http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fz_C20TeaxE

What are your thoughts on this film? I've been trying to find faults in it, but it's pretty bulletproof.

its funny you posted this because i watched the entire thing just last night.

I was really curioius about all the coincidences and facts. and edned up spending most of my night looking things up. As far as i can tell, most of the things stated are factual.

The main thing to keep in mind about the religion portion of the film is that it does not deny the existance of god (although the author may be a non believer). but it does go out of its way to state that most modern day religions are based nearly detail by detail from ancient religions. And that many of our beliefs today can either be huge misunderstandings or just not true.

great piece of film right there

i like where they throw in a clip of the comedian talking about dinosaurs and the earth being only 12k old...
seems like an interesting video, i'll have to watch the rest later.

You might want to check this out too:
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

Can't watch the video at work, but that comedian is Bill Hicks, and he was outstanding.

Interesting.

-THE DON

x2

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting indeed!

You know, I've been thinking about this all day but too lazy (and busy) to fact check it. Has anyone done it? After reading some of the comments on YouTube, apparently (don't know how credible) some found inconsistencies in the video. If it is in fact all true, I feel stupid, as should we all.

humans need religion

otherwise we'd be bothering the really smart people with questions all day long

"how come i can't do this!"
"because god wont' let you"
"oh, okay"

see?

imagine no religion

how come i can't do do this?!!?!
einstein: uh. because you suck?
you: thats bull____ not fair! soem genius you are!

and back to god

"because you suck"
"oh....does that mean im going to hell?"

religion.....is a weird thing.

^^lmao

humans need religion

Or is it the other way around?

ah, if you want to get into THAT we can

they coincide with each other, for you to have one, you must have the other. or else the existence of either is false.

one might argue, well athiests don't' need religion!
true, to a sense.
if you dwell deeper into the whole athiest religion and atmosphere, they never once say that god is impossible, rather they say that he is not plausible. therefore placing them in a plank where god MIGHT be possible in situations that are inexplainable.

yet, true to form, there are athiests that will stand there and repeat over and over again that god doesn't exist and that no higher being exists than themselves. so. upon hearing that. i bring in the definition of religion

religion |riÈlijYn|:
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.

so..with that, the pursuit alone of not believing in a religion, and seeing yourself as the highest form of authority over your own life, you suddenly become the god of your own life. in turn creating a religion. it is inevitable.

so! all in all, the only TRUE way to ever be part of no religion, you must believe in absolutely nothing....

like emo kids.

or, one must figure out a way to place equality within everybody so as nobody is greater than anybody else. which is the way of certain forms of buddism and other such religions.

and we all know, even monks have opinions of soemthing.

yup.

religion is a biatch!
:relief:
sorry to get all into it human philosophy is my steez.

btw, sorry if i bored the crap out of you.

im quite bored myself. and didn't get to watch that youtube thing cuz im blackberrying my internet connection =(

what do anarchists have to do with religion?

for you to have one, you must have the other.
religion is an idea. ideas cannot exist w/o people, but people can exist w/o ideas.

what do anarchists have to do with religion?

for you to have one, you must have the other.
religion is an idea. ideas cannot exist w/o people, but people can exist w/o ideas.Yes, but if a tree falls on an idea but there are no religions around...wait....never mind.

i think aen meant atheists, not anarchists. Because anarchists don't need government rules and what not.

I believe someone once said, "Keep thy religion hidden in secret,"...Oh yeah...that was Jesus.

i think aen meant atheists, not anarchists. Because anarchists don't need government rules and what not.

I was considering the post:

Anarchist? I do not think this word means what you think it means. Perhaps you were searching for the word "atheist"?

But I figured he would have some sort of stoned out philsophy major explaination that I would not care two snits about.

I believe someone once said, "Keep they religion hidden in secret,"...Oh yeah...that was Jesus.Umm...no, I don't believe so. I'm pretty sure it was George Carlin.

I believe someone once said, "Keep they religion hidden in secret,"...Oh yeah...that was Jesus.Umm...no, I don't believe so. I'm pretty sure it was George Carlin.

No, Geroge Cralin made that one the commandments when he decided to shorten them. The Bible reads:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
-Matthew 6: 5-8

I believe someone once said, "Keep they religion hidden in secret,"...Oh yeah...that was Jesus.Umm...no, I don't believe so. I'm pretty sure it was George Carlin.

No, Geroge Cralin made that one the commandments when he decided to shorten them. The Bible reads:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
-Matthew 6: 5-8
Right. But he's talking about praying there...not someone's faith. He's saying that when you pray to God, it should be a personal thing and not done to draw attention to yourself. Jesus obvioulsy wants believers to share their faith.
The Bible also says in Matthew 5:14-16 - "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

And also in Matthew 28:19 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.",

Ok...but in Matthew 6: 5-8 he is basically saying that there shouldn't be churches, so if you go to church you are going against what Jesus said.

The Bible is clearly saying good/decent action is what is needed not going sit in a pue and worshiping G/god(s).

Ok...but in Matthew 6: 5-8 he is basically saying that there shouldn't be churches, so if you go to church you are going against what Jesus said.Huh? How do you get that out of those verses? By that logic, we shouldn't have street corners either. If you read Matthew 6:5-8 (keeping the in mind the context of the conversation), you see that Jesus is giving a warning about Hypocricy. At that time there were many "religious" people who used to draw all the attention to themselves by standing and praying out loud with long prayers. God knows the heart of every man. He knows if a prayer is sincere or if it's done for the wrong reasons. This is a warning against hypocrisy, not worship. On the contrary, Jesus sought the peace and fellowship of His father's house many, many times. He taught in the synagogues. Jesus isn't against corporate worship as a group (church), he's against hypocrasy. Read pretty-much the entire book of Hebrews for examples.

*oops...double post

Matthew 5:14-16 - "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
It doesn't say to share your faith! It says to perform good deeds.

Matthew 5:14-16 - "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
It doesn't say to share your faith! It says to perform good deeds.You're right. Very good point. Of course, the next verse I quoted clearly does. If you would like, I could post more verses from scripture that clearly tell belivers to to tell others about the saving grace of Jesus. The Bible is loaded with 'em.

I was brought up Catholic. I find myself in a crossroads lately with Christianity as a whole because the Bible was written by man and man is fallible. I've had more than one Christian try to explain to me that they were influenced by God. That's fine and all, but if they were influenced by God then why aren't all of the other books written by other people's accounts of Jesus also placed in the Bible? Because the people of that time didn't think certain people's stories mattered and that in itself isn't Christian.

i think aen meant atheists, not anarchists. Because anarchists don't need government rules and what not.

I was considering the post:

Anarchist? I do not think this word means what you think it means. Perhaps you were searching for the word "atheist"?

But I figured he would have some sort of stoned out philsophy major explaination that I would not care two snits about.

My bad, I did mean athiest, dunno why I kept typing anarchist. But hey man, religion is all philosophy. And very "stoned out" as it is. I was just sharing an idea, about religion being just an idea, we as humans cannot exist without ideas, if that were the case we would be lumps of absolute nothing. But we aren't. Human nature wants to figure out that of which we don't unbderstand. I can tell this is already a touchy subject for some reason.

My point, is that technically speaking, humans can exist without etheral ideas. We do not need mysticism in order to thrive and multiply. However, ideas are inherently dependent on the existence of humans or at the least some other creature capable of imagination.

so, anybody else up for existentialism? ....me either. the quote is "i think, therefore i am." but you know what, i've met plenty of people that don't think and still exist. go to wal-mart and look at the freaks that didn't even bother to clothe themselves properly or have to scream into their cell phone for everyone to hear. those are stupid people. they don't think, but they still are. they are more than lumps, but less than impressive examples of consciousness. not everything is a methodical, thought out response or interaction. some things/people just exist.

My point, is that technically speaking, humans can exist without etheral ideas. We do not need mysticism in order to thrive and multiply. However, ideas are inherently dependent on the existence of humans or at the least some other creature capable of imagination.

i do have to agree....in truth, we can exist without the ideas of religion. but in reality, it is impossible. human nature states that we question that in which we do not understand.

and generally we chalk it up to religion..or science. which for hte sake of this argument could be considered a religion

y'digg?

i guess human nature moreso SUGGESTS that we question, not states. id change my post but i feel like theres need to see the difference.

so, anybody else up for existentialism? ....me either. the quote is "i think, therefore i am." but you know what, i've met plenty of people that don't think and still exist. go to wal-mart and look at the freaks that didn't even bother to clothe themselves properly or have to scream into their cell phone for everyone to hear. those are stupid people. they don't think, but they still are. they are more than lumps, but less than impressive examples of consciousness. not everything is a methodical, thought out response or interaction. some things/people just exist.

i think, therefore i am

haha i like that. and true. idiots at walmart might jusst be the exception :pray:

i hope to god that they are the only exception.

I was brought up Catholic. I find myself in a crossroads lately with Christianity as a whole because the Bible was written by man and man is fallible. I've had more than one Christian try to explain to me that they were influenced by God. That's fine and all, but if they were influenced by God then why aren't all of the other books written by other people's accounts of Jesus also placed in the Bible? Because the people of that time didn't think certain people's stories mattered and that in itself isn't Christian.

according to some the bible is written by man that was influenced by god right? and god being hte ultimate being should have corrected or prevented any fallacies within such a form that represented himself.

so, we can either come to conclusion that
A. Somebody made it up
B. God doesn't care

or (and this is hte one most people stand by)

C. god is all willing and mighty and somehow has a divine plan as to why the bible was written with so much fallible evidence.

now, i'm not saying AT ALL that im not religious, that i'm trying to burst anybodys bubble or anything. but these are all weird little things that people have to consider before they go preaching that god is all mighty.

to tell you the truth, my own beliefs is that god is just chillin wherever he is. marveling at his creation of man. that is able to question, think and are innately able to disprove his existance. even WITH events that have absolutely no explanation.


sorry for the triple triple post. i should put it into one but i kept noticing things after and it's hard to do on a cellphone's browser

I do believe in God, but I am finding it harder and harder to believe in the concept of Jesus Christ as a divine being. I believe that he was a very inspirational person, but I also believe that he was first human then divine (if divine at all), so that also means I believe that he had human needs that were met. I believe that he was married and had children before he was murdered for saying that he was the son of God. People do that today and we don't kill them in the streets.
I haven't turned away from God because I see that higher being in everyone. He/She is there, but we have to want to find God because if we don't seek we will never find.

correct me if i'm wrong, becaus eim not all that well versed on christianity, purely because it's very hard to actually follow with hte innaccuracies. but.

was jesus supposed to be a divine being? i was under the impression that he was just a messenger

I don't mean to break up the discussion but where have the biggest anti-religion people been: Davetc and Citizen? Have they been kicked out of here; I haven't heard from them in months.

Everyone interprets things differently, for if you were not there to hear the word from Jesus as he spoke it, or his father before him on the mountain top, all information is second hand, written and shaped by different authors and translators and not the true word of god. I myself do not attend a church or other organized religion. I do know right from wrong and simply try to do right in the world. As someone wrote earlier, if god truly knows the heart of every man, prayer should not be needed; my thoughts and deeds will be enough.

Note: Interpretation extends to the concept of Jesus's divinity, I am not one to take things on faith alone. If there is no god, however, it is an amazing occurance againt overwhelming probability that the natural forces of the universe came into being on their own volition and have led to me being able to post this message, in a non-physical medium no less.

EDIT: It just occured to me, what is one considered if they are skeptical on Jesus's divinity and Muhammad's revalation with god, but don't sucribe to Judaism?

for those at the cross roads:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1625960628583850082&q=what+the+bleep+do+we+know&total=319&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I don't mean to break up the discussion but where have the biggest anti-religion people been: Davetc and Citizen? Have they been kicked out of here; I haven't heard from them in months.

good question. these are the topics we had huge discussions about roughly 6-12 months ago. There was a period of a few months or so that we would have 100+ page long discussions about abortion, religion, death penalty. Those were the good old days. i was on the boards for those every 15 minutes it seems. im really really really into politcal and moral issues.

and back on topic, i find it impossible, furthermore, cruel to believe in an infallible god. If god was infallible and knew all, he is an immoral creation.

If god knows all that is and will be, thats saying he knows the future. And in saying that he knows the future, that negates free will. And without free will, every human is inheritantly going to have a predestined life. And pay attention, because here in lies my problem. If god knows the future, then he knows that when he creates someone they will grow up and be a bad human and go to hell. Its unavoidable. So i find it quite wrong that he would create a creature that he knows will end up in the most unsufferable place for all of eternity. So for moral reasons, i dont belive in a god, especially a christian god

and generally we chalk it up to religion..or science. which for hte sake of this argument could be considered a religion

In no way can science ever be considered a religion. Keep in mind, it's science, not the Bible, that allows us to have this conversation in the media we are having it, and it's all based off an enormous string of "on/offs". Pretty mind boggling to say the least.

In no way can science ever be considered a religion. Keep in mind, it's science, not the Bible, that allows us to have this conversation in the media we are having it, and it's all based off an enormous string of "on/offs". Pretty mind boggling to say the least.

You may not know just how accurate that statement is. The more understood the nature of the subatomic particle is understood, the more instances of two state systems are found, essentially running on an "on/off" state. The laws of the natural world can then also be interpreted as a series of possible events mapped out in a logical branching structure, not unlike computer code. The more I study the more it seems like the universe is "programmed". Regarding free will however, every program requires user input, so god may have wrote the code but it is up to us how to execute it, for good or bad. I do not believe in fate or any entity's ability to know the future, the entire principle of chaos is based on this. The possible outcomes may be known, but it is impossible to know which potential will actually occur.

Bottom line, something may have constructed the mechanics of the universe, but that thing is not guiding it's direction. The solids and stripes were racked and the cue ball was struck, but there is no telling where each ball will break.

and generally we chalk it up to religion..or science. which for hte sake of this argument could be considered a religion

In no way can science ever be considered a religion. Keep in mind, it's science, not the Bible, that allows us to have this conversation in the media we are having it, and it's all based off an enormous string of "on/offs". Pretty mind boggling to say the least.

according to the definition of religion

science can be

and i only said for the sake of the argument, in all honesty i agree. science would never really be considered a religion, science and religion do coincide with each other htough.

always have, always will.

Everything in science is quantifiable, if its not, it is specifically labeled a theory ex: Big Bang Theory, etc. In religion, it is basically word of mouth by people who might as well have been fiction writers. One point I want to bring to light as it never occurred to me before; out of all the scholars and philosophers of the Jesus era, not one made an account of Jesus. That does seem strange if in fact Jesus was able to accomplish everything that the Bible insists he did.

Praying in front of the vending machine won't get me a bag of chips, but $.55 will.

^^:rofl:

Jesus was all about loving your neighbor and reaching out to everyone equally why are their so many different interpretations and his word isn't so universally known? If he was at all divine wouldn't we as humans understand it easily? Why would God want to be so mysterious if he wants us to follow his teachings?

If God is so infallible and His word is supposed to be perfect and the people whom God wrote the Bible through weren't adding their own opinions then why are there so many different Bibles? Wouldn't that alone contradict that God is infallible? Why would he allow His word to have so many different contradictions?

Everything in science is quantifiable, if its not, it is specifically labeled a theory ex: Big Bang Theory, etc.

Uhm, no. In science, theories are large bodies of knowledge backed by mountains of empirical evidence gathered through countless hours of experimentation/observation and reems of peer reviewed articles which are used to make predictions with a given set of circumstances.

What it is not is simply some idea, notion, or best guess.

one thing i wanted to add to this discussion.... king solomon's reign altered the bible. it was altered to fit in with current holidays of the day. those times were predominantly pagan, but were quickly growing christian. a middle ground was negotiated onto apease the two religions. the holidays are the only ones that are provable, the rest of the alterations are conjecture.

king solomon's reign altered the bible

What? You mean some monarch just up and changed the word of God?! No? Man, I bet that's the only time that's happened!

i'm sure it's not the only time, but it's the only time that anyone has bothered to prove it.

The First Council of Nicea was to gather and decide whether Jesus was part of the Father or similar to Him, so it was at that point three hundred and twenty five years after Christ's death that men decide whether he was divine or not. If you believe the Bible then you must understand that we are all similar to God because we were all made in his image.

Everything in science is quantifiable, if its not, it is specifically labeled a theory ex: Big Bang Theory, etc.

Uhm, no. In science, theories are large bodies of knowledge backed by mountains of empirical evidence gathered through countless hours of experimentation/observation and reems of peer reviewed articles which are used to make predictions with a given set of circumstances.

What it is not is simply some idea, notion, or best guess.

Very eloquent, however, I said: In science, there are Theories and Facts. After your rebuttal of "Umm, no", you followed by an over the top explanation of a theory. What is your point?

Because you seemed to indicate that theories and facts are somehow seperate, and you explicitly stated that theories were non-quantifiable.

It was over the top because of the popular definition of theory is that it is just a best guess, a notion, or an idea, and your statement seemed to indicate that you were coming from a postion of that definition. I just wanted to be thorough and crystal clear.

Your initial presumption was correct. Theories and Facts are completely separate entities. Your version of a theory is just a clever definition of an educated guess, and thats all they are no matter how you twist semantics. A fact is a fact. I do not see how you would argue otherwise.

why are we debating the meaning of words? doesn't anyone know how to use wikipedia? i mean, really, is this gonna become like the clinton trial, where we had to define sex? get past this and move back to the topic.

will have to check out at home.

Your initial presumption was correct. Theories and Facts are completely separate entities. Your version of a theory is just a clever definition of an educated guess, and thats all they are no matter how you twist semantics. A fact is a fact. I do not see how you would argue otherwise.

The Thoery of Electromagnetism

The Theory of Gravity

The Theory of Evolution

The Theory of Relativity

These are not guesses. These are entire bodies of knowlege used thousands of times a minute by engineers all over the world to develop new technologies and better ways of doing things.

I'm trying to differentiate, in your mind, the difference between the layman's version of the word, and the scientific definition.

get past this and move back to the topic

Religion topics always, eventually get around to evolution. Which invariably brings up the layman's rebuttal: "it's just a theory". I'm just getting this crap out of the way sooner rather than later.

do you have any evidence to prove that engineers use this... any of these theorys, thousands of times every minute? i'm not saying you're wrong, but you need to find firmer ground than just pulling it out of your butt. being 105, i'm sure you are aware of the necessity of evidence/data in statistical analysis and argumentation.

on another note, i believe the thread becomes locked when we get off topic. as we seem to be, i would say it's time to lock it, wouldn't you? we can start a new one where we argue about the meanings of words and whether someone pulled facts out of their butt.(neat trick btw)

do you have any evidence to prove that engineers use this
Ok, how about a basic electrical engineering class known as "The Theory of Electromagnetism". All of the knowledge of electromagnetism is encompassed in this theory. The formulas, the theorems, the math, EVERY BIT OF KNOWLEDGE about electricity and magnetism. It isn't a simple statement, it's an entire subject. You can't develop ANY new electronic devices without the knowledge, therefore, it is being used all the time.

...and you have empirical data to show regarding this? i'm not arguing the fact that people use these things evevryday. i am arguing that your presentation was between poor and tragic. Unless you can prove that it's used thousands of times a minute i don't agree with you. it may be used millions or hundreds of times a minute. you don't know.

you use words frivolously and that makes anything else you say suspect. you don't have to try to embellish to impress people. share the extent of your knowledge, but don't overstep it's range. right now you sound like a kid brother trying to impress me with what he learned in school that day. don't be that guy.

^^ Exactly my impression.

All those Theories you listed a couple of posts ago are all "Theories" because they either contain flaws or leave something unexplained. Just because they are being utilized by today's scholars and scientists does constitute them to being perfect or accurate. Those Theories or Laws (which they are also at times referred to) are the best set of characteristics we have at this point in time, or else they would be "facts". Scientist were under the impression that the Earth was flat years ago, that theory was discredited and now we know the Earth is round, thats a fact, its quantifiable.

and you have empirical data to show regarding this?

No, and you're right it could be loads more. The point was that they are being used, in practice, every minute, of every single day by researchers, technicians, engineers, and designers. Does the exact number matter? Or is what matters is that they are being used to create incredibly exact intrumentations and devices? Hardly the realm of "best guesses".

All those Theories you listed a couple of posts ago are all "Theories" because they either contain flaws or leave something unexplained.
This statement implies that at some point we could possibly have every bit of information on everything there is to know. They are titled this because they are subjects. Plain and simple, subjects. They are not statements. They are organic subjects that get updated as we get more knowledge. Sometimes we learn we are too specific, and theories, by definition, have to be extremely general. They don't have flaws, they have holes where we know something goes, but we don't know what that something is. For instance, in The Theory of Gravity, we don't know exactly what mechanism creates gravity. Does that make the shuttle orbits we calculate based off of what we know any less accurate or flawed? Only when we forget what units we are using ;)

Those Theories or Laws (which they are also at times referred to) are the best set of characteristics we have at this point in time, or else they would be "facts".
This is where you are flat out wrong. Within theories you have laws and facts. If we have a law, then we are too specific and need to be more general. For instance, Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion are 100% accruate for the scale we are at now. However, those laws do not explain atomic partical movement. Therefore, the laws of motion, are one section under the The Theory of Relativity. You can use Eintstein's equations to describe the parabolic movement of a projectile and get the exact same results as Newton's equations. However, Newton's equations break down on a planetary scale, and atomic scale where Einstein's do not. General is better.

Scientist were under the impression that the Earth was flat years ago, that theory was discredited and now we know the Earth is round, thats a fact, its quantifiable.
You mean the "scientists" controled by the Catholic Church? It was never a "theory" that the Earth was flat, it was a decree from the Catholic Church. Just like it was a decree that the sun revolved around the Earth, which was, according to the Catholic Church, the center of the universe. Galleleo was excommunicated when he informed them otherwise.

Meanwhile, back on this side of the planet, without the Church's involvement Aztecs already had the concept of zero, and knew that the Earth revolved around the sun.

Unless you can prove that it's used thousands of times a minute i don't agree with you. it may be used millions or hundreds of times a minute. you don't know.

Millions can be expressed in terms of thousands. See, general is better ;-)

basically we're learning more and more about what "laws" and theories exist in our world everyday!

it's silly to believe that something is the same today will be the same tomorrow. our minds and research will always continue to explore and learn how to use everything around us in different ways! back in the 1700's, phones, cars, and airplanes were OUT of the question. but even way before that divinci had an idea about it.

i'm glad science is constantly researching....cause maybe something far fetched like light speed or time travel seems stupid now. but 100 years from now (if we make it) maybe it'll be a whole different ball game cause a flux capacitor DOES work or something.

i understand the view that our science is "perfected" the way it is now, so stop being so defensive of the HERE and the NOW and just free your mind a lil.

i understand the view that our science is "perfected" the way it is now,
I wouldn't say our science is perfected, and don't know anyone that would, but our scientific method is fairly decent.

The only thing I'm defensive about is the nonchalant usage of the word "theory". 99% of people do not have a clue as to the high ranking level theories have in science. In reality, it's the end all be all. Theories do not get reveresed. They do not get dismissed. They get expanded on and more generalized, but they never get reversed. Hypothesis get dismissed, reveresed, or proven wrong, but not theories.

If we ever find out how to travel faster than light, it isn't that we were wrong today, it's that our view of the situation was insufficient. It won't be an invention or some techinical discovery that we learn it either, it'll be some physicist, or most likely a mathmetician that solves something that has yet to be solved which gives us a different view on a given siutation. Then it might take a dozen or a 1000 years or more to understand the ramifications of that solution which leads to light speed travel.

Of course, there's always going to be the fundamental issue the acceleration will have on your body.....

I think there is a new term you should familiarize your self with, its called opinion. First, its irrelevant that Theories are being utilized today in different practices. I never rendered them useless. Second, if you want to get specific, different theories belonging to different subjects ex:Evolution-Biology, Relativity-Physics, are called Theories due to different faults they may contain. Here is a good article you should read:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-relativity.htm

I am done arguing with you however. You are one of those people that has their own definition of a topic that has been widely established, which is fine, but imposing it on people as a "fact" when it is a "theory" makes arguing pointless.

why isn't this thread locked? we are WAY off from the original post. if we want to discuss what the word theory means, then lets start a thread for that. i wanted to discuss more about the video, but that has fallen to the wayside.

btw, the video has holes in the information used that you could drive a truck through. when you boil it down, there's no real way to know what happened back then. that's why it's called faith. that, and many other reasons i don't care to go into. ...see, the thing is, until either god or his representative on earth(don't ask me how to confirm that guy's ID) tells us exactly what happened, we'll never know the real truth. that has been lost to time, greed, and power over the years. and if there is no god, then we still fall into the same problem, but the world has no chance of finding out because there is no sentient creator to even consider revealing itself. either way, what does it matter? just know that most organized religion is based on lies told by man. when you read any holy book, remember that it lost it's truth when the first person wrote it. intentionally or not, the first writer put a perspective on those texts. that person saw things from his own point of view. not to mention that not everyone could write and who knows what embellishments a scribe made or what words he/she altered to make their job simpler. after all of that, then imagine how many times it has been re-copied and re-translated over the years. and people believe they are reading divine text?

if that isn't a strong enough argument, try this. the supposed divine texts of the world.... they are all squirrelled away in safe places so that they aren't destroyed by the ravages of time. if you believe in these texts then you believe in some form of antithesis, or at the very least a antagonist to god. isn't it possible, over the years, that this mischevious anti-god altered the story in one of it's drafts. or, maybe over several different versions, slowly worked in it's own version of truth. that way nobody would notice. too drastic a change might draw attention....

i digress. i just wanted to throw that out there for people to chew on.

You are one of those people that has their own definition of a topic that has been widely established, which is fine, but imposing it on people as a "fact" when it is a "theory" makes arguing pointless

You sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch

you're killing me. i didn't mean for you to actually post wikipedia definitions on here. they look the same on the next guy's computer, ya know.

As long as we get past the sophomoric notion that a theory is simply an idea or guess, and that theory and fact are not necessarily seperate or mutually exclusive, I'm fine with that. And btw, that was for the other guy that seems to think I have some sort of made up definition of the term.

if someone can't figure out how to use a dictionary, or wikipedia, is your time well spent writing a retort?

You undoubtedly have no clue as to the reserves of free time available to me ;)

:rofl: apparently not.

As reluctant as I am to come back to this thread, I am tempted to see what biased response you may reply with next. As scientific as you make your self out to be, you should be very well aware that Wikipidea's integrity is highly suspect. If I so desire, I can edit that statement in 5 seconds.

Here is a definition from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

To sum it up, they are educated guesses/predictions/assumptions that are accepted by the scientific community(which I never debated) but my point is that you seem incapable of differentiating between the two. Theories are based on facts to make and educated guess no matter how you attempt to spin your "Doctoral" opinion on the majority's "sophomoric" notion.

Also, why have you not commented on the link I posted? Here it is again:http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-relativity.htm
here is piece:
...Theory of Relativity - Inherent Limitations
For the past century, scientists have conducted a variety of experiments to verify the implications of the Theory of Relativity as well as advance fields such as cosmology and particle physics. However, there is some question as to the ability of Einstein's Theory of Relativity to describe as many physical phenomena as has been claimed - with some scientists arguing against it entirely. Regardless, as with any other scientific theory, it is not the absolute, entire and final description of the universe. Because it is a scientific theory, it contains certain assumptions and approximations of nature and ultimately, fails to describe several phenomena altogether (i.e. electromagnetism). Unfortunately, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, much like Darwin's Theory of Evolution, has become popularized as a "scientific truth" because it offers a simplified explanation to the complexity observed in the natural universe. In fact, Einstein himself spent the rest of his life attempting to develop a Unified Theory of Physics which would combine electromagnetism with relativity. He was unsuccessful and to date, this task has not been accomplished...

You could edit it in 5 min, but it would be corrected shortly after.

Here's why "all about science" is a ridiculous source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

they actually validate intellegent design:
Ignoring the obvious Intelligent Design that permeates life

Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming.

That site has an obvious agenda.

you could have just scanned the page into a jpg or something and cropped it. it's more believable that way. jk.

why are we still on about word definitions again?

I thought you would challenge the source. Here is a link pointing out flaws in the "Theory" of Relativity, from a more reputable source.
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/speed/fgr.html

My point is that it's a theory for a reason. I am not an intelligent design promoter, as a matter of fact I think it's brainwashing children with a religious spin on science. But I will remain firm in my stand that Theories are not absolute nor can they be considered facts. Like I stated many times before, they either have flaws or leave something unexplained. There are also countless theories that have been discredited over the years, I can pull those up for you as well. Your response would probably be that they were hypothesis and not theories, but we can debate that as well.

There are also countless theories that have been discredited over the years, I can pull those up for you as well.
Are we talking valid scientific theories, or are we talking about more decrees from the Catholic Church or ideas from the 17th century? or anything else 300 years before the modern scientific method was concieved?

My point is that it's a theory for a reason.
True statement, but not for the reason you think.

But I will remain firm in my stand that Theories are not absolute
I will agree with this statment. They are living, working models that are updated as we get new information.

nor can they be considered facts
They aren't, but you seem to think that this makes them less important. When in fact, the opposite is true. There is nothing interesting about facts. Facts are used to support theories, but facts can't model and predict. They simply are.

i was messing with you man. geez. didn't you see the just kidding? i still don't see what the definition of theory has to do with thoughs on religion and christianity.

i still don't see what the definition of theory has to do with thoughs on religion and christianity.
Because one of the biggest divides between science and religion has to do with, and here it goes, The Theory of Evolution. Thumpers discredit it by saying, "it's just a theory", but they have no idea what a theory actually is, assuming it means: "guess". When that couldn't be further from the truth.

Someone breaks it down fairly more articulate here: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

There are also countless theories that have been discredited over the years, I can pull those up for you as well.
Are we talking valid scientific theories, or are we talking about more decrees from the Catholic Church or ideas from the 17th century? or anything else 300 years before the modern scientific method was concieved?

No more than 150 years old from different branches; Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc. No Catholic Church.

My point is that it's a theory for a reason.

True statement, but not for the reason you think.

Please enlighten me.

But I will remain firm in my stand that Theories are not absolute

I will agree with this statment. They are living, working models that are updated as we get new information.

Very good point, like I said before they are not quantified, facts are.

nor can they be considered facts
They aren't, but you seem to think that this makes them less important. When in fact, the opposite is true. There is nothing interesting about facts. Facts are used to support theories, but facts can't model and predict. They simply are.

Your assumption is incorrect. I never labeled them unimportant to the scientific community, I attempted to explain the difference between fact and theory. Are we debating which has a more pronounced effect on one's interest or trying to differentiate between the two?

^^but, that wasn't what the original vid was about. plus, stating that evolution falls into the same category as gravity theory and relativity theory is a slippery slope. we know for a fact that those theories don't hold up in extreme cases(black holes come to mind). i'm not arguing.
just pointing out facts.

Your assumption is incorrect. I never labeled them unimportant to the scientific community,
how does "less important" equate to "not important"?

plus, stating that evolution falls into the same category as gravity theory and relativity theory is a slippery slope. we know for a fact that those theories don't hold up in extreme cases(black holes come to mind).
Well, we don't know exactly what holds up in a black hole, now do we? However, it should be point out, that black holes were predicted by, I believe (and could be wrong here), Einstein and relativity theory.

well, now wait a minute. are you contradicting yourself? either we don't know what holds up in a black hole or we have a theory that explains it. which is it?... relativity deals more with the structure of how things are in the universe and how we observe them. it doesn't really cover enormously massive, but incredibly small points of matter. look up penrose-hawking singularity theorems.

and i'm almost certain relativity had nothing to do with the formation of religion.

are you contradicting yourself? either we don't know what holds up in a black hole or we have a theory that explains it.
in order to know anything about a black hole, we'd have to go in there somehow, but we can't even see them, we just know of their existence by their gravitational pull on light. so how would we know? They wouldn't have a theory on it. Ideas maybe, but nothing else.

And this thread is so far derailed, I think we're just waiting on a lockdown.

yeah, i think you're right about the lockdown.

and, yeah, there's a lot of math that predicts what a black hole is, but as you were saying... until we can figure out how to make better observations of it.... it's all conjecture and opinion. it's like guessing all the different species of life on earth by looking at a cloud formation.

WOW... that was a long 5 pages.....

So the title says "Thoughts on religion... Christianity", and after reading this entire thread I found it very interesting what people's thoughts were.

It's no surprise that people reacted the way they did. The "denominational christianity" religion as we know it had been pretty much tainted since the start of the new testament. If you read it you would realize that fact, and that was part the purpose it was written (to correct people's flawed concepts/ways).
Throughout the ages you see people using & abusing this thing called "religion". Let's not even go that far, simply look at our present age - politicians, terrorists, the list goes on & on & on...... Anyways, the point is people should NOT gather & base their concepts/ideas/feelings/biases on a wrongful representation of God.

I also want to clarify somethings in regards to the statements made on the authenticity of the Holy Bible being from God.
2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV): All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Someone also stated that the earth was X number of years old according to the Holy Bible, however I believe that was something untrue. Between Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
&
Genesis 1:2 But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters.
Nobody knows exactly how long that took, therefore the exact date cannot be extracted. The verses following is when the existence of days & nights began.

Another issue I read about was regarding the "earth being flat coming the the bible" theory. It was actually the corrupted churches in europe that invented that concept, not something from the Holy Bible. As a matter of fact, if you look in the old testament (circa B.C.) you will find that it states the earth is in fact round.
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV): He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

^^^doesn't work with non believers....i don't use the bible to disprove something cause that's just contradictory.

my theory: all religions are essentially the same thing. they all at the core are a great collection of morals and civil code. sure the details are a bit different, but i think that's because of the different cultures.

i don't like religion when it's forced down your throat with fire and brimstone. you don't see buddhists telling ppl to meditate or go to hell do you?

plus there's this whole responsibility problem i see. ppl need to blame themselves for the problems of society and the world. jews and palestinians need to look in the mirror and see themselves as murderers

Christianity was invented by the Romans as a control method, it worked, and is still working to this day.

^^ ok, that's a new one.

For the longest time they simply fed the Christians to the lions and had other sorts of fun with them. Then Constatine had a vision to put a cross on his flag and he'd win a big battle. He did, he won, and then established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Or at least that's how I heard the story.

The American government is tied in with religion, the media, and corporations to control it's people. The government takes away liberties of the American people through control. The media is set up to infuse fear into our lives so the government can strip of us our American rights. Corporations sell products that keep us stagnant.
The government will soon be putting tracking devices into every American's passport. They would like for us to have them implanted into our bodies as one family has already done.
Check 'em out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pI_Pq1wiBbs
"Brave new world"...my butt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdX6jI5EBA8

here is the original 50 pages of debate on this topic

http://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=168344&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0

we aren't debating religion anymore. we are arguing about the definition of the word theory and the different kinds of theories out there.

we aren't debating religion anymore. we are arguing about the definition of the word theory and the different kinds of theories out there.

no, I won that, so we've moved on.

well, poopy. i was having fun with that.

we aren't debating religion anymore. we are arguing about the definition of the word theory and the different kinds of theories out there.

no, I won that, so we've moved on.
?

I moved on when you stopped making sense. My silence does not translate to you winning. Don't take credit when no credit is due. Also, don't misrepresent my points to make your own points. I not once labeled theories "less" important either. This whole debate began because you can not differentiate between two separate terms nor can you comprehend the definition from a dictionary which I even pasted. I always maintained that theories either have flaws or leave something unexplained. I even provided a link pointing out those flaws in the Theory of Relativity(which seems to be your favorite theory). Yes they are important, yes they are utilized every day, yes they are a work in progress. You are entitled to perceive theories as you see fit, however, do not impose your opinionated definition on others.

yay...the fight is back.