Which religion are you?

Mkay privateparts, read all my previous posts because I pretty much covered a lot of this stuff. Second, you only hear about the bad stuff from the media which I think the majority of all of us think is idiotic anyway, there is FAR more good that comes from it, it's just not "interesting" in the sense.

 

Very interesting views on this thread but some I just don't agree with. Mainly the posts about Evolution and how it is a fact and teaching our children anything else is keeping the truth from them. Until a couple of years ago the scientific Grand Unified Theory of Everything was a scientific fact as solid as evolution that was meant to explain the reasons for the creation and continued existence of everything. Subsequently scientists admitted they had got their sums wrong and it was totally wrong. It's a good thing it never entered school textbooks.

The Jewish religion as an example believes the world is only about 5800 years old. Scientists used to say this was ridiculous pointing out that carbon dating on fossils proves this to be patently wrong. Recently Carbon Dating, the technical darling of the scientific world, was exposed as possibly being out by thousands of years of accuracy, it was all over the papers when this came out a few years back.

I'm not saying science is wrong, I personally believe Evolution is correct and is the tool used by the creator to create us, and that Carbon Dating is a valuable way to understand the world around us, but none of these are laws and all of them can be argued with. Why is that irrational? Science does it every day. The "laws" of gravity and physics are proved to be fairly fluid when you enter the realm of quantum mechanics for example.

Science is just a framework to use on the world around us, it doesn't give us any truth at all. To use an analogy, a paracetamol pill cures your headache because science has discovered a way to do that, but it can't tell you why humans are designed in such a way to allow them to get headaches. That would be actual underlying truth and it's not what science does.

By the way the quotes from Deuteronomy are not what they appear to be. In the Jewish religion for example no passage in the bible is meant to make sense until it is put next to certain other texts. In this example the corresponding texts refer to an invading army being responsible for the safety of women in a captured city, not raping them and keeping them as slaves. Context is very important!

Apologies for the long post, this is an emotive subject 8)

 

Like I said before, I am my own religion

What I believe, is that there is something unknown, there is an essence, not necessarily living, not necessarily sentient, but conscient. From what I have read in Astronomy/Quantum Physics books, the odds of creation are extremely low. So low that it would make perfect sense for an unknown "conscience" to have chosen the right chain of events. I believe there is an essence in life that we fully don't understand.

I do not believe in the popular concept of "God", as well as I do not believe in anything the old testament bible says. There is no religion to fit my beliefs, because I believe in what I believe, and not what someone tells me. Thus, I am my own religion

 

@ BinaryBanshee, I hate to call you out on this one but it looks a lot to me like you're drawing from nonexistent or extremely biased sources.

When doing a search on either of the topics that you took issue with, I came up with nothing that I would call credible. I found a few sites regarding the "flaws" of Carbon-14 dating that had a very serious case of flawed logic. I don't really know what to tell you other than you should read more scientifically dedicated sources and see what their take on the subject is.

Carbon-14 dating is not the only method used by archaeologists and geologists to determine the age of a sample. Anyone who watches the Discovery channel could tell you that. In fact, it has been proven that using other tests, and then using Carbon-14 testing when the sample is out of its effective range will give skewed results.

I would like you to cite your sources regarding these issues because it looks to me like you're making it up based on hearsay and random sources.

Also, there is no such thing as a scientifically proposed "Grand Unification Theory." All I can find is a handful of again, random articles, that make general assumptions about different scientific discoveries and "propose" how great it would be to piece them all together into a "Grand Scheme of Things." Nowhere was I able to find any of the supposed "articles" that you cited.

If you want to play with the "big boys," if you will, you should provide sources when offering such contradictive arguments.

EDIT: Furthermore, seeing as how there is decades of work and data supporting theories that approximately age the Earth at around 4 billion years, the burden would be on you to provide evidence contrary to this notion.

 

I still don't understand what's with everyone opinions. There is NO WAY you can prove this stuff, I just don't see why you put all this effort into your beliefs. Just about every concept can be proved and disproved. Several hundred years ago, everyone KNEW the earth was flat, they KNEW that earth was the centre of the universe.

But now we KNOW that earth is round, we KNOW that earth isn't the centre of the universe.

I wonder in several centuries time, what will we KNOW then?

 

Good post privateparts, absolutely agree, my point entirely.

Joneagle_X thank you for taking an interest in my post. My comments on the flaws in Carbon Dating and the Grand Unified Theory were taken from what I read over time initially from news sources in England. Specifically the Daily Telegraph and Times' newspapers and reports from the BBC news in the UK. A search of their news archives should bring up what I was referring to. I didn't site the sources as I thought it was fairly widely known.

The Daily Telegraph and The Times are considered in England to be extremely unbiased and good sources, akin to the New York Times in the states.

I don't feel a burden to provide proof the earth is only 5800 years old, I was simply referring to how science itself changes it's view often and to believe the world is as Science says it is right now, as absolute fact, can be misleading. I respect your view Joneagle_X but I don't believe it's the best way to look at things.

 

When things don't have explanations, we usually go with what we believe to be the correct answer. If I truly thought that an Oak Tree is the creation of all life, no one could prove or disprove me. I would deserve respect for my opinion, no matter how awkward it is.

Since we don't know anything regarding this delicate subject, nobody can prove or disprove anyone. The most we can do is give our opinions and support it with arguments as to why you think it is true.

 

Or not bother at all, when you think about it EVERYONE has their own opinions. When you post what are you trying to do, persuade them to believe in your opinion? Why? That's the problem these days, it's not everyone having their own opinions/beliefs - but their efforts to force their opinions/beliefs on one another.

 

Actually personally I am just enjoying the discussion about it as a mental exercise and learning from others about what different viewpoints there are. I have no intention of pursuading people to follow my beliefs 8)

 

I don't see anyone trying to convert anyone here, so play nice, or I'll have to tell your mommy.

 

I'm Christian, but i agree with Z-Boson, I'd prefer my own religon, well, more like make a few modifacations to christianity, at least the old testament, cuz theres some big things I disagree with, such as God's approval of slaves, the poor treatment of women, circumsition (most say that circumsition was the sign of the covenant was that, but I like to think why would God give it to us if he was us to circumsize it, unless just to seperate the Isrealites from everyone else) and for those who dont know what circumsion is, consider yourself lucky ) anyways.... ya, i want my own form of christianity, ill break off from the christian church and begin my own catholic branch!!! MUHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA, maybe....

EDIT: i take no responsibility for this post

 

So I decided to search sources outside the US at Binary's suggestion....

Here's an article in the Telegraph that talks about the "possible" inaccuracy of Carbon-14 dating:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/06/30/wdate30.xml

However, I'm not asserting its accuracy, I'm asserting that the timeframe of 5800 years is still credible even with it. Even so, Carbon dating is still extremely useful and accurate in determining the age of a sample. Of course as it gets older it's going to become less accurate, that's just the way things work. As a sample becomes smaller it is more susceptible to contamination from environmental effects. That's why there are also other methods of dating substances.

Furthermore, Carbon-14 Dating is not the preferred method of dating a substance. The only real reason they use it is that the more reliable methods, including radioactive measurements, have a minimal timeframe of about 60,000 years. So they really have no relevance to anything that has occurred closer to our own time.

However, in the case of this "Grand Theory" I could not find a single reference in either the Telegraph or the Times. So at this point I'm just going to assume you made that up unless you can provide me with a credible source.

 

Exactly, there are some religions that do this more than others.

There was one particular religion that I've noticed is the most disrespectful, which I won't mention because there might be people here who follow it. This is just something I've noticed. Every time I mention something like "I don't believe in God", or when my mom mentioned she believed in afterlife, they told us we would go to hell for that. One said that they can't believe I am so ignorant as to not believe in God, and the other one stopped talking to my mother, giving her nasty looks.

I think that this type of behaviour is really unecessary, because you cannot mix real life with beliefs. This is the same thought that leads to racism, stereotypes, etc. The necessity to force your opinions and beliefs onto others.

Just saying I condemn that above all.

 

Joneagle_X, that was what I was referring to regarding Carbon Dating, yes. I wasn't trying to say it was useless, just to point out that you can see from the article that science's view's change all the time and they are rarely the fixed laws we assume them to be.

It probably isn't the best approach to assume something is made up if someone can't immediately cite a source. I've never been to Antarctica but that doesn't mean I think the guy who draws the maps is making it up! I'll try and find a link to post re that theory being debunked. I still disagree with your views but I applaud your perseverance to find evidence. 8)

 

@ Z-Boson: Yea....there are always those types of people. Anyway, you shouldn't necessarily say a whole religion as that, it's more or less just a couple close-minded fundamentalists that want everything their way or none at all, just to pay any heed to them...they may not know it, but that behavior is an extremely selfish way of looking at life.

@ privateparts: Now...you're basically stating the same old cookie cutter arguments. Sure we can not PROVE it, be we can neither DISPROVE it either. Again I will ask you this question that doesn't just apply to religion, but to social life as a whole: If it doesn't affect you or other people in a negative way, why should it matter to you what a person does?

 

@ Binary , I'm fairly well aware that science changes its mind on smaller issues and theorems every day. They're always looking for ways to discount other theories and form new ones. This is part of the Scientific Method. However, this lends even further solidarity to the more prevalent Theories, such as Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Physics. These are examples of Theories that have been so rigorously tested and defended and picked apart that there is a 99.999999999% chance that they are correct in their core beliefs.

In science, there is always room for doubt. But at the present, all the evidence points in that direction. Until even a smidgeon of doubt can be uncovered, the scientific community will accept these theories as Law and therefore fact. To deny the opinions of the top scientific minds in the world when so much evidence is behind them is foolhardy and effectively irrational. You're welcome to challenge these staples of scientific knowledge, but you must, MUST, MUST back them with evidence and not just reasons why it could "not" be true.

As to the Theory that you mentioned and I want you to cite, I've never even heard of it and I'm a Biology Major. I read scientific papers and articles and magazines all the time and I have never heard of such a theory. That is why I'm so skeptical and why I need sources. If I can't find something like that on the internet in 10 minutes, it can't be found.

 

I do not care what people believe in, I just don't understand WHY they waste the time in believing in something that can't be proven or disproven. It's pretty much like gambling.

 

dw peoples just believe in god and his teachings

christian ftw =D

lol

peace out

 

owerdown: Ignore Ace!

Believe in what you WANT to believe.

 

aww slack i didnt force anyone...

*cries