Religion - Page 4

**LordGrievous** · 11-04-2007, 07:23 PM

No. But you included it as part of your argument. So i simply countered it.

**Fewmitz** · 11-04-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordgrievous

No. But you included it as part of your argument. So i simply countered it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordgrievous

I believe in the Big Bang theory because it has merit and makes sense. Since religion doesn't have proof and science has answered many questions and can be proven by tangible proof.

You can't counter my argument by changing yours.

You never said that you believed in evolution, you said the Big Bang Theory offered more proof than religion. But it doesn't, which was the purpose of my witty reply about how no proof is offered for either. I never said evolution itself had no proof, I said the stage that came BEFORE evolution merits no proof.

**LordGrievous** · 11-04-2007, 09:13 PM

No, but i said that i believed in science. and I'm not altering my argument. I still believe in that theory but I'm aware that all of the beliefs of creation are full of holes. But the big bang theory does have SOME proof. Religion has NONE at least none that I've seen.

**Fewmitz** · 11-05-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordgrievous

No, but i said that i believed in science. and I'm not altering my argument. I still believe in that theory but I'm aware that all of the beliefs of creation are full of holes. But the big bang theory does have SOME proof. Religion has NONE at least none that I've seen.

The problem is you explicitly stated that you believed in "The Big Bang Theory" because science offered some tangible proof.

But, the thing is, the Big Bang Theory has no tangible proof. The majority of it's proof is either based on where things are, or the wavelengths.

Regarding the first one, that's not even vague proof. Considering the person that INVENTED the theory used this as support, it's no longer "Does this proof support the theory?", it's "How does the theory conform to what's already in place?". The latter is the case, and is much less academically stable.

The second one almost some form of proof, but it's just as circumstantial, mainly because not only could out reading of the light particles be faulty, but in billions of years the planets still could have moved.

**|G3|** · 11-05-2007, 11:57 AM

I don't see why people have to make such a big deal over this.

Anne Dyari · 11-18-2007, 04:45 PM

Personally, I don't see why religion has to be so big in today's culture, it's only caused more and more controversy over rather 'silly' things such as fighting over what God exists and what doesn't.

This is why I'm Agnostic(not aethiest) XDDD

xpinklemon · 12-18-2007, 10:22 PM

I think my religion is ...okay ;3

and the part where you think Jesus is being praised more than god, well that's because god commands his people to praise Jesus as well.