Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
cbc said:
I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins. That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.
Click to expand...

That's fine, I have no problem with you believing in god. I know people that like to believe those things and are even willing to admit to me that they don't even care if they are true, they just like to believe it.

But why would you want to ignore facts that we have discovered about the universe we live in? There are plenty of people that maintain their faith while also accepting the scientific facts that we learn about the nature of the universe.

I believe the catholic church has even come out and accepted the theory of evolution, and said the story of adam and eve is just a religious story told for religious purposes.

If there is infact a god that created the universe, I think he would want you to learn about how it has come to be, I can't see him punishing you for it.
 
cbc said:
... I don't know much about matter replicating as you have previouly posted but does it do this with non-living matter?
Click to expand...

Your mommy and daddy did all this for you.
It's called procreation.
You don't need to know.
It just happens!

:p:
 
Value Collector said:
.....But why would you want to ignore facts that we have discovered about the universe we live in?.......
Click to expand...

More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system. More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.
 
Judd said:
More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system. More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.
Click to expand...

Here is Cardinal Pell admitting that the Adam and eve story is a mythical story told for religious purposes, He still bends and flexes to try and make god relevant to the theory of evolution, how ever he clearly accepts evolution.

So I see no reason for people to ignore evolution to maintain their faith.

Offcourse to me, him admitting that adam and eve were not real sort of blows the whole story of original sin and the need to kill jesus as a scape goat, But hey if a cardinal can accept evolution facts I can't see why others can't do the same.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Judd said:
More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system. More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.
Click to expand...

The church may have held that view but the bible never said it. Jesus never said it. It was personal opinion founded on nothing. It in no way discredits the bible.

Do you really think the threat to belief systems goes one way? How absurd. Many scientists have already made a conclusion by taking god out of the equation and are desperately scrambling with unscientific answers to defend their doctrine.
The science is good. The science is accurate. But the conclusions are filled with all sorts of crazy assumptions based on a preconceived conclusion that there is no god.

Like with trading. The obvious stares them in the face but they just can't see it. They put 100 stupid indicators on their chart thinking it will tell them which stocks to trade. They have the right chart in front if them (science) but have stuffed up the analysis (their conclusion) badly by using incorrect assumptions (100 stupid indicators)
 
Who cares what a cardinal says?
That is one man's opinion.
Who cares what the Catholic Church says?
That is one church's opinion.

I don't agree with the Catholic Church.
I don't agree with the cardinals or the pope.

People, this is only one group's "opinion" on the bible and worldview.
This opinion isn't what the bible actually says.
Or what Jesus says.

Posting an article about a cardinal is stupid.
It means nothing.
You could easily post what a homeless man believes about evolution.
 
pavilion103 said:
Who cares what a cardinal says?
That is one man's opinion.
Who cares what the Catholic Church says?
That is one church's opinion.

I don't agree with the Catholic Church.
I don't agree with the cardinals or the pope.

People, this is only one group's "opinion" on the bible and worldview.
This opinion isn't what the bible actually says.
Or what Jesus says.

Posting an article about a cardinal is stupid.
It means nothing.
You could easily post what a homeless man believes about evolution.
Click to expand...

It was a direct response to another person who said they would rather have faith in jesus than belief in evolution, I posted the interview with the cardinal to show the two are not exclusive of each other.

You can accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life and still maintain your faith in your religion.

The head of the human genome project is a Christian, even though he admits that there is no doubt that we share common ancestry with other animals.

- - - Updated - - -

pavilion103 said:
People, this is only one group's "opinion" on the bible and worldview.
This opinion isn't what the bible actually says.
.
Click to expand...

The bible is just the opinion of the people that wrote it, combined with the people who translated it mixed with the opinions of each person who interprets it.
 
Value Collector said:
The bible is just the opinion of the people that wrote it, combined with the people who translated it mixed with the opinions of each person who interprets it.
Click to expand...
That sure sounds like an opinion to me!

Some people certainly do like to confuse their personal opinions with facts.

Whilst that which you opine may be possible, I sincerely doubt that you've studied the matter with sufficient honesty to be able to make such assertions.

However, that's just my opinion, and as such, it may or may not coincide with the facts!
 
Value Collector said:
You have to admit you are really stretching the definition though, In common usage I don't think that many people would assume that when you used the word "worship" you were just talking about something you hold dear.

I still think you are muddying the water by insisting on these alternate definitions when it is clear that they do not represent what the people in the discussion are trying to describe.

Some words can have up to 7 meanings listed, but when your involved in a conversation you have to keep to the context the person is using, as I explained its useless to bring out the meaning of gay as happy when it is clear the person is talking about same sex relationships.

So if I am talking about religious faith, being faith that something is true despite the evidence against it or believing something without evidence, It is different to me describing a blind man having faith in his guide dog.

Faith to the religious person is believing without evidence.

faith to the blind man is reasonable expectations based on evidence and earned trust.

the religious people say, "I don't need evidence because I have faith"

the blindman would say. "I have faith in my dog because I have been shown evidence he knows what to do"
Click to expand...

As you are already only too well aware, I have already addressed your bogus allegations during our discourse on the other thread:

cynic said:
Throughout this discourse I have not distorted any English words (i.e. religion, faith and worship) beyond their literal definition and I object to any suggestion to the contrary.
Those choosing to limit such definitions to a theistic context have only themselves to blame when their arguments backfire!

Even if such words were to be limited to a theistic context, such limitation would not invalidate any of the parallels that I've highlighted!

By the way, thankyou for providing me yet another fine example of one of your purportedly "non-existent" parallels!

Can you see how resorting to accusations of "straw man argument" creation and dishonesty is comparable with an accusation of heresy?
Click to expand...

cynic said:
Actually we weren't only discussing theistic religions! We were also discussing the religion of science!

I could just as easily have substituted terms such as "belief","system of belief" and "honour" throughout this discourse. However, the dictionary definitions of faith, religion and worship are able to be used in a wholistic context.
I've already given ample justification for my use of these words in a wholistic context, and yet, despite alerting you to the fact that the validity of the parallels described was never contingent on my choice of terminology, you continue to insist on arguing semantics rather than offering direct challenges to the actual issues I've raised!
Click to expand...
 
pavilion103 said:
Do you really think the threat to belief systems goes one way? How absurd. Many scientists have already made a conclusion by taking god out of the equation and are desperately scrambling with unscientific answers to defend their doctrine.
The science is good. The science is accurate. But the conclusions are filled with all sorts of crazy assumptions based on a preconceived conclusion that there is no god.
Click to expand...

In the fields of astro physics, astronomy etc I understand that the complex models and theories of motion etc are improved by some assumptions of as yet undiscovered particles/bodies/types of matter etc. It has occurred in the past that such things are discovered having only had a theoretical status for many years. If a better explanation comes to light then good science would ditch the old
(now discredited) and examine the new.

Are you saying that this is not scientific and that the science would be improved by using the god variable (G?) where things are not quite gelling?
How would this work in practice?
 
lindsayf said:
In the fields of astro physics, astronomy etc I understand that the complex models and theories of motion etc are improved by some assumptions of as yet undiscovered particles/bodies/types of matter etc. It has occurred in the past that such things are discovered having only had a theoretical status for many years. If a better explanation comes to light then good science would ditch the old
(now discredited) and examine the new.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I understand what you're saying here!

Scientists have actually been investing their belief in something without evidence!!!

lindsayf said:
Are you saying that this is not scientific and that the science would be improved by using the god variable (G?) where things are not quite gelling?
How would this work in practice?
Click to expand...

How does "dark matter" work in practice?

It seems that "blind faith" in anything from the realm of the unknown is okay by science provided that no-one mentions God!!

P.S. See what I mean?!! Scientists are just like religious folk!
 
I was going to write something similar to Cynic above.

I'm so sick of people saying things are based on science which are not.
Like I said the science itself is great but the theories are just that, theories, not science.

Even with the "something from nothing" argument. Rather than having a rational discussion about the dilemma this poses to non-creationists, you see people saying "well... what is nothing exactly? We don't know what nothing is"
This is BS and a ridiculous smokescreen that would be obvious to a 10 year old.
I'm sick of people hiding behind all the trickery and also the assumptions passed off as science.

Every position has some sort of philosophical reasoning (which isn't a bad thing if it's sound) but don't BS everyone into thinking this philosophical reasoning is science!
It's ridiculous and embarrasing.
 
ok so if the magical wizards and esoteric preactitioners of astrophysics and astronomy posited the god factor
( rather than particles, bodies, types of matter etc) to improve the fit between that which is observed and that which is predicted by current models, how would this work in practice and would it improve our understandings of the universe?
 
To all the gentlemen here:

You cannot come full circle again and again and
pretend you are not going round and around and around in circles.

Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God.
 
burglar said:
To all the gentlemen here:

You cannot come full circle again and again and
pretend you are not going round and around and around in circles.

Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Click to expand...
+1
Amen to that!
Welcome to the fold Brother burglar!
 
How many Catholics are in the world?

Depending on where one lives in the world it can often seem like either everyone is Catholic or nobody is Catholic! So it can be hard to get a real sense of just how Catholics fit into the world as a whole. Well, here are some numbers for you.

There are currently an estimated 6.7 billion people on the planet Earth.

Approximately 33% of those, or 2.2 billion, consider themselves Christian. That makes Christians the largest religion in the world by far. However, Islam is currently growing at a higher rate than Christianity.

Just over half of those Christians, or about 1.1 billion, are Roman Catholic (with some additional 240 million Eastern Orthodox). That makes Roman Catholics, by an overwhelming margin, the largest “denomination” of any religion on the planet. No other Christian “denomination” comes anywhere close to comparing.

The only other religious entities that can even start to compare in size are the Sunni Muslims (estimated at 940 million) and the Vishnuism Hindus (580 million) , but neither compare in organization, unity, reach, and influence next to that of the Catholic Church.

So if you are ever unsure about the number of Catholics in the world or their influence, just remember that the Catholic Church is an ocean in a world full of ponds and puddles – just as we would hope Christ’s Church would be.



- See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/how-many-catholics-are-in-the-world/#sthash.mwBYfKdG.dpuf
 
cynic said:
How does "dark matter" work in practice?
Click to expand...
It manifests itself as atheists who type anti-Christian trolling posts on ASF. :D

Darwin Bedford.jpg
 
Top