The weirdness of religion

[Kishiro]

Dr.McDoom! Knight_of_NI there is a god and there names are juses and god an dthe bible is the most oldest thing on earth so and ive been going to church my all my life but i have douts here and there but in my school christ beats everything agist wicca

Umm. What did you just say?

Anyway, you are apparently a raving lunatic, and are unable to formulate proper words or sentences...

Regardless, the Bible is NOT the oldest thing on Earth. I have no idea what a "juses" is... I am going to assume that is supposed to be Jesus.

It is sad when people trying to promote their religion can't even speak properly, and whats worse, have no clue what they are talking about...

[Marie2007]

Religions aren't weird really it all depends on the history of the religion that makes it weird and somewhat confusing but we should all respect other religions

[DemonToaster]

Sometimes, religions can be really confusing. Sometimes, things are better left unexplained.

[FarEastStyle]

Will you PLEASE cease in your incessant switching of colors? It makes your text bleeding impossible to read, and even harder to quote.

Calm down I didn't mean to overload your brain with white and off white words.

Big bang does make sense, from a scientific point of view: While scientific acceptance of a theory doesen't necessarily require it to have absolute proof, but rather be the most plausible theory. In this case, big bang makes sense from multiple scieitific points of views, ranging from astronomy to quantum physics. Look at it the other way; there is little to no alternative scientific theory with any sort of empirical evidence supporting it.

The word "Evolution" has many (6) meanings, only one of which is scientific.
1.) Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Question: How can something come from nothing?

If the majority of the american population truly believes that the earth is 8000 years old, I'm truly sorry for the ignorance that has spread in your country. That makes no sense what so ever. How do you explain C14-dated fossiles that are older than 8000 years? Pre-Homo Sapiens humanoid skulls, dinosaurs?

The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history.

Creation of a planet the size of ours requires revidation of the very foundation of our science, the first law of thermodynamics(that states that energy can nor be created or destroyed), that this far has been immutable and the basis of a huge portion of what we today call physics would have to be changed.

Physics show that six day creation is possible.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

The word "Evolution" has many (6) meanings, only one of which is scientific.
1.) Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Question: How can something come from nothing?

Because, in a rare instance Wiktionary leaves something to be desired...

noun Definition: 1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.

2. biology developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material

3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form
i.e. the evolution of democracy in Western Europe

4. pattern caused by movement: a pattern formed by a series of movements

5. physics giving off heat or gas: the emission of heat, gas, or vapor

6. mathematics finding root of number: an algebraic operation in which the root, e.g. the square root or cube root, of a number is found.
See also involution (sense 6)

7. military military exercise: a military exercise or maneuver carried out according to a plan

1 & 2 are Scientific, 3 used in History, 4 used in Science and Math, 5 Scientific, 6 Mathematical and 7 is used in military. So you're right about 3 & 7. Unless you conceder History and Military to be sciences. Some people do.


As for "How Can Something Be Created from Nothing?"
The same thing can be applied to a god. As neither is explainable, your point is moot.

The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Unless you believe that fossils are still alive and capable of moving through the ground, then we can be certain of an approximate time of death, depending on method used.

Physics show that six day creation is possible.

Please explain, or cite where you read that so I can laugh at you properly.

[FarEastStyle]

Please explain, or cite where you read that so I can laugh at you properly.

Don't rely on Wiki so much. If you want to laugh be my guest.

Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the "Big Bang". During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.

The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.

Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Albert Einstein rejected the idea that Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the convictions that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true." How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein’s work has shown to be entirely possible.

[Bibi of the Blue Sea]

it all makes sense to me...
thats why i am Catholic. it explains all in such a sweet way.

big bang and evolution are theories. i learned and read them, yet my faith is still there. just because science collides heavily with religion doesn't mean you should denounce an entire religion. people have different beliefs and they are free to choose whatever it may be.
come on people, lets not argue here.

for anyone who is Cathoilc or just knows: what is the 4th sacrament? and whats the 6th? i know these: 1. baptismal, 2. communion, 3. confession, 5. marriage, 7. last rites
i just need the other two. oh and if someone dies before 5 and 6 what happens? or what if they dont complete all 7??

i find these confusing...

[akiko_kalla]

The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.

Well, first of all most children learn about the creation of the world from their parents and religion before they ever go to school. That aside, people used to think the Earth was the center of the universe, they even used to think the sun revolved around the Earth. Surely there could be no other planets...(See Copernicus and Galileo) This is simply not true and I never got the impression from reading the bible that it was the center either. The focus of this particular work of god, yes, but not the center of all his creations. In fact, I find it rather egotistical for us to think we are the only creation like this. As far as the edge of the universe, until someone can go to the "edge" and see the argument will go on. But just because a concept is difficult for our brains to fathom, doesn't mean it is untrue. Science cannot prove everything yet, and indeed there may be some things it never does, but that doesn't mean it is false. Science changes as new truths are uncovered, I cannot say the same for most religions. I'm not saying, don't believe in religion because of science for religion is important in many lives, but to believe something blindly with no thought--be it science or religion--is dangerous. Many of those whose discoveries appeared anti-religious were religious in their personal lives. They just often believed that god gave man a brain for a reason and expect him to use it.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Don't rely on Wiki so much. If you want to laugh be my guest.

Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the "Big Bang". During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.

The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.

Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Albert Einstein rejected the idea that Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the convictions that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true." How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein’s work has shown to be entirely possible.

Don't rely on the bible so much.

I did laugh. I have to point out the creation of the solar system didn't happen anytime near the timeframe you are talking about. You're off by many billions of years. The only timeframe with especially large differences in time throughout is very, very early after the big bang. After Atoms formed, everything mostly evened out, time-space wise.

But even if what you said was true...

It's a moot point. If a god exists and is omnipotent he could magic himself up old universe. So why bother playing with physics when it doesn't matter. The whole "going by time in heaven" explanation for earth is stupid. You're grasping at straws to legitimize something that isn't provable anyway you cut it. A god could have created the world last week, but none of us would know it, no? But I still believe I have lived for 20 years, and so I have. There are no such things as facts, just observations.

@akiko_kalla: Congrats for being Christian while not being Anti-Scientific. I wish more Christians thought that way.

@bibi of the blue sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sacraments

 

Before you say anything about me swaying my opinion, I'm not an Atheist. I'm Agnostic. My point is you can't prove god exists, any more than I can prove he doesn't. I take the contrary side because you act as though the existence of god is self-apparent. It isn't.

[Bibi of the Blue Sea]

and so it continues....

[akiko_kalla]

@akiko_kalla: Congrats for being Christian while not being Anti-Scientific. I wish more Christians thought that way.

Wait, I'm Christian?

Hehe, I appreciate the sentiment though. I have nothing against Christianity, was raised Catholic myself, but my path lies elsewhere.

[German_Sniper9]

Well i dont understand this one religion
you cant eat,drink,sleep(with someone),ect
for 30 days....
thats weird, well i dont understand it so its weird to me

[akiko_kalla]

Well i dont understand this one religion
you cant eat,drink,sleep(with someone),ect
for 30 days....
thats weird, well i dont understand it so its weird to me

Why not ask someone who follows that religion to explain it to you so you understand why they do it?

[German_Sniper9]

Why not ask someone who follows that religion to explain it to you so you understand why they do it?

i dont know anyone who follows it,
its from the middle east, thats all i know

[akiko_kalla]

You could start with a google search then, look up the religion by its name or just search for Middle Eastern Religions? It's just that deeming something as weird because you don't understand it frequently leads to fear/dislike of those who might follow the religion. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but it happens a lot. Once people understand why a ritual/tradition/etc. is used, people can usually relate it to something within their own experiences.

[FarEastStyle]

Don't rely on the bible so much.
I did laugh.
I have to point out the creation of the solar system didn't happen anytime near the timeframe you are talking about. You're off by many billions of years. The only timeframe with especially large differences in time throughout is very, very early after the big bang. After Atoms formed, everything mostly evened out, time-space wise.

Universe comes from Latin. It means "single" and "spoken sentence".
Despite what you have been led to believe, there are no dating methods which give an absolute date for the formation of the earth. All dating methods are based on non-provable assumptions about some event in the past. Furthermore, there is a strong bias to reject any dating method which does not allow enough time for evolution to have happened.

But even if what you said was true...

Have you looked at what your saying?..

It's a moot point. If a god exists and is omnipotent he could magic himself up old universe. So why bother playing with physics when it doesn't matter. The whole "going by time in heaven" explanation for earth is stupid. You're grasping at straws to legitimize something that isn't provable anyway you cut it. A god could have created the world last week, but none of us would know it, no? But I still believe I have lived for 20 years, and so I have. There are no such things as facts, just observations.

The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Now you must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of your belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity? Who lied to you?.. wait don't answer that.

Smore? Otay!
1.) MicroEvolution or Variation within kinds = Only this type of evolution has been observed.
2.) MacroEvolution = Nope, haven't seen that.
3.) Sponteneous Generation / Organic Evolution = Nope, haven't seen that.
4.) Stellar Evolution = Nope, haven't seen that.
5.) Chemical Evolution = Nope, havent't seen that.
6.) Cosmic evolution = Nope, haven't seen that either.

We do see lots of variations.
We do see adaptations to the environment.
But they have nothing to do with the first five.
The first five are religious because people believe it without any first-hand evidence.
And if that's the case, why is The Evolution 5 is Tax Supported?.

Religion: Definition 4: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

[Inuyashayoukai2]

see i beleive that there is a god Particle in this Universe thats controls all the functions and events in the plane od existence. I researched a little into what Stephen Hawking did and tahst what seems pretty good to me. plus why would god creatre such an amazing place and disappear with no trace of his existence

[Kishiro]

Universe comes from Latin. It means "single" and "spoken sentence".
Despite what you have been led to believe, there are no dating methods which give an absolute date for the formation of the earth. All dating methods are based on non-provable assumptions about some event in the past. Furthermore, there is a strong bias to reject any dating method which does not allow enough time for evolution to have happened.


Have you looked at what your saying?..

The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Now you must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of your belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity? Who lied to you?.. wait don't answer that.

Smore? Otay!
1.) MicroEvolution or Variation within kinds = Only this type of evolution has been observed.
2.) MacroEvolution = Nope, haven't seen that.
3.) Sponteneous Generation / Organic Evolution = Nope, haven't seen that.
4.) Stellar Evolution = Nope, haven't seen that.
5.) Chemical Evolution = Nope, havent't seen that.
6.) Cosmic evolution = Nope, haven't seen that either.

We do see lots of variations.
We do see adaptations to the environment.
But they have nothing to do with the first five.
The first five are religious because people believe it without any first-hand evidence.
And if that's the case, why is The Evolution 5 is Tax Supported?.

Religion: Definition 4: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You really seem silly, trying to preach physics to us to dispell the theory of the Big Bang, and then you turn around and talk about creation. The only person not looking at things logcially is you. And quite honestly, I hate the attitude and frame of mind that people like you carry.

"I'M RIGHT ON EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME, AND THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MY ERROR, BECAUSE I DON'T MAKE MISTAKES. MY WORD IS LAW."

Whether it be fanatic (that best describes you in this case), fanboy, or just a misinformed, or ignorantly reluctant person (hmm, that also may suit you), it all spews out the same from the bowels of retardation. And it is just plain annoying to all of us that look at things objectively, whilst people like you look at things subjectively.

After all, if matter cannot be be created or destroyed, just transformed, then how is that deity is possible to exist, and can break those laws?

Oh wait, YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH. So which is it Far East Style? Are you preaching to us? Or are you contradicting yourself by trying to tell us things we already know about physics to try and disprove scientific theories, while at the same time, disproving your own Bible stories?

[Bibi of the Blue Sea]

Well i dont understand this one religion
you cant eat,drink,sleep(with someone),ect
for 30 days....
thats weird, well i dont understand it so its weird to me

you mean the holy month of ramadan that muslims follow?
just ask someone who is muslim. they will tell you that they do eat and drink. its only before sunrise and after sunset.

i'm not muslim but i do like reading about other religions and asking believers about their beliefs and customs.

and for those that dont understand thermodynamics: the 1st law states energy is conserved. and thermodynamics falls under chemistry (not physics although the second law of thermo is applied to many physics theories)

[FarEastStyle]

You really seem silly, trying to preach physics to us to dispell the theory of the Big Bang, and then you turn around and talk about creation. The only person not looking at things logcially is you. And quite honestly, I hate the attitude and frame of mind that people like you carry.

"I'M RIGHT ON EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME, AND THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MY ERROR, BECAUSE I DON'T MAKE MISTAKES. MY WORD IS LAW."

Whether it be fanatic (that best describes you in this case), fanboy, or just a misinformed, or ignorantly reluctant person (hmm, that also may suit you), it all spews out the same from the bowels of retardation. And it is just plain annoying to all of us that look at things objectively, whilst people like you look at things subjectively.

After all, if matter cannot be be created or destroyed, just transformed, then how is that deity is possible to exist, and can break those laws?

Oh wait, YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH. So which is it Far East Style? Are you preaching to us? Or are you contradicting yourself by trying to tell us things we already know about physics to try and disprove scientific theories, while at the same time, disproving your own Bible stories?

I hope you enjoy that, by the way, I like FarEastStyle to be one word if you don't mind. I haven't told you anything yet so hold that thought.
I wasn't preaching, and if you so happen to notice science and Creation goes quite well together.
Now before I get started on you what type of Evolutionist are you?

[Bibi of the Blue Sea]

and so it begins (again) xP

FarEastStyle, by stellar evolution do you mean the development of star systems? or would that be cosmic evolution? and what do you mean by macroevolution? would you consider that to be evolution seen on a large scale?

if so, macroevolution itself is hard to prove or disprove since no one can actually sit and watch the species change over time. this is the main reason darwin's and the other evolutionists' thoeries will stay as theories.

[FarEastStyle]

and so it begins (again) xP

FarEastStyle, by stellar evolution do you mean the development of star systems? or would that be cosmic evolution? and what do you mean by macroevolution? would you consider that to be evolution seen on a large scale?

if so, macroevolution itself is hard to prove or disprove since no one can actually sit and watch the species change over time. this is the main reason darwin's and the other evolutionists' thoeries will stay as theories.

This is what I mean.

1.) Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

2.) Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3.) Stellar and planetary evolution- origin of stars and planets.

4.) Organic evolution. Origin of life.

5.) Macro-evolution. Origin of major kinds.

6.) Micro-evolution. Variations within kinds. Only this type of evolution has been observed.

[Inuyashayoukai2]

ok Despite all this religion talk there is only one purpsoe in life and that is to create life and anything else is jsut what we feel that we need to do

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I don't even know why I bother arguing with you FES. The rules of logical debate don't apply to you, apparently. You just go off on weird tangents that have little to do with what I talk about, and contradict yourself constantly.

I'm just going to say this slowly...

• According to the Bible (which if you believe in Creationism you follow closely), God is omnipotent.
• If God is omnipotent, why can't he create something from nothing?
• A omnipotent god could just magic up a universe in progress.
• If the first law of thermodynamics applies to god, he isn't omnipotent and the Bible is wrong.
• So either the Bible is wrong, or you are applying laws to God that don't matter to him.

You take your pick.

[Kishiro]

I don't even know why I bother arguing with you FES. The rules of logical debate don't apply to you, apparently. You just go off on weird tangents that have little to do with what I talk about, and contradict yourself constantly.

I'm just going to say this slowly...

• According to the Bible (which if you believe in Creationism you follow closely), God is omnipotent.
• If God is omnipotent, why can't he create something from nothing?
• A omnipotent god could just magic up a universe in progress.
• If the first law of thermodynamics applies to god, he isn't omnipotent and the Bible is wrong.
• So either the Bible is wrong, or you are applying laws to God that don't matter to him.

You take your pick.

Thank you. You've condensed and stream lined the point I was trying to make.

Its one or the other. Not both.
Can you dig it, Far



East











Style?



And yes, I did rather enjoy it.