|
Guest
Posts: n/a
Points: 0
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
|
Quote:
SSJKarma
now you did it nantuko !
you just prooved yourself how patheitic you are about soime matters !
have you even studied religions to know that many religions came off only one and they separated because some weren't able to believe some parts of their own religions ?
Not necessarily true. Two completely isolated populations of humans, with NO contact between each other, will develop different religions in order to suit the personal beliefs of those in each respective group.
Religion did not "evolve" from a single common "ancestor." In other words, all the world's religions are NOT simply run-offs from each other. Most of them developed independently with no outside influence, and not as separations of other religions due to disagreements with particular beliefs.
The American Indians developed a separate religion than the Aztecs of South America, who developed a separate religion from the Africans. These religions are NOT simply different variations of each other.
What you just said would only apply to Christianity and Judaism, at least to my knowledge. Judaism came first, then Christianity. Then Christianity broke off into various branches....Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Protestant, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, etc....because of differences in various individual beliefs. They all believe in the whole of the Bible, but are separated by various trivial details.
THAT is an example of what you stated. What you said does not apply to all the world's religions, because the majority of them developed in controlled, isolated populations of people with no outside influence with each other.
Quote:
example...
you believe in science... you got point of view on subjects... but the other scientist besides you do not see's it the same as you. is he the same scientist as you or it is he an outcast just because he doesn't think the same as you ?
No no no, you've got it all wrong.
The only thing in science that scientists would disagree on would be THEORIES. Ideas that have not yet been proven true. The scientific LAWS, however, are universally accepted, because they've already been proven true. So even though two scientists may have different outlooks on THEORIES, they are in effect the same scientists because they are united by the common ground of fact. Religion is not like this, because EVERYTHING is a theory, none of it fact, and therefore there is no solid common ground.
Quote:
its as simple as that, all religions have the same patterns, saw the same things or are describing the same thing, people just didn't see it the same way so they described it their way and many other people joined them in that way of thinking.
that is the reason there are so many religions !
if you didn't even knew that, then how can you back your arguments to say that religions are false theories !
No, not all religions have the same patterns, see the same things, etc.
Religions can be compared to stories. In a population of people, many people will be telling different stories, and everyone will have their favorite story, the one they can relate to the most. The people will then group together with other people who like that same story.
There was NOT a single story that spawned all these different story branches. They were all individual stories, and NOT just branches off one common ancestral story.
The same goes for religions.
In a population, many different stories about creation, or life after death, or whatnot will arise, and the people will group together under that common religion. Therefore, there will be many different religions. They are all individual and unique (for the most part), and were NOT merely the offspring of a central common religion.
Quote:
science was made by humans, because we dictated those laws.
we gave a name to them. if we did so, that's because they were not existent and we found something that ables us to create even more !
its our way of life nantuko, science do not make us alive, it is just a bunch of theories, prooven or not ! they were just theories, some were found to be true, yet they are still theories, we make them laws. so that means we created them !
No, that's not an accurate statement.
Science was not created by humans. Science was around all along, humans just became able to understand it. We did not CREATE the laws, we simply gave name to them. We did not CREATE gravity....we created the WORD "gravity." We did not CREATE the endocrine system, we merely created the PHRASE "endocrine system." We did not CREATE dinosaur fossils, we merely created the NAME "dinosaur fossils"
Newton did not CREATE the fact that an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force.....he just put it into lay man's terms. He just created the words needed to understand it.
Quote:
and again, you're not debating anything here, you are saying science is the answer to all because it supposedly have facts which is false itself, and let me give you this hints... SCIENCE is as much a religion then anything else !
No, the facts themselves are fact. Whether or not you choose to believe them is up to you. It is a FACT that if you standing on the ground, hold an object whose mass is heavier and denser than the atmosphere surrounding it out in front of you and let go, the object will fall down towards the ground. That is FACT, there is no denying it. It is a FACT that if you roll a ball down an incline, the ball will continue to roll unless acted upon by an outside force (something in front of the ball hindering its movement, or the ball hitting the bottom of the incline). That is FACT, there is no denying it. Go out and try it for yourself. You can see for yourself that it's fact.
And basically, what you are saying is that "No you're wrong. Science THINKS that it's fact, but it's just a theory." Well go try it for yourself. If you can stand and hold a baseball and drop it and it DOESN'T fall to the ground, then you would have proven the laws of physics wrong. If you can take a basketball and place it on the top of an incline and let go, if the ball DOESN'T roll down the incline, then you would have proven physics wrong.
Go ahead, try it. Keep trying until you prove science wrong.
Quote:
you believe in it, fine, suits you, but don't come in saying science is the answer to all cause for all i understood of your post... is this !
COME AND SPEAK WITH FACT, SCIENCE IS THE KEY AND WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE TRUTH, FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE, CAUSE SCIENCE IS RIGHT REGUARDLESS OF WHAT YOU'LL SAY !
see its the same mumbo jumbo anyone have been saying all along here !
i may be not much of a debater, but i can easily identify people trying to enforece they view on others, and that's what you are trying to do here, may it be voluntary or not !
No, what I'm saying is this:
"IF YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, THEN COME HERE AND DEBATE WITH SCIENCE. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DEBATE WITH SCIENCE, THEN DON'T DEBATE AT ALL."
If you'd like, I could easily create a topic debating the accuracy of all the world's various religions. The accuracy of christianity vs satanism vs judaism vs buddhism vs conflipianism vs Shinto vs Celtic beliefs vs Norse beliefs vs African beliefs vs the various North American Indian beliefs vs the various South American Indian beliefs vs the Pacific Islander beliefs vs Greek beliefs vs Roman beliefs vs Egyptian beliefs vs Chinese beliefs vs Japanese beliefs vs Mesopotamian beliefs vs Santarian beliefs vs Slavic beliefs vs all the other various beliefs in the world. I would then say "This is a religious debate using religious knowledge only....if you're not going to debate with religion, then don't debate at all." Would you be happy then?
Quote:
if you don't want to be open minded then suits you, but we don't care about what you believe in and we didn't ask you to convince us either !
I am very open-minded. I do not shut out ideas of over people, but rather I try to understand them and try to make sense of them. If I find faults, I will try to identify with them.
Look at the locked religion topic. I did not simply say "no ur religion is wrong and my religion is right." I tried to understand them. I'm always open to new ideas, which was actually the factor that caused me to convert to science from religion. I was actually very intrigued and interested in Roll's beliefs. If I was not open-minded, I would have been like "lol dubya tee effur stupid ur wrong." But no, I take the time to listen and try to understand.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, at least...that was not the purpose of the topic. The purpose of the topic was to be a scientific discussion between people who "believe" as you say, in science. It only turned to "convincing" when idiots start coming here attacking science and saying that "adam and eve and not adam and steve" is "proof," and when people make uneducated outlandish claims, stating that they are smarter than the world's scientists and saying that they are wrong.
If someone created a religion topic to discuss different religions, I would not invade the topic saying "no you're wrong I am right, blah blah blah" becuase it would be a discussion between people who believe in religions. I am not trying to convert anyone.
Look at how the religion topic started. SBYRD starts making claims saying "look hell exists, you are wrong and I am right," just because of the opinions of one man and an article from the National Inquirer. I said that the theologian beliefs of some nobody and an article from the National Inquirer are NOT proof of anything. Then other religious people start coming in saying "no it is proof because the bible says so, etc etc." Had no one been making false claims and trying to convert people, I would have kept my mouth shut. I only brought science in the mix when people start claiming that this is truth and this is false, that anyone who doesn't believe this or that is "too young and ignorant to see the truth," bullcrap like that.
Now, if it was a simple discussion about the exstence of heaven and hell from a religious standpoint, with discussions attacking and defending it only coming from religious sources (beliefs of other religions), then I would have kept my mouth shut. Likewise, the way I see it, this is a discussion about a topic of science. I would have expected that anyone who did not want to discuss this from a scientific standpoint would simply refrain from posting, and that the only posts would be people trying to debate this from a scientific standpoint....you know, I was expecting the same amount of respect that I would normally have shown to anyone else.
But coming into a topic about science and saying "science is wrong, religions is right" is the same thing as going into the DBZvsSF topic and saying "both street fighter and dbz are gay, inuyasha rules."
Quote:
(Shinku Ryu)
joe ,....hae to break this to you but science is man made ...
Posts like that are what I'm talking about, Karma. I'm making claims, but I can back them up with evidence. Yes, I know that the claims are concerning THEORY, but I bring evidence to the table to try and help support my claims.
Now look at that post. Is there any scientific debate material that can be used to discuss the topic at hand? No. Is there any evidence to back up his claims? No. All he is saying is the same old usual "I am right and you are wrong" bullcrap that pisses me off. He obviously has nothing intelligent to say in order to contribute to the topic, he's basically spamming and pissing me off, which in turn forces me to interject, sometimes forcibly and angrily. Hence the reason the topic has gone wildly off-course.
Look at the intelligent posts here....me making a statement, and blanka09, among a couple others, respond to it, asking questions, making remarks, etcetera, and I respond. That's how a debate goes. Because of twerps like this kid, who simply makes unbacked claims based on absolutely nothing, the topic has turned away from its peaceful discussion intent and has ended up like this.
Edited By Shauku on Mar. 25 2004 at 16:27
|