- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Science vs Religion
| 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: |
| Science vs Religion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2014, 03:18 AM (7,727 Views) | |
| + Ginyu | May 30 2014, 12:11 AM Post #76 |
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
OFG managed to make the points I wanted to make, I just want to tell you one last thing about my beliefs. I do believe in The Big Bang theory because there is a lot of evidence to back it up. I believe It's true. I am however not claiming that it is in fact true. |
      Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
 |
 
|
| lunar2 | May 30 2014, 02:27 AM Post #77 |
 
|
1. religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. agnosticism: of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. religion does not mean belief in a god. buddhism and satanism are both religions, as are atheism and agnosticism. they are all systems of belief, which is what a religion is. so, yes. everyone has a religion, because everyone has a set of fundamental beliefs, even you. 2. was the big bang theory developed over the last few decades? no. it's over 100 years old. what scientists have been doing the last few decades, and are doing today, is exactly the same thing the old shamans and wise men did, which is guess at those things they can't find out through the tools available to them. eventually, we'll develop a new set of tools, and we'll debunk most, if not all, of the modern "scientific religions", and scientists then will call out believers in the religion of string theory the way scientists today call out christians the way christians used to call out pagans. it is the same old argument, the only thing that's changed is the specific set of beliefs people are arguing over. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
|
|
May 30 2014, 02:31 AM Post #78 |
|
HUH? No. No. No. I completely disagree, and I'm sure most people do. I don't even want to get into it, to be honest. Think what you want.
I really can't even take this argument seriously, to be honest with you. All I can really do is urge you to read into it a bit more. All of it. Wikipedia is a good source for the basic information, but you could also look into scientific articles. I do, however, completely agree that science is always learning more. We as humans are always learning more. And that's pretty great. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, May 30 2014, 02:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
| + Steve | May 30 2014, 03:14 AM Post #79 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
I don't see how it isn't plausible that the universe could always have existed. Why would our tiny little brains ever be able to understand that? It's not our function it's not something we can compute, that's the only thing that seems illogical about it. The possible evidence of the Big Bang could just be a Big Bang. As in the universe could be far more vast than we realize and what we think is the Big Bang is just a random huge explosion that created a whole heap of crap. For as far as we can see with telescopes further than that light might just either not reach us or not have reached us yet, so it's not unreasonable to say the universe could be billions upon billions of times bigger than we imagine. Our brains don't have the capacity to understand something like the universe having always existed we can only accept it if we somehow get an answer. I doubt there is any absolute creator of the universe but I believe that higher beings could exist, with how long the universe we know of has existed it's possible that things just evolved to become what we dub Gods, it could be fairly basic in other parts of the universe for all we know. |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| lunar2 | May 30 2014, 06:21 AM Post #80 |
|
1. doesn't matter what you agree with. those are the definitions of the words. religions are systems of belief. agnosticism, atheism, buddhism, and satanism are all systems of belief. they are, by definition, religions, whether you want them to be or not. in fact, buddhism is one of those "major religions" you harp on so much. it's the 4th largest religion in the world, following christianity, islam, and hinduism, and followed by shinto, sikhism, and judaism. 2. do you know what string "theory" actually is? it's a bunch of equations. it is one of many guesses to try to explain the holes in the big bang theory, and it just happens to have numbers that work out to something plausible based on what we've observed so far. but only if you take it on faith that there are at least 10 spacial dimensions (plus time), or as many as 12 spacial dimensions and 2 time dimensions. for all practical purposes, spacial dimensions 4-12 and time dimension 2 are equivalent to gods. they exist outside the observable universe, and their only purpose is to explain events that don't match up to what we expect. in other words, they are supernatural entities responsible for miracles. string theory is a religion with a bunch of numbers as its holy book, dimensions as gods, and the present state of the universe as its miracles. it has 0 basis in observable reality, and makes no testable predictions. it's entire purpose is to explain events that have already happened and can't be replicated. yes, one day, when we get a new tool set, we can prove or disprove it. but for now, it's just as much a religious statement as the bible referencing ocean vents and dinosaurs, or the qur'an referencing the expansion of the universe and the origin of life in the water. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | May 30 2014, 07:01 AM Post #81 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
To say that there is only 1 definition to the word 'religion' is quite ignorant. I don't know where you got your definition from, but Chamber dictionary says that It's "the belief, or worship of, a god or gods." http://www.chambers.co.uk/search.php?query=Religion&title=21st If you look at Wikipedia it will state that there are several generally accepted definitions. To say, this is the one true definition of the word, is plain wrong. |
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| lunar2 | May 30 2014, 03:56 PM Post #82 |
|
it's the most practical definition. after all, any definition that restricts it to the worship of gods excludes ancestor worship, animism, or the relatively recent wave of alien worship. "system of fundamental beliefs and practices" is the most practical definition, and is the one used by most governments. understand that when i use a word definition to make my case, i'm not picking my definitions to fit my views. i'm looking for the most practical definition, and then molding my views to fit that. before i looked up the definition of religion, i wouldn't have called agnosticism religions, for example, because it is passive, while i would have still called atheism a religion, because it is active. it just so happens that the best definition of the word religion also includes passive beliefs like agnosticism. as for where i got my specific definition. dictionary.com definition 2. definition one was a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. which is too limiting, and contains too many qualifiers. the broadest, simplest applicable definition for something like religion is usually the best definition. it needs to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, because of the social and political implications, especially in countries like america, with our freedom of religion. there is seriously a politician running for governor here in texas claiming that islam is not a religion, so muslims don't actually have 1st amendment protections. another southern politician is claiming that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, so we need to shove christ back into everything because atheists don't have 1st amendment protections. and that is the problem with narrow definitions of religion. you exclude people based on largely arbitrary criteria. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | May 30 2014, 05:15 PM Post #83 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
Do governments pick definitions? I've never heard of that... Also, your claims of no religion not existing directly contradict widely accepted terms such as 'non-religious' or 'irreligion' ' Edited by Ginyu, May 30 2014, 07:53 PM.
|
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| lunar2 | May 30 2014, 08:27 PM Post #84 |
|
"Religion The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part of this provision is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second part is known as the Free Exercise Clause. Although the First Amendment only refers to Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses also binding on states (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 [1940], and Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 [1947], respectively). Since that incorporation, an extensive body of law has developed in the United States around both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment. As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The Supreme Court held that the jury, in determining the line between the free exercise of religion and the punishable offense of obtaining property under False Pretenses, should not decide whether the claims of the I Am members were actually true, only whether the members honestly believed them to be true, thus qualifying the group as a religion under the Supreme Court's broad definition. In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion a religion is, according to the US supreme court, a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. atheism certainly falls under that definition. this definition is also compatible with the dictionary.com definition as a set of fundamental beliefs and practices. the term non-religious really doesn't have any meaning. everyone has religious beliefs, whether they recognize them as such or not. if you believe that all religions are wrong, that is itself a religious belief. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
| yokip | May 30 2014, 08:59 PM Post #85 |
|
The Universe is eternal making it infinite. If you take away everything that is physical (matter), you are left with the fabric of of existence (Universe / life) which we call nothing (no thing). Nothing is completely empty space, absolute cold, silence and darkness. Nothing is infinite, eternal and indestructible. It does not move; it does not have to. It is already everywhere. What is faster, the speed of light or the speed of dark? Turn off the light and try to get into bed before it gets dark. Am kidding, but I am trying to make a point. You cannot turn off “nothing” or do anything to it. It always stays the same, is always everywhere all the time. The known universe is about thirteen and a half billion light years out. This is what we can see and understand using current instruments. The truth is beyond what we can see just continues forever, it is eternal, and it has always been here. The Known Universe (Big Bang) is just a small event in infinity. |
|
|
|
|
|
May 31 2014, 07:15 AM Post #86 |
|
Idk if this helps at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Religious_groups I still don't consider Buddhism a religion since most Buddhists don't worship any sort of deity. It's more like a philosophy. Same with Satanism. Agnosticism and atheism are definitely not religious groups, and in my opinion there isn't much of a distinction between the two to begin with. Atheists that actively fight against religion are called anti-theists. Why are they not considered religions? Because they aren't "organized collections of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence" (wikipedia). They are simply states of... not believing in a deity. That's all there is to it. One can hardly classify that as a religion, as there is nothing religious about it. That would be like calling the state of believing in the big bang theory a religion. It's not a religion. It's a belief. There are plenty of beliefs out there, such as believing that chocolate is a good flavor of ice cream. |
|
|
|
| Tonneh | May 31 2014, 07:33 AM Post #87 |
|
So; this topic has gone from science vs religion - to debating if religion is actually a belief? This is how all religious debates seem to actually end up IMO. Trying to prove that religion isn't more than a madman running around with a traffic cone as a sound amplifier.
Edited by Tonneh, May 31 2014, 07:34 AM.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Shei Len | May 31 2014, 09:03 AM Post #88 |
|
You've apparently never been to Japan. The Japanese people literally pray at and worship statues of Buddha and ask for his blessing and burn incense in his name and swipe it on themselves in order for him to bless them. They DO worship a deity, even if that deity is only a representation of an ideal. |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | May 31 2014, 09:52 AM Post #89 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
That's where the word most comes from. Sure there are some Buddhist-Christians, Buddhist-Muslims, Buddhist-Shinto (<The case you were probably referring to) but fact is, for the most part, Buddhism is non-theistic. |
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| Shei Len | May 31 2014, 10:50 AM Post #90 |
|
/shrug Ok. What's your point? 
|
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:45 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy