I also heard a christian preist came up with the idea of the big bang, how ironic |
 |
| A religious person would definitely not believe in the Big Bang lol |
Okay...Okay....Christian priest came up with the idea of the Big bang... Jog on, priest. Edit: I took the bait. |
RimpeyDec 15, 2015 1:05 PM
 |
| That moment when religions try to claim people who did great things as being due to their faith |
| I've been here way too long... |
Klad said: A religious person would definitely not believe in the Big Bang lol I do. |
| John V. Neumann, one of the smartest - if not the smartest - person to have ever lived was an agnostic most of his life, but he later converted in his death bed because of Pascal's wage. he was never an atheist. |
| You can buy lossless digital music from your favorite Japanese artists on https://ototoy.jp/. The songs are all DRM-free and you can re-download your purchased albums as you wish. Show your support to your favorite artist if you can! ps. if you are looking for Japanese albums, you have to search it in Japanese (not romaji). Just copy and paste the name. For those who want to learn Japanese through anime Resources for learning the language |
PerpetualTrance said: Thats weirdKlad said: A religious person would definitely not believe in the Big Bang lol I do. |
Klad said: no its notPerpetualTrance said: Thats weirdI do. |
|
Klad said: PerpetualTrance said: Thats weirdI do. I'm a Muslim. Might surprise you but I have no qualms accepting Evolution theory. |
| Okay |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
PerpetualTrance said: Klad said: Thats weird I'm a Muslim. Might surprise you but I have no qualms accepting Evolution theory. Wouldn't you say that goes against your faith? |
| I've been here way too long... |
 |
| No ones taking credit for it. The big bang is only the expansion of the universe, so the universe already existed at that point. Atheists accept the big bang and still don't beleive in god, so the religious still have the burden of proof. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
 |
 |
TheConquerer said: PerpetualTrance said: I'm a Muslim. Might surprise you but I have no qualms accepting Evolution theory. Wouldn't you say that goes against your faith? No. |
PerpetualTrance said: TheConquerer said: Wouldn't you say that goes against your faith? No. Dunno about evolution theory but there's a verse in the Koran that states that God expanded everything there is from a single point . |
| Wohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
| Seriously whats with all the religion threads lately. Oh wait this is just CD's usual rotation, next week we'll be back on Nazi's |
 |
PerpetualTrance said: TheConquerer said: Wouldn't you say that goes against your faith? No. What about Adam and Eve? Doesn't that go against evolution. Or you know the earth being created in 7 days, or well alot of other things. |
| I've been here way too long... |
TheConquerer said: PerpetualTrance said: No. What about Adam and Eve? Doesn't that go against evolution. Or you know the earth being created in 7 days, or well alot of other things. All abstract. To be more precise, I'm a subscriber of spiritual evolution but scientific evolution doesn't pause a problem to me. Actually, the only way I can explain it is by inditing my whole philosophy on religion; most probably won't even get it. So, meh. Maybe I'll write a book or something on it one day. |
PerpetualTrance said: All abstract. To be more precise, I'm a subscriber of spiritual evolution but scientific evolution doesn't pause a problem to me. Actually, the only way I can explain it is by inditing my whole philosophy on religion; most probably won't even get it. So, meh. Maybe I'll write a book or something on it one day. But then can you really say you submit to Muslim ways or that you've your own personal views and are merely influenced by Islam? |
| I've been here way too long... |
TheConquerer said: PerpetualTrance said: All abstract. To be more precise, I'm a subscriber of spiritual evolution but scientific evolution doesn't pause a problem to me. Actually, the only way I can explain it is by inditing my whole philosophy on religion; most probably won't even get it. So, meh. Maybe I'll write a book or something on it one day. But then can you really say you submit to Muslim ways or that you've your own personal views and are merely influenced by Islam? I submit myself to Islam and I strive everyday to be a better Muslim. I wasn't just influenced by Islam. |
PerpetualTrance said: I submit myself to Islam and I strive everyday to be a better Muslim. I wasn't just influenced by Islam. But like I said if you believe something that goes against your religion then you can't say you believe said religion otherwise you'd have to admit the religion is flawed and that is contradictory to the religion. For example I've read that in the Quaran it states the moon emits light and the earth was formed before the stars, these are both things which are at odds with what a large amount of educated people know is simply not true. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran Not to offend, simply to understand. |
| I've been here way too long... |
TheConquerer said: PerpetualTrance said: I submit myself to Islam and I strive everyday to be a better Muslim. I wasn't just influenced by Islam. But like I said if you believe something that goes against your religion then you can't say you believe said religion otherwise you'd have to admit the religion is flawed and that is contradictory to the religion. For example I've read that in the Quaran it states the moon emits light and the earth was formed before the stars, these are both things which are at odds with what a large amount of educated people know is simply not true. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran Not to offend, simply to understand. First of all, that's all wrong. The moon doesn't emit light; it only states that metaphorically. There's plenty of scholars who can clarify that. Hell, even laymen can. Twist a few words, change a perspective and done. Every piece fits the puzzle. But that's not what religion is to me. I believe in everything my religion says and I accept everything science propounds yet nothing seems to be in a contradiction. Now you're just forcing me to write my whole philosophy on it when I'm not even in the mood..... |
| it's possible that errors in the book are due to a mistranslation. maybe the original says "the moon shines brightly", but someone messed up in the translation and wrote as "the moon emits light". i mean, mistranslations are fairly common, and you're probably unlikely to know unless you read the original (which means, you'd need to be fluent in the ancient language, which may have changed significantly over time. ancient arabic probably looks different from modern arabic) |
| You can buy lossless digital music from your favorite Japanese artists on https://ototoy.jp/. The songs are all DRM-free and you can re-download your purchased albums as you wish. Show your support to your favorite artist if you can! ps. if you are looking for Japanese albums, you have to search it in Japanese (not romaji). Just copy and paste the name. For those who want to learn Japanese through anime Resources for learning the language |
PerpetualTrance said: First of all, that's all wrong. The moon doesn't emit light; it only states that metaphorically. There's plenty of scholars who can clarify that. Hell, even laymen can. Twist a few words, change a perspective and done. Every piece fits the puzzle. But that's not what religion is to me. I believe in everything my religion says and I accept everything science propounds yet nothing seems to be in a contradiction. Now you're just forcing me to write my whole philosophy on it when I'm not even in the mood..... See you get it, when say the bible reads like "An spot he did a flaming chariot with gleaming wheels thundering towards the ground and a choir or apocalyptic trumpets heralded its arrival upon the earth" Instead of some atheist going hur derp the bible says flying chariots existed maybe we think to ourselves thats how someone who didn't know what a meteor is would describe an event like say a meteor hitting the ground near by. None of that stuff invalidates that God exists or a religion. A lot of the stories of holy texts are written from the mind set of the time we should understand they explained what they saw the best they could and a lot of time things are metaphor's. The Bible says God created man, yes with biology in mind obviously, God obviously knows how to thread DNA sequences. Its not a crime to help explain your religious teachings with modern knowledge. God is still all powerful we just know that he created atoms and can manipulate them to create anything he chooses. If anything modern knowledge and science brings me closer to my religion and my belief in a higher power. |
SpooksDec 15, 2015 12:11 PM
|
| the bible probably suffers from mistranslations as well. but again, you'd need to be able to read the original to actually catch those errors. |
| You can buy lossless digital music from your favorite Japanese artists on https://ototoy.jp/. The songs are all DRM-free and you can re-download your purchased albums as you wish. Show your support to your favorite artist if you can! ps. if you are looking for Japanese albums, you have to search it in Japanese (not romaji). Just copy and paste the name. For those who want to learn Japanese through anime Resources for learning the language |
PerpetualTrance said: First of all, that's all wrong. The moon doesn't emit light; it only states that metaphorically. There's plenty of scholars who can clarify that. Hell, even laymen can. Twist a few words, change a perspective and done. Every piece fits the puzzle. But that's not what religion is to me. I believe in everything my religion says and I accept everything science propounds yet nothing seems to be in a contradiction. Now you're just forcing me to write my whole philosophy on it when I'm not even in the mood..... But how do you know its metaphorical? I incredibly doubt that common people at the time of Islam's beginnings would view things like this as metaphors and not take them literally, after all as a book that is meant to explain creation and God's messages, its almost confusing hell even misleading to add metaphors where they only serve to misguide a layman at the time of Islam's birth. Its easy as you say to twist a few words, but that's exactly why religion and science are not compatible, science is concrete, religion is vague and easily manipulated. Your own philosophy is only based on what you ideally view the Quaran as after all. |
| I've been here way too long... |
DreamingBeats said: it's possible that errors in the book are due to a mistranslation. maybe the original says "the moon shines brightly", but someone messed up in the translation and wrote as "the moon emits light". i mean, mistranslations are fairly common, and you're probably unlikely to know unless you read the original (which means, you'd need to be fluent in the ancient language, which may have changed significantly over time. ancient arabic probably looks different from modern arabic) I was wondering that as well but the article stated clearly that the original word referred to an object that creates light rather than reflect it. |
| I've been here way too long... |
TheConquerer said: PerpetualTrance said: First of all, that's all wrong. The moon doesn't emit light; it only states that metaphorically. There's plenty of scholars who can clarify that. Hell, even laymen can. Twist a few words, change a perspective and done. Every piece fits the puzzle. But that's not what religion is to me. I believe in everything my religion says and I accept everything science propounds yet nothing seems to be in a contradiction. Now you're just forcing me to write my whole philosophy on it when I'm not even in the mood..... But how do you know its metaphorical? I incredibly doubt that common people at the time of Islam's beginnings would view things like this as metaphors and not take them literally, after all as a book that is meant to explain creation and God's messages, its almost confusing hell even misleading to add metaphors where they only serve to misguide a layman at the time of Islam's birth. Its easy as you say to twist a few words, but that's exactly why religion and science are not compatible, science is concrete, religion is vague and easily manipulated. Your own philosophy is only based on what you ideally view the Quaran as after all. There's a very fine distinction Quran draws between Mutashabihat and Muhakkamat. The former's interpretation is only known by God and man can come up with any of his own interpretation of them without having it interfere with his religious beliefs. The latter are commandments with no room for interpretation. That's how I know it's metaphorical. That view on religion and science is close-minded. |
PerpetualTrance said: TheConquerer said: But how do you know its metaphorical? I incredibly doubt that common people at the time of Islam's beginnings would view things like this as metaphors and not take them literally, after all as a book that is meant to explain creation and God's messages, its almost confusing hell even misleading to add metaphors where they only serve to misguide a layman at the time of Islam's birth. Its easy as you say to twist a few words, but that's exactly why religion and science are not compatible, science is concrete, religion is vague and easily manipulated. Your own philosophy is only based on what you ideally view the Quaran as after all. There's a very fine distinction Quran draws between Mutashabihat and Muhakkamat. The former's interpretation is only known by God and man can come up with any of his own interpretation of them without having it interfere with his religious beliefs. The latter are commandments with no room for interpretation. That's how I know it's metaphorical. That view on religion and science is close-minded. Religion is like a literature book. The author may write "The water reflected his dull face". You're sitting in literature class. Teacher takes this line and says "This line isn't talking about his face but his dull soul and spirit". Whereas the author literally meant his face looks dull. This is why religion is so split among so many different groups, over the same book of words. Those words are always up for interpretation. And each person can apply them differently. Especially when it's older text in modern culture. We have no idea what kinds of figure of speech they had in the time of writing the book. There's so many variables to account for. If I look at a commandment of say Christianity and it says "You shall have no gods before me". What defines a god? Can I adore a person as much as god? Does god always come first? Or does it mean worshiping gods? It's still up for interpretation. |
| what even is this thread? |
 |
PerpetualTrance said: There's a very fine distinction Quran draws between Mutashabihat and Muhakkamat. The former's interpretation is only known by God and man can come up with any of his own interpretation of them without having it interfere with his religious beliefs. The latter are commandments with no room for interpretation. That's how I know it's metaphorical. That view on religion and science is close-minded. I see, looking that up I never knew that and I'm surprised thats a thing, I suppose it serves an easy way to make people avoid questioning why things are as they are pardon the statement. After all its easy to say "God moves in mysterious ways" but much harder to explain those ways. I don't want to sound like I'm attacking your view but I find it serves as a cop-out rather than an explanation. Elaborate, Science takes a theory and repeatedly tests it making sure it works everytime, can you honestly say the same of prayers or other things mentioned in the Quaran? |
| I've been here way too long... |
TheConquerer said: I see, looking that up I never knew that and I'm surprised thats a thing, I suppose it serves an easy way to make people avoid questioning why things are as they are pardon the statement. After all its easy to say "God moves in mysterious ways" but much harder to explain those ways. I don't want to sound like I'm attacking your view but I find it serves as a cop-out rather than an explanation. Elaborate, Science takes a theory and repeatedly tests it making sure it works everytime, can you honestly say the same of prayers or other things mentioned in the Quaran? It's 2:00 AM here, Gosh I need to sleep.... Uh, anyways, to me that is more like letting humans decipher their own world. It works well in the grander scheme of things Islam sketches. Now, I'll tell you what my view on religion and science is. What is religion? An attempt at explaining this confusing word which is then to be taken as a 'fact'. Philosophy has only this difference with religion that it doesn't assert itself as a fact. But if religion never asserted itself as a fact, then it would be pointless for we humans need a logical explanation of what this world is. That is precisely why we judge religions based on how rational they are; but that's the wrong way to go about it. Reality is a matter of perception; and perception can be faulty. Stipulating that reality, I say that do not trust the perception. Trust the source of perception which is 'belief' - a pre-supposed set of ideas about something. As kids, no tooth fairy replaced the teeth with coins. It were our mothers. But what disqualifies our mothers from being tooth fairies in that sense? Nothing at all except our obsession on the idea that everything must be absolute, must be whole in its own. That a tooth fairy should abide by our ideas of a tooth fairy and it cannot be anything else. So, then, I propose that reality is falsifiable - in an absolute sense. And since we all long for the sense of security, I let a religion take care of that for myself. My religion, then, seemingly, contradicts scientific findings. But, as I asserted before, reality is falsifiable especially the reality I have not observed. The only length I'll go in my judgment of a religion is that it should not contradict the immediately observed reality; for then I would be delusional or insane. We do not know for certain if evolution actually happened - it's supported by evidence but my point stands that reality is falsifiable. In this sense, I'll be able to accept evolution too all in the meanwhile accepting what my religion has to put forward as well - one works as an absolute truth to me for there's no scientific way to reaching absolute certainty about anything and the other is the view I choose to wield in my external life, that outside my personal sphere. Therefore, I can be devoutly religious, all in the meanwhile subscribing to science without having any problems. Is it cognitive dissonance? No. If it seems like that, then either I was too hasty in my explanation or you missed the point. |
| Ah, it's religious season on CD, the most bait-ful time of the year. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| I think it's rather "that moment when Christians try to take credit for the Big Bang" because the scientist who came up with it was a Christian. |
| so relatable |
| I think atheists reference scientists, not take credit. |
 |
Klad said: A religious person would definitely not believe in the Big Bang lol Until proven to be demonstrably false, I believe in it as well. |
| Eminem meets Clannad Just when you thought Clannad's OST was as sad as it could get ;_; If you seen School Days, rewatch the ending while listening to A Little of Piece of Heaven by A7X. I guarantee laughs. |
PerpetualTrance said: me tooKlad said: A religious person would definitely not believe in the Big Bang lol I do. |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
| You can be religious and still accept the Big Bang Theory. I go to a Catholic High-school and plenty of teachers at my school do accept the BBT, as they believe god simply created it. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. I mean I'm an atheist, but what's with all you asshole atheists hating on people for simply having different beliefs? Sounds oddly familiar to those SJW's you guys always go on about. |
| I don't really see the point of caring about something that happened so long ago and is completely irrelevant to your life. I'm jewish btw |
PerpetualTrance said: TheConquerer said: Its easy as you say to twist a few words, but that's exactly why religion and science are not compatible, science is concrete, religion is vague and easily manipulated. Your own philosophy is only based on what you ideally view the Quaran as after all. There's a very fine distinction Quran draws between Mutashabihat and Muhakkamat. The former's interpretation is only known by God and man can come up with any of his own interpretation of them without having it interfere with his religious beliefs. The latter are commandments with no room for interpretation. That's how I know it's metaphorical. That view on religion and science is close-minded. So doublethink, then. Also there is loads of room for interpretation in the commandments, then second anyone brings up something like killing unbelievers, or beating your wife. The use of contradiction as a literary device is a common feature of the Muslim world, so there's not much point trying to engage in debate with them, sadly. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Caelidesu said: PerpetualTrance said: There's a very fine distinction Quran draws between Mutashabihat and Muhakkamat. The former's interpretation is only known by God and man can come up with any of his own interpretation of them without having it interfere with his religious beliefs. The latter are commandments with no room for interpretation. That's how I know it's metaphorical. That view on religion and science is close-minded. So doublethink, then. Also there is loads of room for interpretation in the commandments, then second anyone brings up something like killing unbelievers, or beating your wife. The use of contradiction as a literary device is a common feature of the Muslim world, so there's not much point trying to engage in debate with them, sadly. Muhammad lived one life. If there are scholars who are disputing on that then they're simply ignoring Muhammad's life and hence an essential part of Islam thus I do not deem them scholars. |
| It would be ironic if the scientists is a believer. |
PerpetualTrance said: Caelidesu said: So doublethink, then. Also there is loads of room for interpretation in the commandments, then second anyone brings up something like killing unbelievers, or beating your wife. The use of contradiction as a literary device is a common feature of the Muslim world, so there's not much point trying to engage in debate with them, sadly. Muhammad lived one life. If there are scholars who are disputing on that then they're simply ignoring Muhammad's life and hence an essential part of Islam thus I do not deem them scholars. That response doesn't address what I wrote at all. No-one doubts that Muhammad did what he did, insofar as that he led an army around raping and killing people and started the world's most popular religion. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Caelidesu said: PerpetualTrance said: Muhammad lived one life. If there are scholars who are disputing on that then they're simply ignoring Muhammad's life and hence an essential part of Islam thus I do not deem them scholars. That response doesn't address what I wrote at all. No-one doubts that Muhammad did what he did, insofar as that he led an army around raping and killing people and started the world's most popular religion. My response answered that. If you have any qualms with Muhammad, go settle it with him; spare me your whining. |
Carto738 said: BIG BANG- Christian Adam+Eve Big bang Makes sense Well we could go the scientific christian route in that God did create all things but he obviously started with the big bang which probably basically just spread creation particles in an huge area basically creating known reality. Like a massive expanse of universe beyond that there is nothing, the big bang would have been nothing but a balloon of reality expanding in nothing. Seems like something god would do when creating all of our known existence. Everything has a first step after all. Of course we could with science explanation as in "well I guess it just happened at random" yeah nothing suddenly created something. If you want to go pure sci fi religious and really fuck with people say that the earth we live on wasn't the earth of paradise where adam and eve lived and when they were outcast from paradise they were placed on the earth that we now know which resulted in the extinction of the previous alpha races of the planet to make way for humanity to at least survive their first few years aka the extinction of the dinosaurs. Yeah im going into evangelion territory with the black moon collision and humanity replacing the original Adam born species of the planet ohhh shiiiiiiii- can be religious and keep belief in dinosaurs? sign me up man. *minds blown* :p |
|
More topics from this board
Poll: » do you hide or deny your dark side to others or society?deg - 4 hours ago |
10 |
by cody
»»
16 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » Worst social mediaIpreferEcchi - Mar 19 |
30 |
by pludel2
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» which country would you NOT want to visit? ( 1 2 )removed-user - Mar 27 |
68 |
by Dracowyn
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
36 |
by cody
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Is intelligence overrated?pludel2 - Mar 29 |
28 |
by tsukareru
»»
2 hours ago |