every single human being on the planet is religous

[sammy7]

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang" or "stellar nucleo synthesis" or "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" or "aliens seeded us here" or "allah made us" , if the answer to this question is "yes" well...i would be interested in your response lol...if it is no.....well you have a religous belief.... thank you for your time etc etc lol just throwing a spanner in the works so to speak lool haha just bored...

 

 

 

 

dictionary.com

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang" or "stellar nucleo synthesis" or "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" or "aliens seeded us here" or "allah made us" , if the answer to this question is "yes" well...i would be interested in your response lol...if it is no.....well you have a religous belief.... thank you for your time etc etc lol just throwing a spanner in the works so to speak lool haha just bored...

 

 

 

 

dictionary.com

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

 

So it's "heads i win, tails you lose?

[sammy7]

So it's "heads i win, tails you lose?

 

well i dont know what you mean? just saying....was bored and thought it might spark some action lol

[iNow]

Your assertion mandates that we extend the actual meaning of words so broadly as to render them meaningless.

[Phi for All]

well i dont know what you mean? just saying....was bored and thought it might spark some action lol

Ridiculous ≠ interesting.

[Greg H.]

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang" or "stellar nucleo synthesis" or "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" or "aliens seeded us here" or "allah made us" , if the answer to this question is "yes" well...i would be interested in your response lol...if it is no.....well you have a religous belief.... thank you for your time etc etc lol just throwing a spanner in the works so to speak lool haha just bored...

 

 

dictionary.com

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

Emphasis of the important bits added. And then let's add in the parts you decided to ignore:

 

re·li·gion

   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1.a

set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creationof a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involvingdevotional and ritual observances, and often containing amoral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generallyagreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefsand practices: a world council of religions.

4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.the practice of

religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

 

Semantic sophistry is the weakest form of argument.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Greg H.

[sammy7]

especially, not restricted to....i will research this more though thank you... i will say though has a single element or a bunch of elements ever been observed to transform itself into "life"? if the answer is "yes" well lol...please cite some literature...if it is "no".......you have a faith based belief.....thank you for your input

[Greg H.]

especially, not restricted to....i will research this more though thank you... i will say though has a single element or a bunch of elements ever been observed to transform itself into "life"? if the answer is "yes" well lol...please cite some literature...if it is "no".......you have a faith based belief.....thank you for your input

 

Ask and ye shall receive.

 

Wired Magazine

 

Craig Venter

 

 

This is one of the reasons that non-Creationists find arguing with Creationists so tiring. We get very tired of doing your research for you. This took me about 5 seconds to find using Google. A more in depth search (which I am not inclined to do for you) would most likely locate the published material.

[sammy7]

lol dude no offence, i will start by saying when i say literature i mean peer reviewed scientific literature ( I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING ) i dont mean some mainstream media story. that said i loosely understand what venter did and yes while it is remarkable it has nothing to do with the question i asked. i would be interested to read the actual literature of what he did though... (i think i know what he did but i wont comment until i read the literature)........

Edited May 20, 2012 by sammy7

[doG]

An important point to note:

 

religion

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

 

Historically religion has nothing to do with belief in scientific theories like gravity as sammy7 would have us believe. This thread is effectively pointless.

 

I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING

That is INCREDIBLY obvious!

[sammy7]

That is INCREDIBLY obvious!

 

 

lmao i mean even as a laymen WITH NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER lmao i understand what science is (yes yes flame on please lol) no please dont flame me i would like intelligent posts to respond to or some challenging literature to read or something...thank you and needless to say gravity, electromagnetism etc etc=observable

[John Cuthber]

""a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang""

Nope, I saw it with my television set.

A good part of the "snow" you see between channels on a tv is the cosmic background radiation- the afterglow of the big bang.

 

What did you think your point was?

 

Anyway, perhaps more importantly. In the dame way that all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

All religions are sets of beliefs, but not all sets of beliefs are religions.

The difference is faith- if you believe something without evidence then it's most probably a religion. That's especially likely if you are going to carry on believing it, even when it's shown to be wrong.

Edited May 20, 2012 by John Cuthber

[doG]

and needless to say gravity, electromagnetism etc etc=observable

Um.....NO. The effects of these things is observable, not the things themselves. Heck, we don't even know exactly what causes gravity, just that it exists.

[sammy7]

lmao umm just bored and getting people to realise which ever belief you have on origins it was never observed so its a faith based belief....(people have faith all the time anyway like umm say when someones driving their car and they hit the brakes...you have faith obv that it will work..or numerous other examples....and science is used by everyone on the planet...a baby learning to crawl..umm is this right... hypothesis- "i will try to crawl" observation and theory together i guess/ he crawls observes whats going , falls over/readjust theory....repeat process etc etc?

[doG]

...people have faith all the time anyway like umm say when someones driving their car and they hit the brakes...you have faith obv that it will work..or numerous other examples....

Experience ≠ faith. If you have been a car before and the brakes have always worked before then the belief that the brakes will work next time is based on your experience, not faith. Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof, there's plenty of proof that brakes work.

[John Cuthber]

lmao umm just bored and getting people to realise which ever belief you have on origins it was never observed so its a faith based belief....(people have faith all the time anyway like umm say when someones driving their car and they hit the brakes...you have faith obv that it will work..or numerous other examples....and science is used by everyone on the planet...a baby learning to crawl..umm is this right... hypothesis- "i will try to crawl" observation and theory together i guess/ he crawls observes whats going , falls over/readjust theory....repeat process etc etc?

 

Do you realise that you are not making sense.

I pointed out that I have directly observed the radiation from the big bang.

Your reply is " it was never observed ".

Plain wrong. It has been observed many times in a whole variety of ways.

Just plain denying the truth doesn't help you here.

[Greg H.]

lol dude no offence, i will start by saying when i say literature i mean peer reviewed scientific literature ( I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING ) i dont mean some mainstream media story. that said i loosely understand what venter did and yes while it is remarkable it has nothing to do with the question i asked. i would be interested to read the actual literature of what he did though... (i think i know what he did but i wont comment until i read the literature)........

 

And dude, no offense, do your own research. I gave you a starting point - nothing more.

 

Experience ≠ faith. If you have been a car before and the brakes have always worked before then the belief that the brakes will work next time is based on your experience, not faith. Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof, there's plenty of proof that brakes work.

 

And the theory of why they work is firmly grounded in science backed up with experimental (and practical) evidence. (Conversion of energy, etc).

[sammy7]

Do you realise that you are not making sense.

I pointed out that I have directly observed the radiation from the big bang.

Your reply is " it was never observed ".

Plain wrong. It has been observed many times in a whole variety of ways.

Just plain denying the truth doesn't help you here.

 

oh sorry i thought you were joking i dont understand what you mean precisely? if you mean you have observed some radiation or whatever today ok i might agree... if you want to make up a story about how that came from something in the past ("big bang" "stellarnucleosynthesis" "creation week") that was never observed, it is taken by faith that it happened if you believe it.......???if thats what you mean???

[John Cuthber]

If I see a man in the street then what actually happens is that I receive radiation reflected from him. There's a small lag because it takes time for the light to reach my eyes.

 

Would you then say "if you want to make up a story about how that came from something in the past (a man in the street) that was never observed, it is taken by faith that it happened if you believe it"?

 

Why do you think there's a difference?

[insane_alien]

oh sorry i thought you were joking i dont understand what you mean precisely? if you mean you have observed some radiation or whatever today ok i might agree... if you want to make up a story about how that came from something in the past ("big bang" "stellarnucleosynthesis" "creation week") that was never observed, it is taken by faith that it happened if you believe it.......???if thats what you mean???

 

If you were to look up at the moon and observe the flash of light caused by a meteorite striking the surface, it actually happened a whole second before you saw the light.

 

the CMB was emitter a long time ago true, but it was also emitted ~13.7 billion years ago.

 

if you would call seeing the flash of light on the moon a direct observation then picking up the CMB on your TV and radio must also be a direct observation.

 

SOMETHING emitted it and that something must also have emitted it from every point in the universe at the exact same time. there aren't many ways to do that. one of the simpler ways to explain it is if all the points in the universe were the same point at time zero. or at least very close to it.

 

just because the light has travelled so far doesn't mean we are observing fictional light.

[sammy7]

ok ok yah i guess i get what your saying there is *some* time descrepancy or whatever i guess this is where metaphysics comes in( i dont even know what that means really but is that right?...... but thats what i mean....everyhuman being is using faith all the time....i have faith that when i take a step down my stairs there not going to collapse underneath me....so.... but yeah with the time discrepancy thing, i guess that is where semantics/metaphysics/ (maybe even philosophy of science)? comes in....so your saying the radiation or whatever is uniform through out the universe??? well ok if someone believes the big bang they believe by faith that singularity or whatever created it...if someone believes "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" then they take that by faith i guess to explain all the physical phenomena we observe today.......

[doG]

ok ok yah i guess i get what your saying there is *some* time descrepancy or whatever i guess this is where metaphysics comes in....

No, you still don't get it. The sunlight you see everyday takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth. You literally see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. When you look at light that took 13.7 billion years to reach us you are literally looking at an event that took place 13.7 billion years ago and you are directly observing it.

[sammy7]

No, you still don't get it. The sunlight you see everyday takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth. You literally see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. When you look at light that took 13.7 billion years to reach us you are literally looking at an event that took place 13.7 billion years ago and you are directly observing it.

 

ahh yeh someguy posted this on my thing yesterday and left a link i will have to read it..... um yeah so...i will have to look at this paper this dude referenced me and get back to you one that one.. (from a creationists pov)... the thing the guy was saying is tricky im still reading about it...

Edited May 20, 2012 by sammy7