Why I hate religion.

[Guest]

You're confusing enthusiastic amateurs who believe in science with scientists. Scientists never say they are 100% right unless it's been irrefutably proven. That's why is "The Big Bang THEORY" and not theorem. Their entire world is based on saying "I don't know", then trying to figure it out.

 

The very thing you seem to be mocking (the development and evolution of a theory through time) is the very reason science works so well and the reason we've been able to forge some sort of understanding of incredibly complex things like quantum physics or the theory of spacetime. You can't just pluck the complete right answer out of thin air without thinking about the basic concepts first.

 

 

You are right my beef was never with scientist. Its with people who cling to the theories like a religion then try to refute others beliefs. Its from mistakes and failures science learns the most. They dont get it right the first time and some things we might not ever know. But they will make an educated guess right or wrong. With that being the case Science isnt the best thing to base your beliefs on and certainly not to argue against others.

[jacky67]

Err, most of this is incorrect, but instead of pointing everything out, I will direct your attention to Darwin's finches and let you draw your own conclusion.

 

Everything i told is correct, probably bad explain and with shortcut but correct ,just watch the theory they had in physics or biologie 200-300 years ago ,or everey 5 years some medecine are forbidden because they have bad effects they wasn't aware(i don't tell physics or biology are useless ) . I would be glad if you could point my mistakes .

 

 

My main point was the issue people have with religion is about the theory of evolution , wich is a biology theory and was never prooved ;

bioly scientist are the less rigorous scientist and it's not surprizing they are the guy who will tell you "i'm sure god doesn't exist " .

 

 

The only thing sure about god is actually no one can prove he exist or don't exist ,

so any guy like the thread author who will tell "religion is idiotic ,science is the truth god don't exist" is as religious as other religious people .

 

When you believe "god don't exist" you believe in something , so it's all about your faith and faith =religion .

[Guest]

No they don't. Why on earth do you keep repeating that?

 

I don't know how much you've watched or listened to in terms of documentaries on the subject but just youtubing the first video for "universe inflation explained" - just watch the first 2 minutes of that and listen to how many times he says "we don't know" or "there is a lot of uncertainty".

 

Again i wasn't talking about Scientist. As i clarified in my last post. I was talking about the "enthusiastic amateurs" you mentioned before. Those are the ones who publicly use it to argue other beliefs and believe the theory like a religion in itself.

 

 

As a seperate point, from my own recollection I don't think it's the variable temperatures across space that necessitated inflation over expansion, I think it was the redshift of stars increasing as you look deeper into space (further away from us). I may be wrong on that though.

 

 

I will try to find what i saw. Im not sure if it was the only reason by was the one i remember. It was like 1 degree or less fluctuation or something.

[MMATycoon]

You are right my beef was never with scientist. Its with people who cling to the theories like a religion then try to refute others beliefs. Its from mistakes and failures science learns the most. They dont get it right the first time and some things we might not ever know. But they will make an educated guess right or wrong. With that being the case Science isnt the best thing to base your beliefs on and certainly not to argue against others.

Why?

[MMATycoon]

Again i wasn't talking about Scientist. As i clarified in my last post. I was talking about the "enthusiastic amateurs" you mentioned before. Those are the ones who publicly use it to argue other beliefs and believe the theory like a religion in itself.

 

I will try to find what i saw. Im not sure if it was the only reason by was the one i remember. It was like 1 degree or less fluctuation or something.

I deleted that post after I saw your last one saying you didn't have a beef with actual scientists.

 

p.s. I'm trying to find that info too but I also have The Human Centipede on the TV... bit of a juxtaposition

Anyway... no idea why I didn't go there in the first place but Wiki on Inflation has the info.

 

"Now they claim it expanded into existence because the temp of the universe isn't the same and doesn't suggest an explosion."

 

OK you're totally right and totally wrong

 

It's the other way around as a general concept... it's because the universe is so similar that a traditional explosion doesn't fit. An explosion would have created a more varied, curved universe says mr wiki. If you think about an explosion you have an epicenter then as you go outwards everything is scattered more sparceley. The universe is pretty much the same throughout.

 

What you are talking about (cosmic microwave background radiation across the universe), is explained by inflation. Those variations were created when the universe was microscopically small, according to one of the programs I watched.... probably Wonders of the Universe. Anyway, the explanation is 3 paragraphs down in the overview section. I had heard that before but forgotten about it and was confusing it with the small variations in mass across the universe which led to gravity forming stars/galaxies etc.

 

 

I watch or listen to probably 2 hours of sciencey stuff every day - that's why I'm getting particularly active in this discussion.

This and this are the two things I've found most interesting recently. The first is a single documentary and the second is a 4 part series. I've watched the first one probably 5 times.

[Guest]

I don't believe God is real. I understand the thought of religion and the possibility of God being real but I don't believe he is. Religion is really shoved down people's throats and it forces them to come to sense themselves instead of growing up and growing their own conclusions.

[Guest]

atheism makes me laugh. the concept is generally based on there being no factual evidence that there is a "god"; the whole "burden of proof" argument. to deny the POSSIBILITY of some kind of higher power or "creator" is completely flawed thinking, especially coming from people that claim to be atheists due to science.

I'm glad the justice system doesn't think that the burden of proof concept is silly. Actually it's the basis of every debate. If somebody tells me that a teapot is floating around in space near Pluto then I'm not going to believe him till he proves his claim. It's not up to me to prove that it isn't there. A claim isn't justified just for the sake of being possible. That's pretty much why I don't believe in a God and that's why I don't believe the earth is going to end in 2012. Or is that silly too?

[Guest]

Why?

 

Simply because they are theories. Which are often replaced by other theories.

 

 

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang.

 

 

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe.

 

 

 

 

This is the closest thing i could find. I just dont remember the name of the show i watched. I know it was the science channel.

http://www.universetoday.com/8053/early-universes-rapid-expansion-confirmed/

[GripGambler]

Simply because they are theories. Which are often replaced by other theories.

 

Please, learn the difference between scientific theories and philosophical theories before you make any additional comments like this. They aren't what you think they are.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

 

The comparison of theory to scientific theory is often the biggest misconception people have when science is brought up in religious debates. Scientific theories are not just conclusions a person came to after considering a few factors, then writing it down and calling it theory. Scientific theory is deemed theory after decades, and possibly centuries of the scientific method has been applied to a hypothesis, after constant result reproduction, and has not been legitimately refuted. Because of this, scientific theories are hardly ever replaced by other theories.

 

More confusion comes in when people use the word theory to describe a scientific topic that has not actually been deemed a theory by the scientific community.

 

This is also not to be confused with a theorem, which is something that is mathematically provable. A key principal behind a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable, due to the nature of it occurring through experimentation, and not mathematical formula.

[MMATycoon]

This is the closest thing i could find. I just dont remember the name of the show i watched. I know it was the science channel.

http://www.universetoday.com/8053/early-universes-rapid-expansion-confirmed/

I edited my post on the last page, with what I think you were talking about.

[Guest]

Couldn't disagree more with this. The process of science is theory > analysis > publication > critical analysis > start again based on findings so far. There isn't really an end; it evolves. Therefore no scientist would ever belittle any previous scientists' work.

 

Having said that, many fundamental laws of maths and physics have been developed in the last century that will remain true no matter what scientific developments occur, in the same way as trigonometry still applies today, despite it being developed in the 15th century.

 

Most importantly though, what science is not afraid to say is "I don't know" and that's what makes it so great, what makes it develop so fast and what means it will be at the forefront of humanity, probably until someone uses it to blow us all up.... unfortunately.

 

Reading your answer make me realize my thoughts didn't come out right. I wasn't really aiming at the way science works, since it's great, but more on how sometimes theories are thought as facts by the mass, when they can still be proven wrong. With internet, misinterpretating is easier than ever and misinforming too.

[Guest]

So, apparently I'm the only person on mma tycoon that believes in God.

[Guest]

I believe too. You tend to find a lot of non believers on the internet especially on MMA forums. Dont know why. It isnt the same on forums of other subjects. From my experiences. Fighters tend to be religious but the fan who follow them tend not to be. Strange!

[Guest]

Very interesting, sometimes intense, conversation here. Hope this lightens up the mood. One of the best comedians out there.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w

[Guest]

I think basing your world view on "science" is a better approach because science adjusts its view based on constant experiments and calculations, while religion (to a degree) is based on dogmatic literature and "God says it's so".

[Guest]

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

 

The singular message I got from the Christian Bible is that, among all this build-up and this potential erosion of existance, some guy in the middle was being tortured to death and cried out that others would forgive his tormentors. I don't know what else could possibly beg an effort towards understanding from its readers than venal betrayal by one's dearest friend, and the subsequent fatal torture being met only with pleas for understanding. There really isn't much else to horrify a person beyond that sort of punishment; maybe cannibalism and exile? I have always felt that the crux of my religious upbringing rested equally upon the most grand of hopes, that one attempt to comprehend the nature of some engine that propels all of existance onward, as well as the most minute of hopes, that we use our direct interactions with others as opportunities to learn just how to go about the task of understanding. Religion to me is a call for attempting to understand other people; so, whose definition of "religion" are you passing judgement upon, with such a blanket statement?

 

 

That doesnt seem to be the case from what i have seen. I was taught all through school and in countless tv shows and magazines and books about the Big Bang for decades. It was argued as fact, taught as fact, and a belief that was used to counter other beliefs. Sciences never says it dont know. In this case they are more than likely wrong and are coming up with something else more than likely wrong and will have everyone swearing by it. Out with Big Bang and in with Expansion, Bubble Theory, String theory, etc. Then when those do not work they invent Dark Energy and Dark Matter not because they exist but just to get ther outcome they have predetermined. Maybe i should try that on my companies taxes.

 

You had science preachers, not science teachers. Anything that is not directly observed is assumption, at best based on the postulate that everything works now the way it always has. There are reasonable limits on how questionable the data is; data gathered 2 minutes ago is likely not as succeptible to anomaly as data gathered 2 billion years ago, to be extreme about it. The Big Bang Theory is a theory, and there might be a lot of evidence for it, but if it cannot be proven, it is not factual. If you've been guided into a brick wall by a blind man, it is not the fault of the wall.

 

 

So, apparently I'm the only person on mma tycoon that believes in God.

 

It depends on how you define the word "God". There's certainly some thing that causes existance and causes it to persist, or else nothing would exist. How do you define the word? Arguments over how to define it come second only to arguments over how to express revelry in understanding it, in religion.

[Guest]

I think basing your world view on "science" is a better approach because science adjusts its view based on constant experiments and calculations, while religion (to a degree) is based on dogmatic literature and "God says it's so".

 

That's incredibly Catholic of you

[Guest]

That's incredibly Catholic of you

 

Are you implying I prey on altar boys, sir?

 

..because I totally do. Damn it.

[Guest]

People fear death (for obvious reasons) so it's only natural we create religions, gods, afterlives, souls etc. It's very difficult for some people to cope with the idea that once your times up, that's the end of your existence.

 

Technically you can't rule out the existence of a God, much in the way you can't rule out the existence of the Easter Bunny, but I think you can say it's unlikely at best.

 

Christianity IMO is pretty much a copycat religion, borrowing mostly from Mithra...ie Mithra had 12 disciples, he was born Dec 25th of a virgin, he performed miracles and was known as a teacher, he was buried and resurrected 3 days later etc.

 

That's just my two cents--I'm certainly not going to "hate" on someone for choosing to believe it.

[Guest]

I love to play up those religious folk who come knocking door to door, I usually start an argumental debate, asking them a few questions like:

 

Out of the thousands of different gods people believe in, How do you know you've chose the right one? (They usually begin to stutter, and I tell them, Speak up, I can't barely hear you!)

[Guest]

Its all such a sham. Libertarianism and Atheism are based on the same silly ass ideas of religion.

 

Here's the puzzler for Libertarianism:

What if what I want to do is make other people do what I want them to do?

 

And for the Faux-Morality of the non-God crowd who says we should all just be nice:

What if I don't want to be nice?

 

The answer is outrage that people aren't adhering to your made up guiding principles. Its no different than religion, except instead of having some guy named Tom from Biloxi be the moral authority over all man kind, religions have an allpowerful being. Personally, I think the allpowerful being has a bit more sway in dictating the behaviors of all men, but on the flipside, we do know Tom from Biloxi exists.

[Guest]

Its all such a sham. Libertarianism and Atheism are based on the same silly ass ideas of religion.

 

Here's the puzzler for Libertarianism:

What if what I want to do is make other people do what I want them to do?

 

And for the Faux-Morality of the non-God crowd who says we should all just be nice:

What if I don't want to be nice?

The idea is exactly to change the mentality of everybody so that even the selfish realise that it's in the common interest not to be dictating assholes. People who want to do the right thing because they know it's right are mostly happier than people who only do it because they're forced to. That's what makes the difference.

[Guest]

Lol at the irony....

[Grasman]

The only way i can accept that a "God" created life on this planet, is if you accept the Sun as the "God".

[Guest]

Its all such a sham. Libertarianism and Atheism are based on the same silly ass ideas of religion.

 

Here's the puzzler for Libertarianism:

What if what I want to do is make other people do what I want them to do?

 

And for the Faux-Morality of the non-God crowd who says we should all just be nice:

What if I don't want to be nice?

 

 

 

I think both your questions are answered by history...

 

Here's the puzzler for Libertarianism:

What if what I want to do is make other people do what I want them to do?

Ans = Join a religion and tell people you know better because a magic god told you so. Try the soft approach first with indoctrinating children or hauling in the vulnerable and desperate. If that doesn't work use terrorist tactics. If you get lucky and live in a theocracy you can even have public executions!

 

And for the Faux-Morality of the non-God crowd who says we should all just be nice:

What if I don't want to be nice?

Ans = Join a religion. Take advantage of the many groups of sinners or infidels your pretend god has commanded you to crush. Or simply become a hypocrite and be selfish in every way while pretending to be pious.