Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you want to refer to those during the discussion, if they are relevant, you can feel free.
Actually, I recall we were having a discussion, and you abruptly disappeared without what I would consider the courtesy to say... well... I don't know.... something at least.
Do you want to explain why I must accept theories. Is it because most scientists accept them?
I don't know how old the universe is, and I already said I don't believe it's a few thousand years old. Don't tell me you are getting Alzheimer disease. I wouldn't want that.
I understand that scientists need to use common sense. When one stops using common sense, then they cannot use reason.
How can I remember something I don't believe. Is this a brainwashing technique?
I don't know how old the universe is, and I already said I don't believe it's a few thousand years old. Don't tell me you are getting Alzheimer disease. I wouldn't want that.
Oh. I forgot, Septics on RF like to hear you repeat yourself. Maybe they feel the more one repeats themselves, they will evolve to a skeptic.
How can I remember something I don't believe. Is this a brainwashing technique?
The thread is here.
re·li·gion
The same applies to Atheist, and unbelievers.
You probably are not aware that people have doubts, and they discuss these before making up their mind to choose an alternative, to what they have doubts about.
Antony Garrard Newton Flew (/fluː/; 11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010) was an English philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, Flew was most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion. During the course of his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto.
There is only one truth, and many claims to that truth.
Yes.
My "deep knowledge of cosmology".
What did I understand wrong? Oh, what you might have been suggesting. I beg your pardon. Was I wrong about common sense also? You would have to explain in what sense.[/QUOTE]
A little over thirty years ago, when the universe was about 15 billion years old, were you clobbering someone over the head too. I hope none of them came up to you 35 years later, and laughed in your face.
Perhaps 30 years from now, we will be alive.
I won't laugh in you face either, but I may not hide the
You do cause me to marvel.
You kinda lost me momentarily
- less problematic, becomes 'kingpin'. - the best opinion.
What has man really done?
You kinda lost me momentarily
Are you trying to take away @sayak83 opportunity?
Are you a scientist?
I will discuss with you what we are on currently.
You say you are debating me, so in that case, I think you need to understand what I am saying.
In the first place, the links I posted.. They are probably science journals, and the 'they' are scientists.
You claimed that the individuals who oppose the theory "might simply be totally ignorant about the subject". Thanks for using the word 'may'.
This is squarely in line with the point of the OP.
It is not only the average person on the street that disagree with these theories.
There are scientists who disagree, also.
That was the purpose of those two links I posted.
So if you are going to blame ignorance on the average person, then perhaps the scientists are ignorant as well?
No?
Then they must be religious.
So? Religious people accept the theory.
No, it can be religion, but I don't see why it has to be.
Because scientists have different opinions and ideas - They all come to the table with different propositions.
The one that seems to be the - in my own words
So the way I see it,, it's not that anyone is ignorant (even though some persons know little), or religious (as many are).
At this point, I also want to specifically address @QuestioningMind who just posted his best opinion. It's about the fact that the limits of science forces it to use "the better explanation", or - in my own words
If it were not an opinion, there is nothing that could replace it, and no one would say "scientists assumed", or "scientists asserted" etc.,
Again @QuestioningMind, if your opinion were true, then I would not even mention BB, and cosmology on a whole, because there is no conflict with my understanding of the Bible.
However, the other unfounded assumptions that are pseudoscience clearly do.
Just one of many articles - What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)
What banged the Big Bang?
The bronze age book tells us. I believe it. I believe in creation. The word some hate to hear.
You said, sorry @viole I'm back to you, you behave as though one who does not agree with all science is denying truth, and therefore either ignorant, or according to Richard Dawkins the other things.
However, I think that works two ways. You see, I believe that it's simply blind faith driven by personal desire... may be fear too, that causes persons to think science is the sin parecido.
How can I describe that... It seems to me, that's far from the truth.
In the mid-1990s, observations of certain globular clusters appeared to indicate that they were about 15 billion years old
At that time, I'm quite sure that some would also have felt that anyone who did not accept this was ignorant of science, but I think it's the other way around. I think some forget what science is, and elevate it to a level it cannot reach. Then they claim they have no religion.
With regard to the video, In the OP, it really was not meant to be the focus, as I was more focused on the point that persons were changing their view based on the fact that there were things being presented in science as evidence... where they exist none.
Hypothetical seem to be the explanations for everything.
BB theory is considered by scientists, the best accepted idea for explaining some observed phenomenon in the universe, but to many, much of it seems to be pseudoscience.
For me, I don't see any of this as meaningful to me. See my thread here.
Whether the universe banged or blipped according to scientists, does not affect the fact that the universe exists, and will continue to exist, regardless of what scientists know, or don't know.
Whether the story told (I call it myth), is repeated a million times, does not change the facts about the universe with its billions of galaxies and heavenly bodies.
I don't see why any of these thing should mean anything to me. So you split the atom. So what? You smashed particles together. So what? How about smashing them at twice the speed, and see what happens.
I mean...
I look at my life, and I see greater things than any scientists can achieve. These things are spiritual, and have so much meaning. What can replace true inner joy peace and happiness? When you can share that with others and experience their joy, there is nothing greater.
No scientists can accomplish that. Besides they are totally committed to naturalism.
Now tell me... give me one good reason why I need that. Just one.
If the destroy humanity, what's left... and they are not far from that.
Only if it were up to them, but I believe in an intelligent designer - a creator. You think it's an assumption. Well I believe it's a better assumption. Although, to me, it's not an assumption. There is mountains of evidence - to use your term - for it.
Where is all the good use being put to so much knowledge. I don't see it.
I could go on, but then you would not read such a long post. So I'll stop at this point.
Do you want to talk about other things? Inflation?
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia
The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.
They even admit, the Big Bang singularity is an opinion. Obviously. How could they know there was a singularity? How could they know the rate of speed of the expansion throughout time?
It's all conjecture.
Okay. I'm done. (Too much to spell check)
Claiming that people claim that people have a religious agenda when those people don't claim that people claim that people have a religious agenda is a straw man. I think.
Here it comes...
"scientific myths and fairytales"? An obvious indication of an agenda.
You started off by providing the first evidence to support that view.
An obvious falsehood based on the evidence immediately provided. Your evidence says, agenda.
Designed to establish the religious agenda as common sense. Again, part of the religious agenda. The common sense of creationists has not been established. I do not see it as common or having that much sense.
A claim based on a religious belief with no evidence to support it at all. An opinion and not a very sensible or rational one given the evidence that is available in any science textbook.
Once again, a very large claim with nothing to support it. The reasons for conversion are many and among the lists I found using YOUR search criteria, nothing was mentioned about science.
I did the search and the lists that I found were not that large and did not list science or bad science as the cause of any of the conversions. There was no single view that was magnetizing the majority of converts and it covered the gamut from simple deism, general theism, and spiritualism to Hinduism, Catholicism, the Quaker faith and a variety of others including undeclared. You like to make a lot of general statements that do not hold water.
Meaningless and unsupported. Considering the mix I have seen, not even a useful adjective to describe the numbers and the specific faith. More of your empty hyperbole.
An hour long video offered for the sole purpose of overwhelming the audience with a time consuming message that most will not have the opportunity to view, so anything that you wish can be said about it with impunity. I doubt seriously, that you understand that much about the claims and descriptions that overlap science in an effort to put a religious view in place by default.
Bad science is the effort that you are making. You have your agenda and attempting to fit the evidence to that agenda, while ignoring or discrediting any science that you cannot force into your agenda.
Certainly. Out of the ashes of this thread of bad and false ideas that you extol, there may come some knowledge and wisdom as well as recognition of some of the means that creationists use to forward their agenda.
It would have been nice if you had started off on that foot, but I think it is a little late for that now, even as a facade.Here it comes...
your ignorance of not understanding
ROFL
To be honest,
Too much honesty for you?
It is about establishing a false story about science. creating the false dichotomy of good science and bad science, where bad science is any science that conflicts or contradicts your beliefs, and it is about bashing atheism, atheists, agnostics, other religions and other Christians. Isn't that what all your posts are about?
That does not mean the grinding does not need to be done, and, since your opinion has little merit, probably not even accurate.
Except to all atheists and non-JW theists that you have been bashing from the get-go.
Do you consider this the proper attitude to address everyone that dissents from your views or points out a fact that you seem oblivious to?
From reading his post and the posts of others responding to you, understanding of this thread by others is universal in the context.
And you close by bashing him and insulting him.
There are two types of 'bad science' here. One is the actual bad science, where the evidence is selectively gathered or excluded in an effort to forcibly support a preconceived idea. This is the real bad science.
I cannot fathom why courtesy is even a consideration for you. Except, as here, to use in order to berate someone that you cannot address civilly and on point.
You have described yourself to a tee, except it is you that is confronted by mountains of evidence.
It seems a core issue for you. It bothers you greatly and you mention it constantly.
What religious beliefs? Science is not a religion or a religious belief. You have already established, and with much condescension, that you recognize some theists are scientists. If science is accepted and practiced by theists and atheists, it hardly makes sense that it is a religion. Remember that common sense you mentioned. Note how it is lacking your claims.
I asked that question many times when you responded to my posts. I ask it now, while you establish your not religion, religious agenda.
Because it comes down to belief against physical reality and the sound, logical method of understanding that physical reality.
You can keep repeating it, but I do not think anyone is buying it. Your religious agenda is obvious.
This is hardly a revelation and does not say what you are implying. Scientists, religious or atheist argue about the details of the theory. They change their views on those details. They discuss new ideas and findings. Sometimes these are accepted and sometimes they are rejected. The theory still stands and not because they believed it away or believed it into being.
Random noise that says nothing.
It is an honest, objective and well-supported position that you continually provide more evidence for support.