Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: No religion in the Flood; yet evolution and big bang are permitted?
  • Subject: No religion in the Flood; yet evolution and big bang are permitted?
Subject: No religion in the Flood; yet evolution and big bang are permitted?

2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Religion brings flame wars, so creationists aren't permitted to give their insights to the community ... and yet evolutionists can do it freely. I dunno, in my opinion, if religion should be kept out, so should these theories of evolution. I have nothing against atheists (my best friend is one), but I think that you can't silence one side without silencing the other. It's just not fair.

And please, PLEASE, I'm begging you all, no flaming.

  • 08.26.2007 4:37 AM PDT

I remember when I used this space to put cool looking links to my chapters back in the day. I don't even know why I'm using it now. Why are you even reading this? You must be interested in me. Still reading?

I have to agree with you on this one. I am very strong in my religion (which I am not getting into) and when people are allowed to talk about Evolution and The Big Bang Theory, it pisses me off that I can't give my point of view. I consider the "Evolutionary Theory" religious so no, it shouldn't be allowed. And The Big Bang Theory, well, same goes for it as well.

  • 08.26.2007 5:16 AM PDT

Science is not a religion. You are confusing two entirely different things. What's more, there aren't many people who view them as being binary opposites or mutually exclusive.

I always assumed the justification of the 'no religion' rule was the same as the 'no politics' rule; that is, to prevent arguments between people of different religious beliefs. Discussing evolution has little to do with religious beliefs. If I say something like 'hey guys there is some empirical evidence that suggests the universe began as a singularity', that's not revealing any opinion regarding religion whatsoever.

Essentially the rule seems to be in effect so you don't get people getting into arguments over which religion you subscribe to. Those are very ugly. Discussions about what scientists discover are tame and I don't see how they would give offence?

  • 08.26.2007 5:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Some of my best friends are black.

  • 08.26.2007 5:27 AM PDT

2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Science is not a religion, no, Reiginko.

But from many creationist's point of view, evolution is not science. From my point of view, at least, evolution is not science in the least. I'm all fine and dandy with talking about solid concrete proven science. But when it comes to evolution, which is the exact opposite of creationism, I can't even give my input on those topics without it being shunned by the rulebook.

And yes, Reiginko, evolution has EVERYTHING to do with religious beliefs. To some people anyway. Even to others, it has a lot to do with it. Evolution and the big bang provide an explanation for our origin. So does Creationism. They're almost exact opposites. If there's talk of evolution, I have the urge to post my views on it, but I can't, because that's against the rules.

So I truly believe that if you silence once, you need to silence the other.

[Edited on 08.26.2007 5:44 AM PDT]

  • 08.26.2007 5:31 AM PDT

The other crucial characteristic of science is discussion. If a scientist has empirical evidence suggesting that a theory needs drastic revision, then they try to create a new model, or modify the old one, to take the new evidence into account. This is why quantum mechanics replaced classical physics – observed phenomena like finite blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and atomic spectral lines could not be ‘explained’ within the framework of classical physics. Similarly, Hubble’s observation of the expanding universe indicated that the theory of the ‘static universe’ needed to be overthrown, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background indicated that the universe had a violent beginning, and so the dominant theory that the universe has existed forever had to be abandoned in favour of the big bang theory.

Essentially, science is about questioning theories and looking for ways to ‘break’ them – this is how every major scientific breakthrough has been achieved. However, the key point is that you need to show empirical evidence that indicates the theory is wrong. That is what science is. It is not the same thing to say ‘it says otherwise in the Koran’, because past experience has indicated that literal interpretations of religious texts does not generally yield accurate scientific models of the world.

So, please, tell me about the inconsistencies within the theory of evolution. But don’t expect me to not question the evidence out of some kind of respect for religious beliefs. This is because such a discussion is not religious; it is a scientific discourse, and what you believe to be the underlying truth is really more or less irrelevant. That’s philosophy. Science really do anything except describe what is observed and observable; supernatural or spiritual phenomena by definition cannot fit into this framework. Don’t expect to find God in biology is what I’m trying to say.

Sorry about the long post, but these are some very common misconceptions about science. Essentially, there's no such thing as 'concrete proven science' as you put it, as science can't prove anything.

  • 08.26.2007 6:16 AM PDT

True that science is not a religion, but evolution and the big bang are just that...science, and that science is theory.

I think it would be a wonderful thing to learn about in school...in science class or whatnot, if I was also taught that is was a theory. However, the unfortunate thing today is that it is taught as a fact.

And there are too many missing links...loose ends as well which make it to where the theory of evolution cannot be proven. Some say that God cannot be proven. But, there is a difference between a Catholic saying 'I truly believe in God' versus an Atheist saying 'I don't believe in God'. I myself am a Catholic and I find my life to be way too coincidental for my benefit. I suppose I could say that I have to believe in God, because it would be crazy to look at all of these "coincidences" that are happening for my benefit in my daily life and see that there is no power...or God that is responsible for them. An Atheist who says they don't believe in God don't say that because of things that are happening in their life...they say that because...well...I'm not sure.

And...there are the people who have crappy @ss parents who take religion and pretty much...well...make a mockery of it I suppose. This...mutation of religion will in turn make the child not want to participate in the religion anymore and so the child will find the easy way out and just...become and Atheist.

  • 08.26.2007 6:48 AM PDT

Yes, evolution is a theory. It is not, however, a hunch.

A theory is an explanation for observed phenomena which can explain the data. Most people's idea of what scientific 'fact' is (for example, that there is an invisible force that causes things with mass to 'gravitate' towards each other, and permeates through the entire universe) is actually theory.

Newton's laws of motion are theories. Theories that have been more or less superseded and shown to break in many situations, but most people still treat them as fact.

Theory has a different meaning to scientists and philosophers than it does to 'everyday' language. That 'everyday' kind of theory is more accurately described as a 'hunch'. Evolution is a theory and not a hunch. Moreover, there is no testable, alternative theory that yields different results. Nobody has done an experiment that suggests evolution is not an accurate theory.

  • 08.26.2007 7:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Darkishraven, that is a bad view of atheists. This notion that people become atheists purely because of an "absence of God" from that respective persons life is pretty stereotypical and more than often wrong view of why people become atheists. The biggest reason for people either converting from a religious belief, or having no belief from day one, is science, at least in my mind.

I myself was once a practising Catholic. But as I got older and discovered a passion for Biology and Physics, I learned that the two big things in my life could not coexist. I chose science because I want to study as much as I can and learn as much as I can about the world around me. If I had continued pratising my Catholisism, I would always have this nagging voice in the back of my head saying, "this is wrong". This has happened to hundreds of thousands of people around the world, and most likely is more common than the "religion sucks, so I'll be atheist" reason for converting that you mentioned.

I'm not trying to say, "people discover science and then realise the truth". Just pointing out the biggest reason why most people convert. As a matter of fact a good friend of the esteemed biologist Richard Dawkins was put into this exact position, which he talks about in one of his books. I can't recall the name, but the circumstances were similar, he wanted to continue studying science, but what he learned proved everything he had learned from the bible wrong, so he couldn't be a scholar and a religious person. He chose religion in the end, and stopped studying his respective class of science.

Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but I hate the impression some people have of aetheists as depressed people who choose no religion because they simply had no interest in religion to begin with.

  • 08.26.2007 7:17 AM PDT

Halo3Planet, the place for all things Halo 3..

Need help finding skulls, make sure to go here.

I think we should be free to talk about the creationist theory versus the Big Bang. As long as you don't bring religion too far into it, I don't think it's a problem. If you state your views, I doubt that you would get blacklisted, and the worst that would happen would be a moderator warning. Then again. I could be totally wrong about this. But anyway, if the moderators don't want you to talk about creationism, then the BIg Bang shouldn't be talked about either, because it isn't really fair to only let one side talk. Every view or no views should be welcome at this forum, within reason.

  • 08.26.2007 8:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Read about the Forgotten Spartan I Program
Butane: To protect the world from devastation!
sir_brilliant: To unite all people within our nation!
Rainman89: To denounce the evils of truth and love!
sir_brilliant: To extend out reach to the stars above!
SpaceGhostFlyer: Jessie!
Butane: James!
sir_brilliant: Team Rocket blasting off at the speed of light
Butane: Surrender now or prepare to fight
sir_brilliant: Meowth, that's right!

At first I was going to argue for the OP, but I think I've changed my mind.

If I posted a topic in the Flood about the use of Plasma, I would have evidence to support what I said, could discuss theories, and ask questions without offending anyone. However, if I posted a thread about a religious topic, there would be little proven evidence and it could become highly offensive (religion is based on faith, not fact). So if someone posted a topic on the Big Bang, instead of bringing up my belief in God and talk about my opinion, I would discuss the fact that I find the Big Bang to be a completely irrational theory- because it has many holes and can't explain why the bang occurred, or what was there before the bang, and how life started from inorganic material. I would also say that, while evolution is irrefutable and that it happens constantly, there is no reason to believe it wasn't started and steered by an external force, and that there is no evidence that the first true humans were created and placed on this earth and then intermixed with the sapient life already here.

I haven't asked anyone to believe in God, I haven't demeaned atheists, I simply put down the scientific theories, and proposed alternative theories.

  • 08.26.2007 8:12 AM PDT

You say tomato; I say potato.

science is not about who's wrong and who's right. Science is about understanding the world around us by observing and making predictions.
Having said that, evolution and the big bang are theories derived from observations and mathematical models, thus there is valid discussion.

  • 08.26.2007 9:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I disagree with this idea of removing scientific theory discussion from our forums. Science is something that is considern valid until prooven false. Anything along the lines of the big bang is considered valid information in our natural world. Scientists have been gaining more and more proof of it being actually true over the years.

I don't think it is smart to remove valid information about society and our culture from these forums. It's not about opinion. It's about sharing information. Sure it's only a theory. But that is why we discuss it.

A good example of when we talk about science is the Halo 3 Alternate Reality Game. In that game we learn about the Biological past of the flood. There is no way of stopping it. I saw theories that were basically based off the Big Bang Theory. In this situation there is nothing you can really do. The point I am trying to make is, sometimes we have to talk about scientific theory whether we like it or not.

  • 08.26.2007 9:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

How frustrating it must be for the religious individual who strongly believes that the story of human creation from his or her religion is the correct one.

How frustrating it must be for that person to come here and see evolution or other scientific hypotheses and theories of human creation freely discussed, while a post promulgating his or her religious beliefs is likely to result in a locked thread, if not worse.

How frustrating it must be for the religious individual to see people talking about the facts and proof of science, when his or her own religious beliefs in an omnipotent deity clearly contemplate that such facts and proof could be placed here by that deity to test our faith. Could an omnipotent God create a fossil that looked 5 million years old? Obviously yes.

How frustrating it must be for that individual to post here in the Septagon and receive numerous ignorant and naive replies about how science is valid while religion is not. I want to be clear that I do not join the few previous repliers who have posted in such a way.

I completely, utterly, 100% sympathize with the sentiments of the first two posts. But at the same time, you must look at things objectively. While equal treatment of all views on any particular subject would be ideal, the simple, basic fact of life is that some topics are more inflammatory than others. A rational post about a scientific fact, theorem, or hypothesis is highly unlikely to generate personal attacks, while the opposite is true for a religious post. Science is not a religion; in many ways, it is the opposite of religion in that it never calls for faith or belief in anything that cannot be proven.

As a result, there is inherently (and almost by definition) a lot less controversy about the conclusions of scientists as opposed to the conclusions of religious leaders when it comes to talking about how humans began. Thus, such topics of discussion are a lot less likely to, as Recon put it, "get out of hand." The possibility of offending a religious person is, in my opinion, not enough to preclude a person from posting about science. Whereas the possibility of a thread getting out of hand with flaming and personal attacks is.

Once again, I want to be clear that I am not saying that one is more right OR more valid than another. But unfortunately, although I totally see your side of the issue, I must respectfully disagree with the original post.

[Edited on 08.26.2007 10:04 AM PDT]

  • 08.26.2007 10:01 AM PDT

To webb90-

If I didn't say that's one reason why people become Atheists, then that's what I meant to say.

However, you can still be a practicing Catholic and still devout your life and time to that of Biology or Science. It's just when you accept evolution as truth, that's when you crossed the line.

I'm fine with it being taught in schools, it's a wonderful subject. But just keep it a theory...because that is all it is.

  • 08.26.2007 10:01 AM PDT

To Recon-

Do you have a child? If so...do you allow the child to fall and scrape his/her leg? Or do you cover your child up in protective gear so your child never feels pain and suffering? Pain and suffering is necessary in life. We need to learn from our mistakes. Many believe that 9/11 was necessary. But whether or not it was necessary, we can now learn from our mistakes.

So that is why God allows pain and suffering in the world. We are all His children and that is what I believe.

  • 08.26.2007 10:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: DarkishRav3n
To Recon-

Do you have a child?

You are certainly acting like one right now. So I don't know about that. Don't attack single members like that on the forum. Recon is a moderator. If things get out of hand that's his job. Sure we have our own opinions. However, this is the wrong place to share them. If we get overheated, Recon is there to cool us down.

  • 08.26.2007 10:18 AM PDT

The funniest thing about the entire supposed "science vs. religion" debate is that it's near impossible to bring up the argument (even as a neutral topic of conversation) without it actually devolving into the debate itself. Now that is a true miracle of either scientific or divine creation.

  • 08.26.2007 10:56 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Honestly, we don't need religious discussion. As much as I would love to debate about religion and its validity or lack there of, it is a very touchy-feely subject for people. In the end all you get are personal insults and flaming because the argument of religion is circular. The one who believes in something cannot possibly be wrong because to them it is truth no matter what someone else says, but the person who is not a believer has tons and tons of "evidence" or personal experience with people who are religious to have a strong belief in atheism or agnosticism.

Although, I do feel that public schools should teach all religions, or at least teach the kids about them. It does not pay to be an ignorant atheist (like most are).

  • 08.26.2007 10:59 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Although, I do feel that public schools should teach all religions, or at least teach the kids about them. It does not pay to be an ignorant atheist (like most are).

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It doesn't pay to be an ignorant anything.

  • 08.26.2007 11:01 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

True, which is why I wonder why the government is trying to deprive our kids of what they will be facing in everyday life. They should know what is out there, and not knowing is just fooling them.

Anyways, lets get back on topic. It was my fault for diverting the conversation.

[Edited on 08.26.2007 11:03 AM PDT]

  • 08.26.2007 11:02 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Elder Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Primum Agmen
A tosser is the same as a wanker. To toss oneself off is to fondle the trouser weasel.


Achronos

Joe Staten

You'll never get anywhere discussing religion.

  • 08.26.2007 11:04 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Although, I do feel that public schools should teach all religions, or at least teach the kids about them. It does not pay to be an ignorant atheist (like most are).


Stereotypes like that are what I hate to see.

  • 08.26.2007 11:16 AM PDT