Religion Irreligion - the world's fastest growing 'religion'

[Total Power]

Why on earth are we talking about conspiracy theories here? this is silly and childish things to do. If NASA approves a theory which is govt funded and false etc etc then some scientist somewhere else will disprove it. There are plenty of independent scientists around with no government funding. It's silly to assume conspiracy theories and pseudo science is actually science. Pseudo science is not science

 

[Procrastinator35]

Why on earth are we talking about conspiracy theories here? this is silly and childish things to do. If NASA approves a theory which is govt funded and false etc etc then some scientist somewhere else will disprove it. There are plenty of independent scientists around with no government funding. It's silly to assume conspiracy theories and pseudo science is actually science. Pseudo science is not science

Neither is dark-matter nor the Big Bang.

 

[Total Power]

Neither is dark-matter nor the Big Bang.

We dont understand what dark matter is, but there are lots of observable evidence for big bang though. If you dont agree state your case why you reckon big bang never happened

 

[Procrastinator35]

We dont understand what dark matter is, but there are lots of observable evidence for big bang though. If you dont agree state your case why you reckon big bang never happened

And 'space-time'....There's another onto-logically fanciful beaut.

 

[Total Power]

And 'space-time'....There's another onto-logically fanciful beaut.

Here we go again, you should head to the conspiracies board with this. Again maybe you can explain if "time" is imaginary, why are we able to "slow" time using gravity? Maybe gravity is fake. You are caught between spiritual realm and material realm, in our realm time is 100% relevant and time is always linear.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Here we go again, you should head to the conspiracies board with this. Again maybe you can explain if "time" is imaginary, why are we able to "slow" time using gravity? Maybe gravity is fake. You are caught between spiritual realm and material realm, in our realm time is 100% relevant and time is always linear.

Nah....I can feel & sense gravity just fine.

As a Port fan....Falling down must seem second-nature to you.

 

[Total Power]

Nah....I can feel & sense gravity just fine.

As a Port fan....Falling down must seem second-nature.

And you can't feel time? are you growing younger or older?

How come gravity affects time if "time" is imaginary?

 

[darthbards]

Why on earth are we talking about conspiracy theories here? this is silly and childish things to do. If NASA approves a theory which is govt funded and false etc etc then some scientist somewhere else will disprove it. There are plenty of independent scientists around with no government funding. It's silly to assume conspiracy theories and pseudo science is actually science. Pseudo science is not science

The raising of the conspiracy by Chelsea was extremely immature indeed.
He made the comment that the religion he doesn't like is arrogant and then made the wide ranging statement that people in his religion are beyond reproach. In fact,no one was singling out any particular area of society in the arrogant discussion.
He was unable to intelligently answer an example where they may. His mentioning of conspiracy was never needed.
Where and how the religion of science receive funding and how this may effect their research and theories is a worth while question,especially if someone is willing to slander other eras of society in the name of their religion.

 

[Total Power]

The raising of the conspiracy by Chelsea was extremely immature indeed.
He made the comment that the religion he doesn't like is arrogant and then made the wide ranging statement that people in his religion are beyond reproach. In fact,no one was singly out any particular area of society in the arrogant discussion.
He was unable to intelligently answer an example where they may. His mentioning of conspiracy was never needed.
Where and how the religion of science receive funding and how this may effect their research and theories is a worth while question,especially if someone is willing to slander other eras of society in the name of their religion.

Agreed its a worthwhile question, but use your brain, consult a whole host of documents/peerreviews/independent scientists/universities etc etc before you reach your conclusion. People who dismiss everything without looking at the evidence are naive people. And by evidence i dont mean what one might "think" has happened.

 

[darthbards]

Agreed its a worthwhile question, but use your brain, consult a whole host of documents/peerreviews/independent scientists/universities etc etc before you reach your conclusion. People who dismiss everything without looking at the evidence are naive people. And by evidence i dont mean what one might "think" has happened.

I have reached no conclusion,I only offered the question.
You were disappointed conspiracy was mentioned,which I agree,and I believe a perfectly legitimate discussion regarding arrogance/intelligence was destroyed by Chelsea bringing religions into the discussion and then conspiracy when he got stuck.

 

[Total Power]

I have reached no conclusion,I only offered the question.
You were disappointed conspiracy was mentioned,which I agree,and I believe a perfectly legitimate discussion regarding arrogance/intelligence was destroyed by Chelsea bringing religions into the discussion and then conspiracy when he got stuck.

Cause bad science is bad science. There is corruption in every field why would science be any exception?

 

[darthbards]

Cause bad science is bad science. There is corruption in every field why would science be any exception?

Agreed,no section of society is beyond reproach,to suggest they are is wrong,to suggest they are or aren't based on religious grounds is silly.

 

[chelseacarlton]

I never said science was beyond reproach.
I never said that science was a conspiracy.
Only one poster in here has suggested these two very uninteresting postulations and whether they are in fact worthy of discussion.
I don't and won't.

 

[skilts]

Geez you were quick,I edited the morality thing because my post was arrogant.

I'm not familiar with this thread so I was just adding to the comment you tagged me in.
How are humans intelligent? We dont know if our planet is the only one with life,we don't know how our universe was created,we debate how or who or not who created it,we are still discovering life forms on our own planet let alone anywhere else. The list of what we don't know is endless.
Humans are arrogant,we think we are intelligent.

Some of us know what it is for us to be human beings in this world. That is, those of us who acknowledge our, and this world's existence, rather than indulging ourselves in a baseless, preposterous fantasy involving an other, derivative, made up world.

I can think of nothing more arrogant than to say that one has a special relationship with god. It's also a very silly thing to say. Your pretend god knows nothing of what it is to be a human being.

 

[darthbards]

Some of us know what it is for us to be human beings in this world. That is, those of us who acknowledge our, and this world's existence, rather than indulging ourselves in a baseless, preposterous fantasy involving an other, derivative, made up world.

I can think of nothing more arrogant than to say that one has a special relationship with god. It's also a very silly thing to say. Your pretend god knows nothing of what it is to be a human being.

He is not my god,I am not a Christian. I can think of nothing more arrogant than saying god doesn't exist without proof while at the same time supporting the Big Bang,dark matter,dark energy or Gravity without proof.
It doesn't seem a logical viewpoint. It does seem a hypothetical viewpoint though.

 

[darthbards]

I never said science was beyond reproach.
I never said that science was a conspiracy.
Only one poster in here has suggested these two very uninteresting postulations and whether they are in fact worthy of discussion.
I don't and won't.

Our greatest scientific minds don't suffer arrogance in their work.
Religious leaders on the other hand,are arrogant beyond reproach.

It's all just one big bangin' conspiracy.

You have though used all these terms to support your religion over another.

 

[skilts]

He is not my god,I am not a Christian. I can think of nothing more arrogant than saying god doesn't exist without proof while at the same time supporting the Big Bang,dark matter,dark energy or Gravity without proof.
It doesn't seem a logical viewpoint. It does seem a hypothetical viewpoint though.

Which is to say that you're a mindless troll. Also, you completely misunderstand the nature of my relationship with science.

 

[darthbards]

Which is to say that you're a mindless troll. Also, you completely misunderstand the nature of my relationship with science.

No,I'm just open minded to the fact there is no proof God or a creator of some kind exists,nor is there any proof a god or creator doesn't exist.
Calling others names to support what one believes or what one doesn't does not change these facts in any way.

 

[chelseacarlton]

You have though used all these terms to support your religion over another.

Science and scientists continually offer caveats against their work,their work is offered up publically,so that their methods and theories can be falsified by themselves firstly and others in the field that they work in.
This is not arrogance,this forms a major part in their chosen field of endeavour.
Religion and faith offers no caveats or falsifiability in their beliefs,otherwise their entire system falls apart at the very seams.
I stand by by my original quote and I don't think you've been able to falsify it.
My "big bangin conspiracy"post was a direct slur at your former posts regarding government funding rhetoric,directing certain scientific research to denude it from fact,in order to keep that funding available.
If the math or theorem don't add up,you will be publicly embarrassed trying to push an agenda that will be easily falsified.
This is something any scientist worth their salt will do their utmost to avoid.
I'm not saying it doesn't or hasn't happened,ie climate change etc,but political forces and other more cynical forces are always at work to undermine specific policy making by one side or the other and this is not great science and will be found out eventually.
Again,I stand by my post and don't think you've attacked my position with any validity or quantifiable stance.
I said I wouldn't engage in this nonsense,but felt I needed to,in order to make my position clear to the rest of my comrades on either side of the argument on this forum.

 

[Roylion]

He is not my god,I am not a Christian. I can think of nothing more arrogant than saying god doesn't exist without proof while at the same time supporting the Big Bang,dark matter,dark energy or Gravity without proof.

'Proof'? Try using the word 'evidence'. Much more accurate. A few examples.

The Big Bang theory is based primarily (but is not limited to) on the following scientific evidence.

1. Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. "Hubble's Law." This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. 'Redshift' is the 'Doppler Effect' occurring in light. When an object moves away from Earth, its color rays look more similar to the color red than they actually are, because the movement stretches the wavelength of light given off by the object. Scientists use the word "red hot" to describe this stretched light wave because red is the longest wavelength on the visible spectrum. The more 'redshift' there is, the faster the object is moving away. By measuring the 'redshift', scientists proved that the universe is expanding, and they can work out how fast the object is moving away from the Earth.
2. In 1965, Radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This radiation is known as radio waves, and they are everywhere in the universe. This radiation is now very weak and cold, but a long time ago it was very strong and very hot. This is thought to be the remnant of the very hot universe which is believed to have started expanding 13.7 billion years ago. (see 1.)
3. The abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. There appears to be no obvious reason, outside of the theory of the Big Bang, why a young universe should have more helium than deuterium (heavy hydrogen) or more deuterium than Helium 3, and in a constant ratio as well.

Dark Matter
Based on scientific evidence collected by astronomers since the 1960s, the consensus of opinion among astronomers is that dark matter exists. Dark matter's existence is inferred from various pieces of scientific data such as the known gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, as well as data from a number of lines of other evidence, such as galaxy rotation curves, structure formation, and the fraction of baryons in clusters. Astronomers are still debating the exact nature of dark matter. It may be an exotic, undiscovered type of matter, or maybe ordinary matter that is difficult to observe. The majority of astronomers think it's more likely that dark matter consists of an entirely new type of matter built from a new kind of elementary particle. But that remains to be confirmed.

There are three different ways that can be used to find out what dark matter is made of. Astronomers can look out into space and see the results of collisions of dark matter particles by trying to detect the normal matter particles created in the debris of these collisions; or they can try to catch dark matter particles directly as they stream through the Earth; or humans can try and make them in particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider at Cern.

For example the latest results from another underground laboratory, The LUX (Large Underground Xenon) detector which is situated down a deep gold mine in South Dakota look promising. Its first three-month run took place in 2013 and while it did not detect any dark matter particles, it has shown itself to be the most powerful and sensitive detector of its kind so far. It has already ruled out a number of candidate signals seen in other experiments - and knowing what dark matter isn't is almost as important as knowing what it is. Physicists are already designing a new bigger and more sensitive detector: the LZ experiment, which they believe should definitively detect dark matter particles - if they're out there.

Dark Energy
Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurement indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. Evidence that Dark Energy exists is of course based on observations of supernovae. Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) gravitational lensing, large scale structure of the cosmos, as well as improved measurements of supernovae have been consistent in their results, supporting the theory.

Gravity
Do you know the difference between scientific law and scientific theory?

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which allows the calculation of its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law allows the calculation of what happens, it doesn't tell anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916, as part of his theory of general relativity. Finding those waves would confirm a big part of that theory — and would also be the first step toward a new way of observing the cosmos. A large group of researchers who make up the Laser Interferormeter Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) Scientific Collaboration think they confirmed the existence of Gravitational Waves picked up the wave signals on September 14th, 2015. Whether they have or not will be the subject of further rigorous experiments ad peer review of the eventual published papers.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

Whether you choose to put any stock in the above evidence (which is only some of what is out there) is immaterial to me.

However there appears to be much more evidence for the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Gravity, than there is for a supernatural, superhuman, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity that some call 'god'. On that basis, at this stage, I'll go with the former four and leave the last to those who use purely 'faith' as their yardstick for belief.

 

[darthbards]

'Proof'? Try using the word 'evidence'. Much more accurate. A few examples.

The Big Bang theory is based primarily (but is not limited to) on the following scientific evidence.

1. Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. "Hubble's Law." This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. 'Redshift' is the 'Doppler Effect' occurring in light. When an object moves away from Earth, its color rays look more similar to the color red than they actually are, because the movement stretches the wavelength of light given off by the object. Scientists use the word "red hot" to describe this stretched light wave because red is the longest wavelength on the visible spectrum. The more 'redshift' there is, the faster the object is moving away. By measuring the 'redshift', scientists proved that the universe is expanding, and they can work out how fast the object is moving away from the Earth.
2. In 1965, Radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This radiation is known as radio waves, and they are everywhere in the universe. This radiation is now very weak and cold, but a long time ago it was very strong and very hot. This is thought to be the remnant of the very hot universe which is believed to have started expanding 13.7 billion years ago. (see 1.)
3. The abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. There appears to be no obvious reason, outside of the theory of the Big Bang, why a young universe should have more helium than deuterium (heavy hydrogen) or more deuterium than Helium 3, and in a constant ratio as well.

Dark Matter
Based on scientific evidence collected by astronomers since the 1960s, the consensus of opinion among astronomers is that dark matter exists. Dark matter's existence is inferred from various pieces of scientific data such as the known gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, as well as data from a number of lines of other evidence, such as galaxy rotation curves, structure formation, and the fraction of baryons in clusters. Astronomers are still debating the exact nature of dark matter. It may be an exotic, undiscovered type of matter, or maybe ordinary matter that is difficult to observe. The majority of astronomers think it's more likely that dark matter consists of an entirely new type of matter built from a new kind of elementary particle. But that remains to be confirmed.

There are three different ways that can be used to find out what dark matter is made of. Astronomers can look out into space and see the results of collisions of dark matter particles by trying to detect the normal matter particles created in the debris of these collisions; or they can try to catch dark matter particles directly as they stream through the Earth; or humans can try and make them in particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider at Cern.

For example the latest results from another underground laboratory, The LUX (Large Underground Xenon) detector which is situated down a deep gold mine in South Dakota look promising. Its first three-month run took place in 2013 and while it did not detect any dark matter particles, it has shown itself to be the most powerful and sensitive detector of its kind so far. It has already ruled out a number of candidate signals seen in other experiments - and knowing what dark matter isn't is almost as important as knowing what it is. Physicists are already designing a new bigger and more sensitive detector: the LZ experiment, which they believe should definitively detect dark matter particles - if they're out there.

Dark Energy
Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurement indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. Evidence that Dark Energy exists is of course based on observations of supernovae. Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) gravitational lensing, large scale structure of the cosmos, as well as improved measurements of supernovae have been consistent in their results, supporting the theory.

Gravity
Do you know the difference between scientific law and scientific theory?

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which allows the calculation of its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law allows the calculation of what happens, it doesn't tell anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916, as part of his theory of general relativity. Finding those waves would confirm a big part of that theory — and would also be the first step toward a new way of observing the cosmos. A large group of researchers who make up the Laser Interferormeter Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) Scientific Collaboration think they confirmed the existence of Gravitational Waves picked up the wave signals on September 14th, 2015. Whether they have or not will be the subject of further rigorous experiments ad peer review of the eventual published papers.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

Whether you choose to put any stock in the above evidence (which is only some of what is out there) is immaterial to me.

However there appears to be much more evidence for the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Gravity, than there is for a supernatural, superhuman, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity that some call 'god'. On that basis, at this stage, I'll go with the former four and leave the last to those who use purely 'faith' as their yardstick for belief.

Evidence is pretty cool man,got any actual proof though.

 

[M Malice]

No,I'm just open minded to the fact there is no proof God or a creator of some kind exists,nor is there any proof a god or creator doesn't exist.
Calling others names to support what one believes or what one doesn't does not change these facts in any way.

i couldn't agree more with the bolded.

this whole institutionalised religious god/creator fairy tale was born out of a desire to make sense of natural occurrences ie cargo cult, oh if only the scientific method was around back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

this short video explains it in layman's terms very well IMO.



the great Richard Feynman on how even scientists can be fooled.

 

[Total Power]

Evidence is pretty cool man,got any actual proof though.

Gravity is a scientific LAW. Not a theory, the General theory of relativity validates gravity and has been accepted by every single scientist out there for the past 70 years out there and you sitting in an AFL forum demanding proof of gravity is a bit rich and arrogant. Asking questions like why doesnt the gravity of the moon affects lake or the river only makes someone look dumber you realise that? There is plenty of proof for gravity, even atoms behave the same way we do, if you clear a room of air, atoms will still drop inside a vaccum. But what's the point, you cannot make rational sense to someone who isnt interested in scientific proof in the first place.

i am pretty certain you are a troll though, no one can be this naive. I will let you play on.

 

[benchwarmer5]

Cause bad science is bad science. There is corruption in every field why would science be any exception?

please
science is evidence/research based

 

[Total Power]

please
science is evidence/research based

Yes and evidences can be fabricated or can include confirmation bias. Climate science is one such example of bad science, theres plenty of example of bad science out there.