I Dont Believe In The Big Bang

[lVlad]

Thats right atheist. I dont.

Oh my god...i must be an idiot and obviously have never learned nor studied in depth the big bang theory.

Atheists can be intolerant just like religious people can.

your not an idiot if you dont believe in modern scientific theories (these will likely change as they always do).

hm...well if your a teenager who believes in atheism because its some fad of new intelligence..good for you buddy...

[Ansel]

what is the point of this thread

[Maverick-Alex]

At 6/26/09 09:50 PM, lVlad wrote: Atheists can be intolerant just like religious people can.

This sentence wins BIG TIME.

[Piss]

This seems like an attack thread.

[RKthrilla]

Any reasons why you don't believe in it or are you just flaming atheists?

[yurgenburgen]

At 6/26/09 09:50 PM, lVlad wrote: Thats right atheist. I dont.

Do you really think atheists give a shit whether you believe in the big bang or not?

[Qwazal]

At 6/26/09 09:51 PM, Maverick-Alex wrote:

At 6/26/09 09:50 PM, lVlad wrote: Atheists can be intolerant just like religious people can.

This sentence wins BIG TIME.

seconded. i dont like atheists they dont see thats there is actually some good things in religion..

and no im not a christian

[Proottalfain]

At 6/26/09 09:52 PM, RKthrilla wrote: Any reasons why you don't believe in it or are you just flaming atheists?

It seems like the latter. And then they say atheists are noisy...

[BringMeTheDarkness]

So wait, you would choose to believe in a system that can't factually support itself, rather than a system whose entire basis is to support itself factually?

you were obviously never the smart one.

[Ansel]

At 6/26/09 09:53 PM, BringMeTheDarkness wrote: So wait, you would choose to believe in a system that can't factually support itself, rather than a system whose entire basis is to support itself factually?

you were obviously never the smart one.

I'm one of the targets of this thread, but in fairness the Big Bang can't be proven any better than a bibical creation theory. A certain degree of agnosticism will always be necessary if you approach things completely scientifically.

[DudeGoofyGuy]

At 6/26/09 09:50 PM, lVlad wrote: hm...well if your a teenager who believes in atheism because its some fad of new intelligence..good for you buddy...

No, see, Atheism was ages ago. Pagan was popular for a while, but right now it's a tie between Wiccan and Agnostic as what is edgey and cool.

[physicsman09]

At 6/26/09 09:55 PM, Ansel wrote:

At 6/26/09 09:53 PM, BringMeTheDarkness wrote: So wait, you would choose to believe in a system that can't factually support itself, rather than a system whose entire basis is to support itself factually?

you were obviously never the smart one.

I'm one of the targets of this thread, but in fairness the Big Bang can't be proven any better than a bibical creation theory. A certain degree of agnosticism will always be necessary if you approach things completely scientifically.

You know, except for all the data we have discovered relating to the expansion of the universe.

I mean, all that spectrophotometry stuff is horseshit right? The way we can prove how far away something is in space, using light that is shifted towards the red or blue wavelength? Yea, none of it can be proved right?

I mean those astrophysicists were just messing with us when they did the calculations for the acceleration of the universe, I mean how honestly believes that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, but this rate of acceleration is decreasing.

It's all a lie, I'm not going to listen to those scientists, what do they know? I know infinitely more then them, after all I am a Ph.D in this stuff.

Oh yea, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.

[MrPercie]

Man people are too stupid to come up with the own ways of the beginning of the universe. I mean yes there is a god and a heaven because other wise death would be pointless and wed all be killing our selfs but everything that happend after what god created was science. the big bang must have been god. I mean I believe that Jesus, Muhammad, Mose's and all religious people like that were gods creation so we would live in a world of different beliefs and learn to cope with it.

[BringMeTheDarkness]

At 6/26/09 09:55 PM, Ansel wrote:

I'm one of the targets of this thread, but in fairness the Big Bang can't be proven any better than a biblical creation theory. A certain degree of agnosticism will always be necessary if you approach things completely scientifically.

Well the thing is that at least with the Big Bang Theory you can map out the progression of matter in the universe and then come to the theory of the Big Bang off of collected observations rather than just making up philosophical/mythological stories to magically explain everything.

It would be like me going to the store and noticing milk on the shelf and thinking "how did that milk get there". I could explain it by saying the "milk fairy" brought it from her castle and puts it on the shelf every night, but she is invisible and no way of detecting her putting the milk on the shelf, making that theory neither provable or disprovable while at the same time i could then look at the back of the store, notice a "milk truck" and come to the conclusion that the milk truck brings the milk, yet i never saw anybody unload the milk truck and therefore that theory is neither provable nor disprovable.

now which one sounds more logical to you?

[Igotaname13]

At 6/26/09 10:01 PM, physicsman09 wrote:

I mean those astrophysicists were just messing with us when they did the calculations for the acceleration of the universe, I mean how honestly believes that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, but this rate of acceleration is decreasing.

It's all a lie, I'm not going to listen to those scientists, what do they know? I know infinitely more then them, after all I am a Ph.D in this stuff.

Oh yea, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Shut up Physicsman quit trying to make yourself look good, just keep educating me on stickam and shut the fuck up.

[Ansel]

At 6/26/09 10:04 PM, BringMeTheDarkness wrote:

At 6/26/09 09:55 PM, Ansel wrote:

I'm one of the targets of this thread, but in fairness the Big Bang can't be proven any better than a biblical creation theory. A certain degree of agnosticism will always be necessary if you approach things completely scientifically.

Well the thing is that at least with the Big Bang Theory you can map out the progression of matter in the universe and then come to the theory of the Big Bang off of collected observations rather than just making up philosophical/mythological stories to magically explain everything.

It would be like me going to the store and noticing milk on the shelf and thinking "how did that milk get there". I could explain it by saying the "milk fairy" brought it from her castle and puts it on the shelf every night, but she is invisible and no way of detecting her putting the milk on the shelf, making that theory neither provable or disprovable while at the same time i could then look at the back of the store, notice a "milk truck" and come to the conclusion that the milk truck brings the milk, yet i never saw anybody unload the milk truck and therefore that theory is neither provable nor disprovable.

now which one sounds more logical to you?

I think that's a shitty comparison. the milk truck is easily observable with just a bit of investigation, and similarly to how the outward expansion of the universe can be observed now, it's a part of a larger process. Just from seeing the milk truck doesn't tell you where the truck came from, or how it got there.

[physicsman09]

At 6/26/09 10:05 PM, Igotaname13 wrote:

Shut up Physicsman quit trying to make yourself look good, just keep educating me on stickam and shut the fuck up.

Lol ok babe.

[BringMeTheDarkness]

At 6/26/09 10:06 PM, Ansel wrote:

I think that's a shitty comparison. the milk truck is easily observable with just a bit of investigation

That is the point of science: furthering observation to come to conclusions

, and similarly to how the outward expansion of the universe can be observed now, it's a part of a larger process. Just from seeing the milk truck doesn't tell you where the truck came from, or how it got there.

Yet you are trying to answer the question of where the milk came from, if that leads you to the question of where the milk truck came from, did you not still answer or at least theorize the answer to the first direct question? Science is the art of discovering questions.

[ripoffhitman]

Religions commonly preasure eachother, and it's understandable to not be happy with it. But you better deal with it, because people think differently. People here don't care what you believe in, unless you bash their religion in general.

Starting flame wars is just a petty excuse to run away from dealing with Catch 22's. If there is not an absolute answer, then you deal with what other people think. You might not have to respect what people think, but friction is always going to be there.

I personally have no care to learn the beginning, or the end. I have no religion (and I consider Athiesm a religion). I live life, that's it, so you can expect me to be as unbiast as possible on these predicaments.

[OneLastCaress]

Most of that didn't make sense, but I get your point.

[yurgenburgen]

At 6/26/09 10:06 PM, Ansel wrote: Just from seeing the milk truck doesn't tell you where the truck came from, or how it got there.

No, but by at least observing the milk truck it helps to support the more logical theory which, in turn, helps to negate the 'milk fairy' idea.

This is why the big bang theory is called a theory, because although we know it might not be a perfect explanation for the creation of the universe, there is still scientific evidence to support the theory.

The idea of god creating everything is not a theory. It is an idea. The reason it is not a theory is because there is no evidence at all to support it.

[RWT]

At 6/26/09 09:50 PM, lVlad wrote: Thats right atheist. I dont.

I'm a Sihk and I believe in the big bang...?

[Falconpunchr]

So what? As long as you don't ruin your life by being overly religous it's no big deal

[psychicpebble]

I hate how some atheists go into deep conversations and act like they know everything and they know for a fact that you're wrong. It just gets irritating, they've never been dead and don't know for certain how we got here or anything like that. They act so cocky and copy and paste facts from wikipedia...

[Viridis]

You dont BELIEVE in atheism. The idea is that you dont believe in ANYTHING. ;)

[Falconpunchr]

At 6/26/09 10:19 PM, psychicpebble wrote: I hate how some atheists go into deep conversations and act like they know everything and they know for a fact that you're wrong. It just gets irritating, they've never been dead and don't know for certain how we got here or anything like that. They act so cocky and copy and paste facts from wikipedia...

any religion can be taken too far, and sadly people act high and mighty because the believe that only they are right, and that means that they can force their beliefs on others.

[BringMeTheDarkness]

ProTip: Anybody can be flamer on just about anything

Spoiler Alert: Calling another person a flamer based on their presentation of their beliefs w/o examining your own is considered hypocritical.

It would be like a fat slob walking into a gym and calling another fat slob "fat". Yea, that other guy is fat, no doubt, but the guy who said the insult is also fat, making him a hypocrite.

The true wise man in this situation follows nihilism.

[Podburrys]

That's ok. Made from scratch, in 6 Days, with a garden sounds much more fun.

[I-RULE-OVER-ALL]

Do you really think that the bible is meant to be read literally, instead of spiritually?

[Qwazal]

At 6/26/09 10:42 PM, I-RULE-OVER-ALL wrote: Do you really think that the bible is meant to be read literally, instead of spiritually?

seconded