Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
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...

Science can provide evidence to answer the question

"Which is more reasonable: a creator or no creator (from what we observe in the universe?"

But it obviously will never prove there is a god or disprove that there is a god.
 
pavilion103 said:
Science can provide evidence to answer the question

"Which is more reasonable: a creator or no creator (from what we observe in the universe?"

But it obviously will never prove there is a god or disprove that there is a god.
Click to expand...

Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster.
The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others. Eventually we will have a greater understanding about particles that can come from nothing but no matter how great these discoveries are there will be those caught up in religious dogma to never accept anything different as they were conditioned to believe in a god.
 
overhang said:
Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster.
Click to expand...
+1. Hence the silliness of equating atheism with a religion.

The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others.
Click to expand...
Most of whom believe their god is the only god.:rolleyes:
 
overhang said:
Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster. The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others. Eventually we will have a greater understanding about particles that can come from nothing but no matter how great these discoveries are there will be those caught up in religious dogma to never accept anything different as they were conditioned to believe in a god.
Click to expand...

The CENTRE of Christianity started in the Middle East.
Then Rome.
Europe
South America
China (yes communist china)

Don't give me BS that it's all simply a matter of where you grow up. Often many ideas are held by children but many opportunities to be open to new thinking arise.

The spread of Christianity was not inhibited by cultural philosophies or geographic boundaries.

So don't make a bogus, lazy generalization.
 
Julia said:
+1. Hence the silliness of equating atheism with a religion. Most of whom believe their god is the only god.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They are truth claims that contradict one another. Of course either only one of none of them exist. Don't you get this yet?

It's the same with all topics. We hold different views. We believe that ours is correct.
What doesn't make it right or wrong is if we believe it's correct but the evidence behind it.

It's no different with this.

Why wouldn't someone holding a philosophy believe theirs is correct if only one can be correct (by the law of contradiction). It's why they hold it in the first place.

Thought this was evident
 
Ok well throw in with the Loch Ness Monster things like multi universes or macro evolution (which can't be observed).

Sure throw God in there if you like but be consistent and throw macro evolution in there too.

If you do then at least I respect your consistency. But if you don't you are intellectually dishonest.

What a cowardly cop out to equate god with these things but none of the "scientific" "theories/philosophies" which are not scientifically validated.
 
overhang said:
Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster. The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others. Eventually we will have a greater understanding about particles that can come from nothing but no matter how great these discoveries are there will be those caught up in religious dogma to never accept anything different as they were conditioned to believe in a god.
Click to expand...

Haha eventually we will have an understanding of the particles that can come from nothing?

Zero evidence for this yet you state they exist like its a fact. What intellectual hypocrisy. If I said the same thing about god you'd go off your nut. Isn't science about drawing a conclusion from evidence not the other way around? Yet you state this as a fact with no scientific foundation.

I'm sick of opinions like this. "Here is my conclusion and with infinite time and dollars it will be proven"
BULL****
This isn't science. It's a joke.

Nothing is nothing.
Logic and evidence says something CANNOT come from nothing.
This is completely laughable.
Nothing is NOTHING
There aren't different definitions for it.
Nothing arises from nothing.

How does this stupidity even get an ear?
 
cynic said:
Let me see if I understand what you're saying here!

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



How does "dark matter" work in practice?

!
Click to expand...

No, they have evidence that dark matter exists, its just they don't know exactly what it is, and information on it is scarce.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't know what a scientific theory is, its not just a theory as you would use that word in common usage, a theory is,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess


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"
Click to expand...

So we both believe something came from nothing, I just believe it is probably a natural process caused by physics where as you believe your imaginary friend did it with magic.

Also it's true that "Nothing" is hard to define, we don't even know if its possible for "nothing" to exist.

Can you give me an example of "nothing" ?

But these are complex question which some scientists are dedicating their lives to try an answer, where as you are happy to just say "god did it".


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.
Click to expand...

Such as? which assumptions
 
pavilion103 said:
macro evolution (which can't be observed).

.
Click to expand...

there is no "Macro evolution" and "micro evolution"

It's all just evolution, What creationists call "Macro" evolution is just the end result of lots of little "micro" evolution steps.

You say it can't be observed, But we haven't observed pluto orbit the sun yet, But we can do calulations to know it will.

If there is not macro evolution, only small micro changes, then please find me a fossil of a mammal from the Precambrian period.
 
Value Collector said:
No, they have evidence that dark matter exists, its just they don't know exactly what it is, and information on it is scarce.
Click to expand...
Again my dictionary gives "that which makes clear" as a definition of the word "evidence".

By your own admission, "dark matter" isn't exactly known and is challenged by a scarcity of information.

Edit: "O come all ye faithful!"
 
cynic said:
Again my dictionary gives "that which makes clear" as a definition of the word "evidence".

By your own admission, "dark matter" isn't exactly known and is challenged by a scarcity of information.

Edit: "O come all ye faithful!"
Click to expand...

if you can weigh something you know it exists, It's quite possible that you may not know what it is, but you know it exists. this is the case with dark matter.

They can weigh it, they can see how other objects are affected by it, but so far information is limited as to exactly what it is.

So yes they have evidence it exists.
 
cynic said:
Are you sure about that?

His behaviour strongly suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...

find me a quote from any interview, article or book where he has made a claim saying he can disprove the gods.

In his book the "God delusion" he says he can't disprove god in exactly the same why he can not disprove fairies or unicorns.

That's the thing about religions, they don't make testable falsifiable claims so you can not disprove them.

Where are science makes testable claims.

Ask a religious person how you would disprove god and they will say you can't.

Ask a biologist how you could disprove evolution and they will give you a list of things that would have disproved it, because its testable.
 
"Everything And Nothing" S1 Ep2 - "Nothing" SBS on Demand:
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/144367171515/Everything-And-Nothing-S1-Ep2-Nothing
Aired on 23 February 2014, Expires on 2 March 2014, 11:05pm.

Nothing - In the second part of this intriguing documentary, Professor Jim Al-Khalili explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it. (Part 2 of 2) (From the UK) (Documentary)

In the beginning was energy.
Energy created matter and antimatter theoretically in equal proportions.
For every matter particle created, an antimatter particle was supposed to have been created, eg. electrons and positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos.
This has been experimentally observed on frequent occasions in nuclear laboratories.
A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.
In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms.
On 26 April 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes).
Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container.

Most of the matter and antimatter that formed initially during the Big Bang mutually annihilated, except for the matter of which our universe is composed.
The background radiation that appears as "snow" on analogue TV is thought to be the energy released by this annihilation.

The Dirac equation, formulated by Paul Dirac around 1928 as part of the development of relativistic quantum mechanics, predicts the existence of antiparticles along with the expected solutions for the corresponding particles. Since that time, it has been verified experimentally that every known kind of particle has a corresponding antiparticle. The CPT Theorem guarantees that a particle and its antiparticle have exactly the same mass and lifetime, and exactly opposite charge. Given this symmetry, it is puzzling that the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Indeed, there is no experimental evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.
 
This is beyond absurd.

People continually pass off theory as science and try to defend it.

I've answered all the points on my Christian faith with consistency also and without wavering.
I've not been matched in the logic that I've provided.


I'm going to step away from this again.
I have a couple of times.
The quality of answers and reasoning that have been posed and provided to me are not worth my time. Mainly because of the dishonesty and logical inconsistencies and fallacies.

This is a stock forum and that's where I am going to put my focus.


Some good stock posters in here.
But many parasites of this site.

While people like myself are putting in the time and effort providing worthwhile and beneficial information in stocks and futures trading, there are parasites that hang around these threads and add no value to the overall forum (Aussie STOCK Forum).

Cya in the stocks and futures sections. :xyxthumbs
 
Value Collector said:
find me a quote from any interview, article or book where he has made a claim saying he can disprove the gods.

In his book the "God delusion" he says he can't disprove god in exactly the same why he can not disprove fairies or unicorns.

That's the thing about religions, they don't make testable falsifiable claims so you can not disprove them.

Where are science makes testable claims.

Ask a religious person how you would disprove god and they will say you can't.

Ask a biologist how you could disprove evolution and they will give you a list of things that would have disproved it, because its testable.
Click to expand...

As I previously said, his behaviour suggests otherwise!

Also note the book title: "God delusion"

That sure sounds like a claim at disproof to me!
 
Top