Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
cynic said:
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!
Click to expand...

The book discusses many topics involved with religion, and peoples "god delusions", but it makes very clear that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god, especially one that people describe as existing outside of space and time, however the burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

I can't disprove god either, I would have to consider myself an "agnostic atheist", which is the same category dawkins puts himself in.
 
pavilion103 said:
Haha eventually we will have an understanding of the particles that can come from nothing?


Nothing is nothing.
Logic and evidence says something CANNOT come from nothing.
Click to expand...


When we finally understand how particles can come from nothing man will most likely become a "God".

Man may be nothing more than an experiment of some greater life form which "evolved" out of the cosmos and has set us up here on Earth to see how we develop/evolve.

In my opinion, Humans give themselves far too much importance in the overall scheme of the Universe .....

I suspect MAN may be here on earth for a very short time in Cosmos time (unfortunately)

If you are a Christian, even Jesus said Heaven and Earth will eventually end .... only his Word will remain! (so much for eternity)

My advice to anyone .... Be humble; be open minded; be respectful of others views, as their views are a product of their past, the same as mine are ...

i.e. I may be totally wrong, but at least I am aware of it ....... Back to Forex for me ... this is too hard!:D
 
barney said:
When we finally understand how particles can come from nothing man will most likely become a "God".

Man may be nothing more than an experiment of some greater life form which "evolved" out of the cosmos and has set us up here on Earth to see how we develop/evolve.

In my opinion, Humans give themselves far too much importance in the overall scheme of the Universe .....

I suspect MAN may be here on earth for a very short time in Cosmos time (unfortunately)

If you are a Christian, even Jesus said Heaven and Earth will eventually end .... only his Word will remain! (so much for eternity)

My advice to anyone .... Be humble; be open minded; be respectful of others views, as their views are a product of their past, the same as mine are ...

i.e. I may be totally wrong, but at least I am aware of it ....... Back to Forex for me ... this is too hard!:D
Click to expand...

ONYA barney,

Some sanity in the morass!
 
Value Collector said:
The book discusses many topics involved with religion, and peoples "god delusions", but it makes very clear that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god, especially one that people describe as existing outside of space and time, however the burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

I can't disprove god either, I would have to consider myself an "agnostic atheist", which is the same category dawkins puts himself in.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true believer!

You've found your prophet and sacred scripture.
 
burglar said:
ONYA barney,

Some sanity in the morass!
Click to expand...

+1

Please stay with us Barney.

This thread can certainly benefit from the contributions of those willing to recognise and suspend their partiality when expressing their views. This quality has been exemplified by your postings to this thread - Bravo!
 
cynic said:
Spoken like a true believer!

You've found your prophet and sacred scripture.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to infer here?

I have read the book, you didnt seem to know what it was about so i was clarifying its contents and what the author describes as his position on the topic, because you were inferring he held another position.
 
Value Collector said:
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
Click to expand...

VC, you are wasting your time trying to argue with Pav or any other YEC for that matter. At least 3 times in the last week that has been explained to him. First time directly by me when I noted he put theory in quotes and subsequently I highlighted the fact that a Vatican theologian correctly knew its meaning when he addressed it in an interview with Richard Dawkins. It was also the theme of a post regarding how US Republicans misuse the word. It is obvious that he never reads the links we post (why would he need to when the bible provides him with everything he thinks one needs to know). To have him again say scientific theories are just theories in the sense used by lay people just shows how pointless any debate with him is.

I'm still waiting for him to address the issue of his God ordering the massacre of new borns and children as well as the rape of young girls. He conveniently ignored those issues in his post saying the victims deserved to be massacred by his God because they had plenty of time to repent but didn't.

His usual tactic is to ignore issues that are uncomfortable or to announce he is exiting the forum for a period.
 
Value Collector said:
I have no idea what you are trying to infer here?

I have read the book, you didnt seem to know what it was about so i was clarifying its contents and what the author describes as his position on the topic, because you were inferring he held another position.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard the saying:
"Actions speak louder than words."

Dawkins' behaviour expresses beliefs that are contrary to certain of his written disclaimers.

As for my inferences, those suffering the effects of indoctrination usually fail to recognise the obvious parallels.
 
bellenuit said:
He conveniently ignored those issues in his post saying the victims deserved to be massacred by his God because they had plenty of time to repent but didn't.
Click to expand...

Is that Pav ignoring it?
Looks more like agreeing with it to me.
It looks like his view ( as is cbc's) is that his god is just and all of the the victims are deserving of their torturous fate.
Moral gymnastics of the highest calibre.
 
cynic said:
I'm sure you've heard the saying:
"Actions speak louder than words."

Dawkins' behaviour expresses beliefs that are contrary to certain of his written disclaimers.
Click to expand...

Such as? How does his behaviour express a belief contrary to his written opinions, they are not disclaimers.
 
cynic said:
Why are you asking questions for which you've already provided the answers?

Reread your own posts on Dawkins!
Click to expand...

You must be confused,

Dawkins admits he can not disprove a god exists, his position is that of an agnostic atheist. This is the same for most atheists. Atheists are not in the business of disproving the existence of a god.

But then you said this is contrary to his behaviour, you seem to be inferring that his behaviour infers that he can disprove a god exists, or some how his behaviour goes against his written position of being an agnostic atheist.

Please explaining exactly what part of his behaviour goes against his written position.
 
Value Collector said:
You must be confused,

Dawkins admits he can not disprove a god exists, his position is that of an agnostic atheist. This is the same for most atheists. Atheists are not in the business of disproving the existence of a god.

But then you said this is contrary to his behaviour, you seem to be inferring that his behaviour infers that he can disprove a god exists, or some how his behaviour goes against his written position of being an agnostic atheist.

Please explaining exactly what part of his behaviour goes against his written position.
Click to expand...

Your continued devotion to your chosen prophet and his infallible wisdom is a wonder to behold!
 
cynic said:
Your continued devotion to your chosen prophet and his infallible wisdom is a wonder to behold!
Click to expand...

I have no devotion to Dawkins, i didn't even bring him up, I have just read his book and seen some interviews so happen to know his position, so I am just asking you to clarify your statements you made, because i don't think they represent the truth.

The fact you seem to be avoiding the issue and instead differing to adhominion attack, kind of leads me to think your statement was baseless.
 
Must I repeat myself?
cynic said:
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!
Click to expand...

It is truly amazing how opinionation obscures the evidence of one's own eyes!
 
Value Collector said:
I have no devotion to Dawkins, i didn't even bring him up, I have just read his book and seen some interviews so happen to know his position, so I am just asking you to clarify your statements you made, because i don't think they represent the truth.

The fact you seem to be avoiding the issue and instead differing to adhominion attack, kind of leads me to think your statement was baseless.
Click to expand...

As to your claims about having no devotion to Dawkins, you certainly could have fooled me! You've been actively defending him and his stance in your postings!
 
Top