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

What is your affliation?

  • Non-religious

    Votes: 155 74.5%
  • Christian

    Votes: 26 12.5%
  • Muslim

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Jewish

    Votes: 3 1.4%
  • Hindu

    Votes: 3 1.4%
  • Buddhist

    Votes: 3 1.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 8.2%

  • Total voters
    208

Remove this Banner Ad

darthbards

Cancelled
A Star Wars Fan
May 17, 2015
4,951
5,405
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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.
Falsifying evidence and misconduct within the religion of science is well known,there are numerous papers on the topic.
With such a heavy reliance on funding it is certainly plausible to suggest some of this misconduct is overlooked within the religion of sciences community,it would be pure arrogance to dismiss this as not possible.
 

darthbards

Cancelled
A Star Wars Fan
May 17, 2015
4,951
5,405
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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.
I'm not sure of your point here,Laws change. The religion of science says Gravity is a law but the simple fact is they cannot prove it.
The religion of Christianity would say it's a law to believe a god exists,they also claim to have evidence,but again cannot prove it. The religion of science,again,cannot prove a god or creator does not exist.
Being angry that another religion has differing beliefs is not proof.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Aug 19, 2004
34,423
14,194
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
I'm not sure of your point here,Laws change. The religion of science says Gravity is a law but the simple fact is they cannot prove it..
Proof accepted by everyone including religious people, something you are alone arguing here and you will barely find anyone to agree with you, seek help
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Evidence is pretty cool man,got any actual proof though.

A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media (and hence by you) many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing.

For example, Karl Popper, regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, once wrote that, "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." A theory in science can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.

So once again... 'Proof'? Try using the word 'evidence'. It's much more accurate.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory (both are different) when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

So, once again, 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'.
 

darthbards

Cancelled
A Star Wars Fan
May 17, 2015
4,951
5,405
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media (and hence by you) many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing.

For example, Karl Popper, regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, once wrote that, "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." A theory in science can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.

So once again... 'Proof'? Try using the word 'evidence'. It's much more accurate.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory (both are different) when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

So, once again, 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'.
Any proof you can pass on that a god or creator doesn't exist?
Maybe something we could class as fact or are you just going to supply an interpretation of the word fact?
 
Aug 19, 2004
34,423
14,194
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media (and hence by you) many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing.

For example, Karl Popper, regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, once wrote that, "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." A theory in science can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.

So once again... 'Proof'? Try using the word 'evidence'. It's much more accurate.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory (both are different) when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

So, once again, 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'.

The argument that "you cant prove xx doesnt exist" is a very old one and to be honest works quite well but its a strawman argument in the end. There is no way one can disprove that aliens didnt create us, nor can disprove that unicorns created our galaxy etc etc. Stop wasting your precious time
 

M Malice

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2015
31,433
72,027
By the Gabba.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Valleys. Chelsea.
Any proof you can pass on that a god or creator doesn't exist?
Maybe something we could class as fact or are you just going to supply an interpretation of the word fact?
would be interested darthbards if you believe/have faith in the existence of an omnipresent religious creator/god? or are you more a new age type spiritual devotee?

if i am interpreting your posts correctly i would assume you're agnostic. the fact that you're calling science a religion is a red herring or a fishing expedition IMO.
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
Falsifying evidence and misconduct within the religion of science is well known,there are numerous papers on the topic.
With such a heavy reliance on funding it is certainly plausible to suggest some of this misconduct is overlooked within the religion of sciences community,it would be pure arrogance to dismiss this as not possible.
How about you show us these papers on the topic or specific area of science,so 'we the forum' can openly debate this apparent misconduct that you have asserted?
Otherwise,you're contention to mystify us with your self proclaimed broad knowledge of the scientific method or endeavour will remain at zero.
You have swiped away at will,any attempt to engage with you on an intellectual level or just as broadly as a wanton pathetic denialist troll.
Post your papers HERE! and let the forum discuss your position rationally or be cast into the bin of subvert troll.
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
Any proof you can pass on that a god or creator doesn't exist?
Maybe something we could class as fact or are you just going to supply an interpretation of the word fact?
Unfalsifiable strawman quotient realised.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Any proof you can pass on that a god or creator doesn't exist?

Nope. And can you provide any empirical 'evidence' that a god or creator does exist?

We do have scientific evidence that points to the occurrence and / or existence Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Gravity.

Maybe something we could class as fact or are you just going to supply an interpretation of the word fact?

In science, a fact is a repeatable careful, objective and verifiable observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means) in contrast with a hypothesis or theory which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

darthbards

Cancelled
A Star Wars Fan
May 17, 2015
4,951
5,405
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
How about you show us these papers on the topic or specific area of science,so 'we the forum' can openly debate this apparent misconduct that you have asserted?
Otherwise,you're contention to mystify us with your self proclaimed broad knowledge of the scientific method or endeavour will remain at zero.
You have swiped away at will,any attempt to engage with you on an intellectual level or just as broadly as a wanton pathetic denialist troll.
Post your papers HERE! and let the forum discuss your position rationally or be cast into the bin of subvert troll.
Why don't you just use google for yourself,I'm not your lab assistant.
If you want to not believe misconduct and fruad takes place within the religion of science suit yourself.
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
Why don't you just use google for yourself,I'm not your lab assistant.
If you want to not believe misconduct and fruad takes place within the religion of science suit yourself.
You're off your trolly!
 
I literally had no idea what he was on about!
For people that think the earth fits into a 6 day creation program,6000 years ago,I have a question?
If you are all powerful and beyond measure being,why do you need to rest on the 7th day?
Why are you tired?
Better questions why do we have to eat, or breathe?
Why do we grow from a baby like animals?
Adam was not nursed and Eve was cloned from a rib?
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
Better questions why do we have to eat, or breathe?
Why do we grow from a baby like animals?
Adam was not nursed and Eve was cloned from a rib?
Interesting point.
It,religion,has subjugated the female of the species in almost every manifestation,bar a select few pagan beliefs.
Yet anyone with half a inkling,knows that the emancipation of women from the tyranny of faith is the only way to truly elevate ourselves beyond our primeval beginnings.
 
Falsifying evidence and misconduct within the religion of science is well known,there are numerous papers on the topic.
With such a heavy reliance on funding it is certainly plausible to suggest some of this misconduct is overlooked within the religion of sciences community,it would be pure arrogance to dismiss this as not possible.
Science is not a religion and only a religious idiot would contend it is.
It is by nature open to examination, repudiation, change and is constantly under educated scrutiny.
Don't even compare it to foundation less myth.
Have at least the strength in your own faith to defend it without blatant lies.
 
Why don't you just use google for yourself,I'm not your lab assistant.
If you want to not believe misconduct and fruad takes place within the religion of science suit yourself.

What an oxy....moron. :)

Don't even try and explain, as there's very little point.
 
Feb 24, 2013
45,365
37,740
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
Nope. And can you provide any empirical 'evidence' that a god or creator does exist?

We do have scientific evidence that points to the occurrence and / or existence Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Gravity.

In science, a fact is a repeatable careful, objective and verifiable observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means) in contrast with a hypothesis or theory which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

That's nice.

Can you show me the scientific proofs for consciousness?....Take your time.
 
Can you prove you have consciousness?
Time your take.
I may just be an imagined response to your own post, made in your imagination, or I could be responding to a post I imagined you posting in an imaginary forum, but I think the fact I had to pay the internet providers bill to continue the illusion either way is close to proof I am conscious in some sense.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Can you show me the scientific proofs for consciousness?....Take your time.

Scientific 'evidence' for the brain generating consciousness? There's a bit of a selection below

Neuroscientists have found four "signatures of consciousness":
  1. Greatly amplified brain activity in many regions, including the occipital, frontoparietal, posterior parietal, precuneus and dorsolateral prefrontal regions of the human brain. Unconscious perception is like a wave that peters out upon reaching shore, while conscious perception is more like an avalanche that gains momentum as it progresses.
  2. Ignition of a late P3 wave (recorded by Electroencephalography [EEG] which is an electrophysiological monitoring method to record electrical activity of the brain) when a word is consciously seen but not when it remains unconscious. Conscious perception has been likened to breaking through the dike of the frontal and parietal networks, suddenly flooding into the much larger expanse of cortex. There are actually two P3 waves, and they seem to occupy bandwidth that prevents comprehension of other stimuli at the same time, which explains the attentional blink and the serial nature of consciousness.
  3. A marked increase in the power of gamma waves starting at about 300 milliseconds after a stimulus.
  4. Brain-wide synchronization of information in what's called a "brain web". Granger causality analysis shows strong bidirectional causality, with signals traveling both bottom-up (to relay sensory information to higher areas) and top-down (perhaps as attention or confirmation signals).
Still much more evidence to be collected and analysed by neuroscientists. But neuroscience is making progress.
 
Last edited:
Oct 9, 2009
15,290
29,171
CR0
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool
Nope. And can you provide any empirical 'evidence' that a god or creator does exist?

We do have scientific evidence that points to the occurrence and / or existence Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Gravity.

In science, a fact is a repeatable careful, objective and verifiable observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means) in contrast with a hypothesis or theory which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Golly gosh you're patient.
 
Back