Jb
Tsun in the streets
Comming from someone that chooses to belive it, yes.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.
- Thread starter Surfing_Pikachu
- Start date
- Status
Comming from someone that chooses to belive it, yes.
Empoleon Bonaparte
Well-Known Member
Then why question those who believe in the big bang theory?
Jb
Tsun in the streets
I didn't, I just said I don't belive it, the same way others don't belive in a God.
But I don't think people can even take the Big Bang Theory as sereiously as Religion, from a defenceive point,atleast. Just my thought on it.
Last edited:
I don't want to sound rude here, but I feel this is a necessary point to make: the Big Bang theory is supported by other proven scientific laws. Creationism, or even God for that matter, are not supported by proven scientific laws.
So, to say that one who doesn't accept the Big Bang is the same as one who doesn't believe in God misses the entire point that BBT is based on fact, but God is based on faith.
I have studied some of the Big Bang theory. I just do not see how it is supported.
(I know that gravity is a theory, and we still don't know what gravity even is)
Okay, so basically the big bang theory states that everything in the universe came from a single "cosmic egg", right? A ball of tightly packed matter? And where did the ball of matter come from in the first place, you tell me. You can't; it's a shortcoming of that theory. There is no scientific proof to tell anyone where that first "egg" came from.
There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:
(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
My source for all this information: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs-gods-word
And you ask me "where did God come from then?"
I don't know.
But your explanation is no better.
(I know that gravity is a theory, and we still don't know what gravity even is)
Okay, so basically the big bang theory states that everything in the universe came from a single "cosmic egg", right? A ball of tightly packed matter? And where did the ball of matter come from in the first place, you tell me. You can't; it's a shortcoming of that theory. There is no scientific proof to tell anyone where that first "egg" came from.
There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:
(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
My source for all this information: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs-gods-word
And you ask me "where did God come from then?"
I don't know.
But your explanation is no better.
Empoleon Bonaparte
Well-Known Member
yay biased sources
But yes, nothing can be proved. The evidence for the existence of God is just as circumstancial as that for the big bang theory.
Why would you regard an evolutionist as an authority on the Big Bang theory? Evolution is biology, the Big Bang is physics.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Yeah, I've seen people go over this again and again. The Big Bang and evolutionary theory, just because they are in conjunction to our world as we percieve it here and now...are separate lines of study.
There are some thing in science that for the sake of reasoning and the continuity of a consistant theory, we accept. In some cases we can even prove it, but the individual without the money or resources cannot, so they question its existence. It's like a crossword puzzle. If you've already figured out four letters of a seven letter word then it's valid to make an educated guess about what the word is.
Happy 2011, everybody.
There are some thing in science that for the sake of reasoning and the continuity of a consistant theory, we accept. In some cases we can even prove it, but the individual without the money or resources cannot, so they question its existence. It's like a crossword puzzle. If you've already figured out four letters of a seven letter word then it's valid to make an educated guess about what the word is.
Happy 2011, everybody.
... There's just so much to say.
Hubble's law that basically says that the Universe is expanding, for one, which, if you were to put too much air in a balloon, wouldn't the rubber expand?
Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Gravity is a natural phenomenon and a force that objects create and exert onto other objects. This force gives objects weight. This force can also create something of an attraction between two objects, like how the planets are attracted around the sun. Gravity is also one of the fundamental forces of nature.
So matter can't just exist, but an almighty, flawless deity can just exist? You're setting up a "first cause" argument, however if you abide by the rules of cause and effect, then a first cause cannot exist, as every cause is the result of an effect which is the result of a cause, and so on. That is, of course, if you abide by the rules of cause and effect.
Quantum physics, which is a branch of science, basically says that some things can happen for no reason and that these just-happenings don't necessarily disturb the laws of physics. For a LOT more, you could read this. But to illustrate the concept of quantum physics as it relates to the Big Bang through a metaphor:
What is north of Mexico?
The US.
What is north of the US?
Canada.
What is north of Canada?
The Arctic Circle.
What is north of the Arctic Circle?
The North Pole.
What is north of the North Pole?
Nothing, as the North Pole is the northernmost point on Earth.
The one flaw with this argument is that it assumes that the Big Bang gave birth to an ordered universe (which, interestingly enough, is contradicted in the third point.) Nothing in the universe is uniform. Stars are not assembled in rows and columns. Comets do not move in the same direction. The laws of physics on Earth, such as gravity, are radically different on the moon, on Jupiter, etc. If anything, all the examples are terrific metaphors for the big bang. A toolbox is matter and a dynamite is the bang, and the resulting mess is the universe.
These orbiting motions are, for one, caused by gravitational pull. Second, our solar system in relation to the universe is comparable to a pebble in relation to a skyscraper. Third, if you were to drop a pebble from a skyscraper and look at the resulting mess, the pieces would be scattered, but still relatively close. If you were to look at our solar system, all the pieces are scattered, but they are still relatively close.
Again, this point supports theories on the Big Bang. In order for two completely opposite regions to have the same amount of background radiation, then those two regions had to, at one point, be extremely close to each other and then quickly separate, which is consistent with the idea of an explosion: if i blew up my hand, my thumb and little finger would be extremely close and then in the next moment be feet apart.
And if that doesn't satisfy you:
Then perhaps we should define whether or not the Universe is ordered or chaotic.
Hubble's law that basically says that the Universe is expanding, for one, which, if you were to put too much air in a balloon, wouldn't the rubber expand?
Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Gravity is a natural phenomenon and a force that objects create and exert onto other objects. This force gives objects weight. This force can also create something of an attraction between two objects, like how the planets are attracted around the sun. Gravity is also one of the fundamental forces of nature.
So matter can't just exist, but an almighty, flawless deity can just exist? You're setting up a "first cause" argument, however if you abide by the rules of cause and effect, then a first cause cannot exist, as every cause is the result of an effect which is the result of a cause, and so on. That is, of course, if you abide by the rules of cause and effect.
Quantum physics, which is a branch of science, basically says that some things can happen for no reason and that these just-happenings don't necessarily disturb the laws of physics. For a LOT more, you could read this. But to illustrate the concept of quantum physics as it relates to the Big Bang through a metaphor:
What is north of Mexico?
The US.
What is north of the US?
Canada.
What is north of Canada?
The Arctic Circle.
What is north of the Arctic Circle?
The North Pole.
What is north of the North Pole?
Nothing, as the North Pole is the northernmost point on Earth.
The one flaw with this argument is that it assumes that the Big Bang gave birth to an ordered universe (which, interestingly enough, is contradicted in the third point.) Nothing in the universe is uniform. Stars are not assembled in rows and columns. Comets do not move in the same direction. The laws of physics on Earth, such as gravity, are radically different on the moon, on Jupiter, etc. If anything, all the examples are terrific metaphors for the big bang. A toolbox is matter and a dynamite is the bang, and the resulting mess is the universe.
These orbiting motions are, for one, caused by gravitational pull. Second, our solar system in relation to the universe is comparable to a pebble in relation to a skyscraper. Third, if you were to drop a pebble from a skyscraper and look at the resulting mess, the pieces would be scattered, but still relatively close. If you were to look at our solar system, all the pieces are scattered, but they are still relatively close.
Again, this point supports theories on the Big Bang. In order for two completely opposite regions to have the same amount of background radiation, then those two regions had to, at one point, be extremely close to each other and then quickly separate, which is consistent with the idea of an explosion: if i blew up my hand, my thumb and little finger would be extremely close and then in the next moment be feet apart.
And if that doesn't satisfy you:
Then perhaps we should define whether or not the Universe is ordered or chaotic.
IMPERIAL DRAGON
Enemy Of Reality
Modern religion is holding us back, there’s no doubt in my mind, and that’d due to religions influence bleeding into strictly non-religious issues. Christianity does provide appropriate moral guidance for many aspects of life, that intention is noble, but followers of religion often misinterpret age old doctrine to suit their own individual beliefs and agendas, which poses a distinct threat to human progress and to general harmony (religion meddling in scientific advances and Islamic fundamentalism say a big hello). A vast majority of Christians are harmless, what they believe grants them with a certain degree of comfort and happiness, something which I fully condone and support, but I personally believe Christianity would be best served as a more insular organisation. Like minded individuals meeting to share in worship is fine and should be widely accepted, but unfortunately we all know of the somewhat unaccepting nature Christianity has towards certain sections of society, although that isn’t my point.
My main concern comes with the intervention of religion in irrelevant situations, specifically, politics and science. Much of the bible’s moral teachings are relevant today, but Christianity itself cannot claim responsibility for the basic steps towards common sense humanity has taken. Thou shalt not kill is a perfect example of an appropriate commandment, but others, such as not committing adultery, is more frowned upon, still wrong, but not in the league of murder. Basic guide lines are helpful to society, but that’s pretty much where Christianity’s usefulness ends.
I’m not against Christians, but those optional beliefs should hold no sway over our progress. When people say stem cell research is against god, or abortion is against god, is when religious people lose their integrity in my opinion. A belief should be a simple thing, if you’re against an issue, don’t concern yourself with it, but the fact that people try to apply religion to issues that don’t even affect them, is what truly baffles me. When individuals use religion to restrict progress is when the cons of Christianity’s influence on culture become apparent. It’s ironic really, many politically minded Christians protest against abortion, claiming it as murder and somehow connect the issue to god, yet fiercely oppose stem cell research? Same deal as when some religious sects refuse blood transfusions or using medical advancements to save them, because they are labouring under the assumption they are already ‘saved’. Stem cell research is necessary to concur many of the ailments mankind has previously been unable to control, yet with one hand, Christians condemn abortion as murder, but also condemn stem cell research with the other, despite its potential to save lives? They apply god to science and make it a question of what we shouldn’t be allowed to do, instead of what we can accomplish.
Basically, I’d much rather we as a society could become an evolved culture, free of religious intervention, where science and technology were treated as the new faith so we can concentrate on something useful instead of waiting to see who draws last blood in the next holy war.
My main concern comes with the intervention of religion in irrelevant situations, specifically, politics and science. Much of the bible’s moral teachings are relevant today, but Christianity itself cannot claim responsibility for the basic steps towards common sense humanity has taken. Thou shalt not kill is a perfect example of an appropriate commandment, but others, such as not committing adultery, is more frowned upon, still wrong, but not in the league of murder. Basic guide lines are helpful to society, but that’s pretty much where Christianity’s usefulness ends.
I’m not against Christians, but those optional beliefs should hold no sway over our progress. When people say stem cell research is against god, or abortion is against god, is when religious people lose their integrity in my opinion. A belief should be a simple thing, if you’re against an issue, don’t concern yourself with it, but the fact that people try to apply religion to issues that don’t even affect them, is what truly baffles me. When individuals use religion to restrict progress is when the cons of Christianity’s influence on culture become apparent. It’s ironic really, many politically minded Christians protest against abortion, claiming it as murder and somehow connect the issue to god, yet fiercely oppose stem cell research? Same deal as when some religious sects refuse blood transfusions or using medical advancements to save them, because they are labouring under the assumption they are already ‘saved’. Stem cell research is necessary to concur many of the ailments mankind has previously been unable to control, yet with one hand, Christians condemn abortion as murder, but also condemn stem cell research with the other, despite its potential to save lives? They apply god to science and make it a question of what we shouldn’t be allowed to do, instead of what we can accomplish.
Basically, I’d much rather we as a society could become an evolved culture, free of religious intervention, where science and technology were treated as the new faith so we can concentrate on something useful instead of waiting to see who draws last blood in the next holy war.
AzukanAsimbu
Petal Paladin
^ i agree with you
evolutionrex
The Awesome Atheist
Well put.
Christianity has good morals, but the fact is that people don't need a religion in order to tell what's good or bad. I personally have helped out many people and have done many good things in my life; if you met me you'd think i was one of those people who help out in church. I very well know i shouldn't kill or steal and i don't do it becuase I'm afraid of going to hell, i just use my common sense. Killing people means getting rid of a life, which in my opinion is valuable no matter what kind of life it is.
Without the believe of God(s) and some modern religious beliefs, scientist can work on important things; first thing that comes to mind is Global Warming and Stem Cell research. I highly support the research, and i support abortion. i don't support it becuase of the life that is took away but becuase it's for science. We could learn a lot about stem cells, and general biology. Same goes with cloning, which in my opinion is more useful than stem cell research. If people stopped complaining and saying it's unethical, then we'll never be able to make good use out of it. If scientist can learn of to clone reptiles and birds, and learn how to make animals that can breed then we can save endangered species. Science can do so much good if people stopped complaining on what's ethical or not.
Darkhalo-s
Member
my opinion is in the bottom part of my signature.
Zenotwapal
have a drink on me
This comment.
Makes more sense than a lot of the religion bashing going on here.
(atleast the stuff I have read.)
And I totally agree with said comment.
It's not the religion itself, its the people who carry on with it.
Last edited:
Empoleon Bonaparte
Well-Known Member
But is it not the religion that drives these people to carry on with it?
Yes, but I believe what they are saying is that the religion itself is - I'm not sure how to word this - innocent or noble in what it attempts to do. I mean, yes, Chrsitianity has its flaws and some passages in the Bible make you go "...the ****?" but, my take, is that it ultimately tries to teach the value of forgiveness. All religions try to tell or illustrate valuable lessons or morals. It is the people that get dependent or obsessive over the religion that are the problem.
I don't know if that's always an accurate way to express it.
Religions claim a truth about the nonphysical world, and they then promise the key to happiness/peace/salvation/honor/whathaveyou according to that claim, and give a set of rules or guidelines (or rituals, to be technical) you need to obey to earn this key. Religions serve to provide comfort and structure, and relief from the fear of mortality, to whatever population they exist in.
The value or morality of any religion only exists insofar as it serves that religion's purpose. If you ask me, people bring their values and moral intuitions to their religion (rather than deriving them all from their religion), and then define them in terms of the situations the religion calls attention to.
tl;dr - Religions give you rules to achieve whatever particular afterlife condition they're promising; they don't necessarily contain lessons or morals developed by the religion and extrapolated outside of it.
Surfing_Pikachu
____________
Well, who exactly is to say our universe is orderly? Not only do quantum physics debunk that, but we can't really say our universe is organized considering there isn't another one we know of to compare it with.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
I think this is very insightful. As far as the commandments go, and the morals that a religion teaches, I think those are meant to be laws for the coexistance of a society, and not strictly moral or inspirational. They're political, really, intended for a state that is built solely on the book of those laws.
I think that it's inaccurate to say "it's not the religion, it's the person", because in many cases it's the person who makes the religion better by using their own judgement, and this is not because of the religion - perhaps it is because of the effect the religion has on them, or, okay, the power of the Holy Spirit - but it was their own initiative they took that made them do what they did, not the religion. But they attribute it to the church, and then when somebody attacks the church, they feel like they're attacking them, and that's when the confusion starts, because the initiative came from them in the first place, the church is just the abstract congregation of people, it takes the people to actually do good things.
IMPERIAL DRAGON
Enemy Of Reality
It can go either way. Some people may be inspired by bible teachings to better themselves, to translate notions of forgiveness, right & wrong into something practical, but it’s the opposite end of the spectrum that poses the problems. Those who take scripture too literally and embark on mini morality crusades to spread the word that god hates fags/ science/ whatever are either too dim to understand religious teachings in the proper or appropriate context, or so deluded that they look to the bible for a set of social opinions to abide by.
Modern day Christians are quite impotent as a whole when you think about it, and I mean no disrespect with this comment, but they’ve been reduced to religiously motivated whiners. The crusades are over, no one’s being burnt at the stake anymore, in today’s society, the concerned Christian invades politics with protest and complaints, which, while annoying, is pretty harmless providing their meddling in certain issues is restricted. In modern times, Islam provides a greater threat, partly due to questionable quotes from the Quran that advocate violence, but mainly due to the expanding support of fundamentalism.
Modern day Christians are quite impotent as a whole when you think about it, and I mean no disrespect with this comment, but they’ve been reduced to religiously motivated whiners. The crusades are over, no one’s being burnt at the stake anymore, in today’s society, the concerned Christian invades politics with protest and complaints, which, while annoying, is pretty harmless providing their meddling in certain issues is restricted. In modern times, Islam provides a greater threat, partly due to questionable quotes from the Quran that advocate violence, but mainly due to the expanding support of fundamentalism.
- Status