Why are you religious/non-religious?

[Stendarr]

I guess I will leave this thread alone, for the sheer lack of true details, when details are presented, is making my knowledgable head hurt.

You did made my knowledgeable head hurt when you said for the lack of true details about certain things in science No offense. I guess everyone has their specialties, strength and weaknesses making us not always follow each other at the same wavelengths, so to speak.

@zzfallens, hell I didn't even fully read his Big Bang thing. He sure never read about it... as there is a lot of things known about the evolution since the early times to today. Sure there lacks details, mysteries, but things are detailed and realistic enough to be taken seriously. I did study the Big Bang very recently at school, and the evidence truly all fits together. Seriously, I fail to see how the Big Bang theory wouldn't explain part of happened. It fits within the laws of physics, some of the early Universe state can be partly reproduced with particles accelerators and such. The wavelengths stretching. Hell a Russian scientist even predicted that if the Big Bang was true, the photons would have passed from visible lights back then, to micro waves now, which was detected by telecommunication engineers by accident.

[JockoBeans]

You misunderstood me. Enstein's theories were not really wrong, but they were quite incomplete. The formulas he used during his time were true back then, but now they are wrong and have been properly redone due to the advances on modern science. And then years from now (or sooner?) those ones will be redone to make them more accurate.


It's a practically neverending process.

[Stendarr]

You misunderstood me. Enstein's theories were not really wrong, but they were quite incomplete. The formulas he used during his time were true back then, but now they are wrong and have been properly redone due to the advances on modern science. And then years from now (or sooner?) those ones will be redone to make them more accurate.


It's a practically neverending process.

How can they be wrong if they are incomplete? They were incomplete, yes, but not that much (compared to what we know now, I know that there's probably a LOT of stuff to add). He still predicted gravitational magnetism which was recently discovered. E=mc2 is still relevant to all the spheres of physics and still 100% accurate. He discovered the basics of the Big Bang but didn't get credited because he didn't believe it. His theories were hardly torn to shreds, just had small refinements. There's so many things he did right which are still highly relevant in their shape, that I thought what you said to be a bit wrong. Maybe it was a metaphor or something.

[Dark Lord Cam]

You guys are getting offtopic. Might I suggest another thread?

[The Dog Whisperer]

No one's attacking anyone here, no need to be so insensitive that you see the slightest disagreement as all out verbal war.
It's been stated loads before: Everyone's just poking out holes. Or something.

Sure you can say "in the church sense" but really the church was made by him (if we are rigth and he is out there)

Of course the church was made by him, he made people, and people made the church. As you said, assuming he's out there.
But in that sense he also made the anti-church movement, and all the other churches.
Him having made the church is a moot point, seeing as from your perspective he made everything.

So just cause someone writes soemthing (years after the fact)
it must be part of it?
All of those Gospesl where writing later, and have parts that contradict the rest Also ween we say God's word we refer to it has God speaking a lot not that he physical wrote it

Not all are dated so late; The first editions of Thomas' are as early as c. 50. And when do you think the NT canon was formed? The earliest reference to it is late 2nd century.

Show me some of these isntad of just syaing
"it has been torn to shred
"been proven false"
"been proven false"
show me show some proof
because saying its been torn to shreds imo is just another defensive backpeddle.

I didn't say it was proven false, but it's credibility is ruined by the fact that the very people who uphold and preach it have changed their story about how it is meant to be perceived throughtout time.
I remember going to church when I was in school, and I remember asking the priest how he knew all these things were real, and I got the parable statement. Would I have been told that a couple hundred years ago?
That's defensive backpeddling- Changing your story when you can't explain something, in order to explain it in a completely different fashion.

Not really

... Okay, a different analogy.
You're told it's legal (i.e. You're allowed) to drink no matter your age, then you get arrested for underage drinking.
Slightly more direct, but the same thing. You think that's normal?

Yes it would but God is not about the easy path
he is about love and whats love if it is forced?

Well if he isn't gonna take the easy way, and he's gonna make it hard for us, how does he justify punishing anyone who fails? What's his "excuse"?

I'd feel remorse
just like God dose

He feels remorse, but it isn't his fault?

A guy makes a cure for Cancer
a man takes it and uses it to make more types of cancer
the first guy used it for good
E.X God gave us free will
and then we use it for bad

The analogy doesn't really match, I was talking 'bout responsibility.
But; He gave us FREE WILL. That's the choice to do anything. It isn't free will if he gives you it then says "You can only use it this way."

So then we all go to hevean?
Hitler was right?
I'm not saying that that god is not real
maybe he is
But I dont see hitler eing a good guy

No, you don't see Hitler as being right, nor do I.
But wouldn't God? Hitler was wrong from your's and mine and most likely everyone else here's opinion, but God would see why Hitler thinks the way he does, why Hitler thought he was right, himself. All knowing, and stuff.

I believe he truly did, don't stereotype Christians I see a lot of pepole mad when Christians stereotype homosexuals or atheist
Even if you dont belive in him you must admit one of the best words of wisdom
"do on to toher"

Well that's your belief, but that's not what the church you're defending preaches.
And what stereotypes are you on about? "Christian" is a pretty straightforward one, it says you follow the church, no?
You can assume from "Homosexual" that it's a guy who like other guys, or that from "Atheist" it's someone who doesn't believe in a God, because they're the technical definitions of the word, it's when things get attached (i.e. Campness, hating all theists) that don't relate to the definition that stereotypes become a problem.

I'll catch up on ninja posts now.

[JockoBeans]

Does 2+1=4? No.

To Einstein he didn't have the full picture and he had no way of putting into reality from his chalkboard. Nowadays we can complete the formulas better than he could and get the proper results.

Anyway, I don't believe that anyone has outdone his E=mc2. They have only built upon it. His other theories have been shaken up a bit in recent years.

Anyway we should get back to topic.

[Moeboid]

From what I can see (I haven't read all of the posts since I was last online), the usefulness of this thread has vanished.

If we want to discuss things like this, I think we need a separate "religion and philosophy" forum to do so. This thread is a mess. We're debating many different things at once, meaning that there's just too much room for confusion. In the few pages that I bothered to read we touched on free will, homosexuality, various scientific theories etc. etc. I think that it would be far easier to discuss these things if they each had their own thread.

I also think that we need to practise out debating skills. This, for example, is not useful:

"See! You are wrong! Read this for proof!: *link to random page*"

The problem with doing this is that you'll often be linking to some article that makes quite a number of points, and it's best not to debate a number of points at once. To keep things simple, summarise what you think is the best/most relevant point, and go from there.

Also, in my experience, the best way to argue with someone is to constantly ask the other person to clarify their argument. If something doesn't make sense about it, always assume that you're misinterpreting it. There are three good reasons for doing this. The first is that people will respond much better to you assuming that you're misinterpreting their argument, because in doing so, you are assuming that they've made a valid point and it's YOU that's making the mistake. The second is that once you know exactly what the other person is talking about, you can tell them exactly where you don't agree with them and why. This is an excellent way to avoid confusion. The third reason is that often when someone is asked to clarify their argument, they realise the flaws in it while attempting to do so and you never even need to say anything.

So... Religion/philosphy sub-forum anyone?

[VirtualWeasel]

We have a religion and philosophy thread.

[Moeboid]

We have a religion and philosophy thread.

I think we're going to need a lot more than one thread for this...

[VirtualWeasel]

Well, that's been discussed. And as far as I know, it isn't going to happen.

[Dark Lord Cam]

You guys should talk about this in the announcement thread

[Moeboid]

You guys should talk about this in the announcement thread

Was just about to... Unless you feel like this thread still has a purpose, I think it should be locked. No one is learning anything here

[Dark Lord Cam]

You made it. You asked it.