknowledged as a pioneer of modern psychology whose ideas revolutionized the subject. There were also many controversial points in his studies that a lot of people were skeptical on.

Sigmund Freud was considered brilliant in the studies of psychology, but he wasn't perfect.

Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Why can you not have faith and seek evidence of your God or have faith in after you find it out to be real?

I don't see how that would stop anyone being religious.

If I found out God was real I wouldn't suddenly join whatever religion the God applied to, every faithful person can still have faith and if your religion was the wrong one well...your faith was blind then wasn't it.

Blind faith and acceptance of rules you have no idea who set out for you is not a positive thing in my opinion. Faith is a deadly tool at times, many people in history have garnered followings using it and done awful things.

Inquisitions anyone? There was a hell of a lot of division in religion then and there still is now so how can anyone claim their belief is truly solid? I don't get that.
Many religions are born from the same books and every one of them says "My way is the right way"

Is that not a pretty critical flaw in faith? If there's only one God but people have faith in different ones and different aspects of the same texts...what merit does faith truly have without evidence to back it up?
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Steve
Jul 29 2017, 07:43 PM
Why can you not have faith and seek evidence of your God or have faith in after you find it out to be real?

I don't see how that would stop anyone being religious.

If I found out God was real I wouldn't suddenly join whatever religion the God applied to, every faithful person can still have faith and if your religion was the wrong one well...your faith was blind then wasn't it.

Blind faith and acceptance of rules you have no idea who set out for you is not a positive thing in my opinion. Faith is a deadly tool at times, many people in history have garnered followings using it and done awful things.

Inquisitions anyone? There was a hell of a lot of division in religion then and there still is now so how can anyone claim their belief is truly solid? I don't get that.
Many religions are born from the same books and every one of them says "My way is the right way"

Is that not a pretty critical flaw in faith? If there's only one God but people have faith in different ones and different aspects of the same texts...what merit does faith truly have without evidence to back it up?
If you find out something is real, it's not faith anymore.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

One definition of faith "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

So why not? There's no real reason why religious faith has to be different there.

It's not like everyone else would immediately be faithful if God appeared, many would be fearful but not faithful.

Faith shouldn't be dependent on a lack of substantial evidence, not when it can lead to horrible things.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pointer
Member Avatar
...

EMIYA
Jul 29 2017, 04:51 PM
See, the fact that you refer to the Big Bang as a theory with zero proof, indicates that you are completely ignorant on the subject. Heck, even I'll admit I'm not a professional on it. But it's easy enough to research such a thing and see how the data correlates. I've said it before, the idea of a Big Bang theory originated from Hubble's observations of celestial bodies moving further away from the Earth and years later, scientists theorized that if this material was moving away, it had to have a start somewhere. More data and information was added as the years went by, I can gladly send you several links to the Big Bang Theory and have you read up on it.

Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me the idea of someone trying to teach a racist person the flaws of their logic. They can show all the data, all the information, everything to show that these racist ideas are false and aren't worth following. They can show all the reasoning why there isn't a need to hold these ideologies or the major flaws of them.

But unless that racist, or sexist, or homophobe, or whoever is willing to take the chance to look at their own side and evaluate it, they will never change or amend their point of view. Whether any of you wants to admit it or not, religion is flawed. From all the stuff we gather, God is a very flawed individual. It was mentioned in the very first page, religious people have a tendency to pick and choose what they want, like a lunch menu.

That's flawed and frankly ignorant. If you believe in something, you should acknowledge all that it says. If you don't agree with it, then you should readily admit that, yes, there are parts of the religion that are flawed or outdated. Your religion isn't perfect. I don't know if it was here or another topic, but it was like Sigmund Freud. He was acknowledged as a pioneer of modern psychology whose ideas revolutionized the subject. There were also many controversial points in his studies that a lot of people were skeptical on.

Sigmund Freud was considered brilliant in the studies of psychology, but he wasn't perfect.

That doesnt change the fact it is called theory. Besides big bang somehow contradicts the law of casuality . And theres a lot more like the probpem with the exact equal temperature of the universe
What the big bang scientiest tried to explain as inflation. Where matzer expanded faster than light. Cmon now. Wtf
They explained a flaw with something what contradicts general relativity


Besides u were wrong. I have studied this s***. So i know a few thibg or two :lol:

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

But theory is a meaningless word there...


A scientific theory is a collection of data that paints a certain picture.

It's not "I think that a race of giant bunnies lives on the other side of the moon because we never see it"

I don't know why you keep focusing on that word like it means anything.

As said, gravity is a theory.
Does gravity exist? Clearly. Do we know everything about it? No, theory.


Does God exist?

Who knows but why should we believe it does? Because we'll burn in hell? How do you know that?

Do you know that or is it just a theory based on stuff in a book because theories are nonsense.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

Quote:
 
Theory vs Hypothesis

What "theory" means in ordinary speech:
The term "theory" means a very different thing when used in everyday conversation and in science. In our day to day speech, we often use "theory" to mean a guess or unsubstantiated idea about how something works (as in "I have a theory that gremlins are hiding my car keys").

In science, we would call such a guess a hypothesis, not a theory. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation. In this case, I am proposing that the explanation for why I can't find my car keys is that gremlins are hiding them.*

The distinction between the words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" is very important because in science "Theory" does not mean "guess". I repeat, "Theory" does not mean "guess".

So, what does the word "theory" mean in science?
According to the National Academies of Sciences, "some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.


Quote:
 
The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.


I googled it so you don't have to Geralt.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EMIYA
Member Avatar
"I am the bone of my sword."

You literally tried to claim that the Big Bang Theory had "zero" proof, which is absolutely false and proven wrong to you. And clearly you didn't study enough because if you did, you'd understand that the expansion of the universe never violated Einstein's notion of the Speed of Light. Matter never goes past the Light barrier, a fundamental law that is obeyed even now. But this rule doesn't have to be obeyed by the aspect of "space."

Inflation never broke that fundamental law that matter couldn't travel faster than light. Matter never did, it was the empty space that is traveling faster than light. Therefore the fundamental laws stay in tact.

In fairness, it's something that is understandable in how someone might not get. We are educated on the concept that all things in the Universe are dictated by this fundamental law. We never take into consideration that these laws can still logically be broken by other means. I would have been forgiving on this for you, it's knowledge that isn't exactly common.

But instead you want to be arrogant and act like you know something when its clear you don't know a damn. And while I try to obey the opening post of civility, its clear you don't care about it.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sam
Member Avatar
It takes a mere second for treasure to turn to trash.

Mitas
Jul 28 2017, 05:49 PM
I'm an agnostic who leans towards there not being a God, but I genuinely don't care enough to have an actual opinion on it. Whether there's a God or not doesn't really have an impact on my life; I generally try to be a good person and would do so whether there was a reward in the afterlife or not.

Regarding why I lean towards there not being a God, there are a few reasons:

-The biggest is that there are so many different religions around (and that's just currently, not to mention the countless dead religions that nobody remembers or follows anymore). With so many different belief systems and interpretations, to me the most logical answer is that they're all wrong.

- I'm also put off by the fluidity and flexibility that religions tend to have. When things in the holy books are proved wrong, religious people tend not to accept it and in turn try to fit the words of the book into the new facts, rather than take the new facts and mould their beliefs around that.

- I don't like the 'pick and choose' mentality that a lot of religious people have regarding which aspects of it they enforce and which ones they don't.

- I can also see the reasons why religion existed in the first place e.g. as a be-all, end-all answer to the things we don't know, something to defeat death by giving us an afterlife, a means to keep the public in check without having to supervise them 24/7, among others. All that points to it being man-made and not something naturally occurring.

- I also don't like the idea that there would be a higher being that would create a world with so many horrific things inside it. That seems like a human thing to do and that wouldn't make them a higher being, it would just make them like us.
I... do believe I've had my opinion stolen right out of my mouth. :lol: But I am more leaning no than Mitas here. I'm a firm no on the Abrahamic god. On some other god? Perhaps. That's literally impossible to say, so, I can't say that there isn't one. But like Dan said, it makes no difference in my personal life whatsoever and rarely crosses my mind unless someone asks... so, what's the point in wondering about some hypothetical when I got real things to deal with? :p
WoW Legion Ending - Thank you Darker for making this into one, big incredible gif! <3
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sam
Member Avatar
It takes a mere second for treasure to turn to trash.

Hey guys, let's not get catty btw. ;)
WoW Legion Ending - Thank you Darker for making this into one, big incredible gif! <3
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pointer
Member Avatar
...

Mitas
Jul 29 2017, 10:19 PM
Quote:
 
Theory vs Hypothesis

What "theory" means in ordinary speech:
The term "theory" means a very different thing when used in everyday conversation and in science. In our day to day speech, we often use "theory" to mean a guess or unsubstantiated idea about how something works (as in "I have a theory that gremlins are hiding my car keys").

In science, we would call such a guess a hypothesis, not a theory. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation. In this case, I am proposing that the explanation for why I can't find my car keys is that gremlins are hiding them.*

The distinction between the words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" is very important because in science "Theory" does not mean "guess". I repeat, "Theory" does not mean "guess".

So, what does the word "theory" mean in science?
According to the National Academies of Sciences, "some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.


Quote:
 
The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.


I googled it so you don't have to Geralt.
Still you posted two quotes form wikipedia which proves nothing.

Yesh scientists use the word theory in order to "interpret" facts


But what is fact actually. Are those so called scientific theorems were proven fact ?

Is the theory of big bang a fact ?

Hmm last time i checked we couldnt give proper explanations to black holes singularity. We simply can not describe them mathematically and basically the very moment of the big bang the whole universe was a singularity.

And i think which can not be described mathematically. Or gives impossible mathematical outcome like x/0 what the singularity gives either means that those things dont exists at all or our well based mathematic system is based on bulls***. Which it does not because we can pretty much describe everything with math except this singularity.


Besides the theory of big bang has more leaks than a pipeline which was shot 100 times with a shotgun


If we give a little chance to religion. What is easier. Doubting our math and neglect every reasonable law what we basically created and proved as fact in the last 500 years or give some probability to gods existance.


Have you ever wondered. Why everything is so well built ? Like the water cycle. Our metabolism. Or have you ever checked what was the possobility that random life forms magically evolved from non living molecules?


Who said god and science cant coexist together ?

Like on the marvel universe or what ? ;)

There is hightech technology but we still have the one above all and odin and stuff like that.

When thats it in comic noone bats an eye when they say science is also legit and maybe god also exists everybody loses his s***



Edited by Pointer, Jul 30 2017, 05:46 PM.

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
0 users reading this topic
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Designed by McKee91