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

What is your affliation?

  • Non-religious

    Votes: 146 73.4%
  • Christian

    Votes: 26 13.1%
  • Muslim

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Jewish

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Hindu

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Buddhist

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 8.5%

  • Total voters
    199

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
you can't even tell me what created the big bang that you claim created the universe

I'm not sure how you can even claim that the big bang created the universe when you're forgetting a major tenet of science

cause and effect

and you're telling me I don't understand science and that you do!

you do realise that in science cause creates effect

you're not following yourself

so explain that bit

I don't need to go round in circles with you skipping that scientific law but accusing me of not understanding science

even though I'm asking you to explain your methodology scientifically using scientific cornerstone that's consistent in all things science

if you keep dancing around it.. I'll have to deduce you don't know science and you're arguing with me not with reason but wth cultish voodoo science or unreasonable behaviour based on ignorant stubbornness!

last time I'll ask
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,452
actually all you're proving is science doesn't need to rely on facts and proof and it will still have followers pretending they know stuff when they don't
Science does rely on facts. It called empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by obseevation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation; in other words be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment.

Empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific methods of forming a hypothesis, expereimental design, peer review, reproduction of original results through more or other observations or experiments, conference presentation and journal publication. All of this requires rigorous communication and explanation by the proposers and is at every stage challenged and criticised by other experts in their field such as physicists, cosmologists, astrophysists in the case of the Big Bang theory, or biologists, anthrolpologists, chemists, geneticists amongst others in the case of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,454
you can't even tell me what created the big bang that you claim created the universe
So? That doesn't invalidate the Big Bang Theory. As I have explained many times. It's just something you completely ignore.

I'm not sure how you can even claim that the big bang created the universe
Re-read what I said earlier. Do you not understand what I am saying?.

I don't need to go round in circles with you skipping that scientific law but accusing me of not understanding science.
Your previous claim that "science doesn't need to rely on facts and proof" did make me laugh though.

You don't understand what science is about. That much is clear from your statements about science such as the one above. Re-read what empirical evidence is.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
Science does rely on facts. It called empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by obseevation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation; in other words be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment.

Empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific methods of forming a hypothesis, expereimental design, peer review, reproduction of original results through more or other observations or experiments, conference presentation and journal publication. All of this requires rigorous communication and explanation by the proposers and is at every stage challenged and criticised by other experts in their field such as physicists, cosmologists, astrophysists in the case of the Big Bang theory, or biologists, anthrolpologists, chemists, geneticists amongst others in the case of evolution.
ok that's all nice

but because you've given me all that.. you're proving to me that the scientific methodology used for this particular THEORY is flawed because it goes against scientific law of cause and effect

it's like this

you can't claim what created anything unless you can give a sound context from beginning to end

so for instance a club wins a flag out of the blue

but that flag was won because there was trading, drafting, development etc

and somebody asks you what made that team the premiers

and you reply

because they scored more goals

but the answer doesn't tell why
it just gives us the effect not the cause
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
you're creating your own question and answering it however you like

you're not addressing the actual question

you've been skipping around for at least 24 hours giving me reasons why you don't need to answer the question or have anything scientific as logical evidence

In fact science itself doesn't agree with you when you understand this is a theory but a law of science means you need to have a cause to create that effect

so you're caught up in the web of anomalies and contradictions that scientists themselves have conjured up to defend their own positions from scientific and logical scrutiny!

this is why you're in a muddle here

because it's a theory and not law

and it's a theory and not law because it's got more holes than Swiss cheese

and because it's got more holes than Swiss cheese but it's also a narrative taught as truth.
science protects that voodoo stuff with provisions of you don't need to prove anything

but this is science were talking about
not a Hollywood movie

scientists have merged into a critical mass of theoretical consensus forever but Without proof it's meaningless and is debunked
just as this is debunked
 

Rusty Brookes

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Posts
4,528
Likes
4,028
Location
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
yeah he's a good bloke

I think I got on the attack because I felt my views were being ridiculous as primative
I dont think atheists understand the kind of attack people of faith face both in our society and around the world

it's courageous to stand your ground on something you believe in and not get sucked into the consensus narrative

I might face people here

but if you're a Christian in Asia, the middle east or Africa you're constantly tested .. in many cases with your life!

atheists need to be aware that religion is nothing to shame others on
Atheists face discrimination in many parts of the world as well

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

I think we can all agree that no-one should be discriminated based on their beliefs. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have those beliefs challenged. That's the hallmark of a mature society IHMO.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
What's that got to with your statement that the truth isn't derived from consensus? Even though Christianity and it's followers are a prime example of truth derived from consensus?
I'm asking you to explain the essence of that book!

because if you don't know it and it's alien to you how do you know why they use it?

I mean would you consider yourself an expert on that book that they do boringly and stupidity ( I think that's what you're implying.. correct me if I'm wrong) observe?

have you studied it and it's intricacies?

maybe you don't know what it actually is but you have heard people tell you that it's rubbish and therefore you have made an uniformed opinion on it based on the consensus away from it?

I dunno

but maybe you can explain yourself..

yes! I know it's cool to bag things you don't understand these days.. but that doesn't mean you're informed or that you have gone out of your way to learn about something properly before making deductions

it only means you've got your info from the consensus .. others that are not yourself and they have punched into your brain what your attitude must be...


correct me if I'm wrong...

tell me you know the Bible and studied it the way you know your football club and idolize players and results week to week
and boo those same players when they leave..

and that football is a really great part of your life and you go every week etc

you know all the players numbers
and you know how long they're out for
what positions and games that they play well in etc

you've taken a total interest in your club and have studied everything about it

so when someone says it's a crap club you can defend it because you know it more intimately than they do!

you see where I'm going with this?

lol
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
Atheists face discrimination in many parts of the world as well

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

I think we can all agree that no-one should be discriminated based on their beliefs. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have those beliefs challenged. That's the hallmark of a mature society IHMO.
yes they do!
so I would ask you to understand and retrain from attacking

I never said atheists aren't attacked in parts of the world

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to bring it up

it's you that bagged religion I'm sure

I just said I'm sticking strong because I won't run from those kinds of generalisations and stereotypes designed to make me feel cowardice and join the consensus
outside of that I have not bagged atheists
but I ask that questions be answered if they're cornerstones to their fundamental arguments

that's fair I feel!

you don't agree?
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Posts
1,001
Likes
695
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
S.S. Lazio
I'm asking you to explain the essence of that book!

because if you don't know it and it's alien to you how do you know why they use it?

I mean would you consider yourself an expert on that book that they do boringly and stupidity ( I think that's what you're implying.. correct me if I'm wrong) observe?

have you studied it and it's intricacies?

maybe you don't know what it actually is but you have heard people tell you that it's rubbish and therefore you have made an uniformed opinion on it based on the consensus away from it?

I dunno

but maybe you can explain yourself..

yes! I know it's cool to bag things you don't understand these days.. but that doesn't mean you're informed or that you have gone out of your way to learn about something properly before making deductions

it only means you've got your info from the consensus .. others that are not yourself and they have punched into your brain what your attitude must be...


correct me if I'm wrong...

tell me you know the Bible and studied it the way you know your football club and idolize players and results week to week
and boo those same players when they leave..

and that football is a really great part of your life and you go every week etc

you know all the players numbers
and you know how long they're out for
what positions and games that they play well in etc

you've taken a total interest in your club and have studied everything about it

so when someone says it's a crap club you can defend it because you know it more intimately than they do!

you see where I'm going with this?

lol
Well lucky we idolise the same club/players...

Yes I grew up Roman Catholic, yes I completed Sunday School (confirmed and all that) and yes I have read the Bible. Yes I have a opinion on its essence, which you won't like because once I undertook maths, science, history at high school, I could see right through it's bullshit.

BUT I am a true believer of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
 

Rusty Brookes

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Posts
4,528
Likes
4,028
Location
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
Show me anywhere in my arguments where I've bagged religion or more importantly religious people. I haven't once. I outlined why I believe science explains the universe we live in - this is not in any way an attack on religion.

If religion gives you some sort of meaning or peace in life, then good for you. It's not for me though.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,465
Do you actually understand it?

but because you've given me all that.. you're proving to me that the scientific methodology used for this particular THEORY is flawed because it goes against scientific law of cause and effect
Because science doesn't currently know what caused the Big Bang, does NOT invalidate the Big Bang Theory. All the available peices of empirical evidence continue to support the theory. That's all I have said.

You're trying to argue something I have never argued.

Science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang Theory. Something caused it, but science doesnt know what it was.

Just because science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang Theory does not invalidate the theory. It doesnt mean there wasn't a cause.
 
Last edited:

Moti

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Posts
9,593
Likes
4,970
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Do you actually understand it?



Because science doesn't cureently know what caused the Big Bang, does NOT invalidate the Big Bang Theory. All the available peices of empirical evidence continue to support the theory. That's all I have said.

You're trying to argue something I have never argued.

Science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang Theory. Something caused it, but science doesnt know what it was.

Just because science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang Theory does not invalidate the theory. It doesnt mean there wasn't a cause.
God could have started Big Bang and it lines up with scripture, could be a scientific something we don’t know about that is not God. Either way, shouldn’t be on the menu for God or no God banquet.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,467
you're creating your own question and answering it however you like

you're not addressing the actual question

you've been skipping around for at least 24 hours giving me reasons why you don't need to answer the question or have anything scientific as logical evidence
I've answered the question. Science does NOT KNOW what caused the Big Bang. That does not mean the Big Bang did not occur.

In fact science itself doesn't agree with you when you understand this is a theory but a law of science means you need to have a cause to create that effect
A scientific THEORY is is a well-substantiated explanation and/or model of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientists also use scientific FACT to mean something that has been tested and/or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples (even though this continues so that the "model" of evolution can continued to be refined/improved).

because it's a theory and not law
See above.

and because it's got more holes than Swiss cheese but it's also a narrative taught as truth.
A scientific THEORY is is a well-substantiated explanation and/or model of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

but this is science were talking about
I see little evidence that you understand science at all.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
so science does not need to answer questions

but gives answers on stuff like Evolution and creation and the creation of the Universe but it doesn't have to prove it

ok I'm understanding what you're talking about now

science; can just be just narratives and theories
. and get all that schools for little kids as truth

; ok you win this debate science is nothing but narratives and fairies and many cases and it gets told as truth
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
science can be THEORY turned into narrative according to you

and everybody should believe it

The more I think about your definition and it's not everybody's.. the more I giggle!

science should be the study for truth!

so then science uncovers truth it reveals probity in awareness

by pushing narratives that have not been proven we are pushing the concept of consensus over truth

which is what you're arguing

sorry if I don't agree
it can be tampered too much and it can be used to influence attitudes for agendas

I'm seeing this now

we don't have science to guess

anyone can guess and set up platforms from there

lol

you crack me up

I think most people would be horrified that this is science
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
Well lucky we idolise the same club/players...

Yes I grew up Roman Catholic, yes I completed Sunday School (confirmed and all that) and yes I have read the Bible. Yes I have a opinion on its essence, which you won't like because once I undertook maths, science, history at high school, I could see right through it's bullshit.

BUT I am a true believer of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
let's test you...

what is salvation?

in orthodoxy Protestant and Catholicism

because you're tarring religion with one brush

when in fact there's thousands around the world but I'll keep it simple

Compare them

or from your Catholic school education they're all the same

I can tell you they're different

actually all those religions are all Christian and all different

what about Judaism , Buddhism Islam Hinduism Sheikhism Taoism Zoroastrianism

are you comfortable with understanding the ins and outs of all religions and have to laugh at everything?

you wouldn't have the foggiest I would think.. so if you don't understand the essence of religions why would you give a very uninformed answer on religion as if they're all one?
I bet my bottom dollar you'd know nothing about some Christians and little even on Catholicism

The real answer is you've been brainwashed to react like that because you have been led to believe that you should

nobody should be putting down religion by dumbing down their intricacies and generalising

it's very supremacist

I might ask you for scientific fact also and you might be willing to give me evidence unlike the other guy who feels compelled to deflect and make excuses and give sordid answers on what is truth
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
as for Evolution and selective stuff

how has stuff been tested

Darwin was around two hundred years ago
he made his theories on his collection of stuff

he wasn't privy to DNA tests that dispell stuff he believed back then

for instance you can't change stuff
a Bactria can not become a dog

a dog can't be mutated to become a mouse

a mouse can not be mutated to become a shark

that flies in the face of everything we know today!



we know this from DNA

and he wasn't around when we found out about chromosomes

there's are so many gaps in fossils it's ridiculous

we only see varied species there's too many missing links so there's no sequence to anything

The fact that lightning can hit water and make inorganic matter organic has never been shown

The fact that a out of chaos can come order goes against scientific laws

you can't have a hurricane clean up a city and throw thingz everywhere and return it to a perfect fictional City or anything

that's a scientific law

and yet these are the kinds of things we're asked to believe unequivocally!

you can study these things as many times as you want but they don't happen lol
 

jason pm

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Posts
14,660
Likes
26,417
Location
Omnipresent.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fortitude Valley Diehards. Chelsea.
I think I 100% understand Roylion's stance, this is as succinctly as I can put it.

Science/Roylion doesn't know < Big bang ( Well established peer reviewed Scientific theory) > Evolution(Well established peer reviewed Scientific theory) > Homo Sapiens.

1556084196656.png
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,473
so science does not need to answer questions
Science tries to answer questions with supportive empirical evidence

but gives answers on stuff like Evolution and creation and the creation of the Universe but it doesn't have to prove it
Science tries to provide a logical rational answer backed by as much empirical evidence as possible. Presently science does not know what existed beforehand or what caused the Big Bang. So therefore without suitbale supportive empirical evidence I myself am unable to say what caused the Big Bang or what existed beforehand. Therefore I cannot give an answer.

Why is that concept so difficult so for you to understand?

science; can just be just narratives and theories
. and get all that schools for little kids as truth
You still havent understood what I've said. By the very fact you're making these statements, it's clear you don't understand what science is, much less a scientific theory.

Once again.

A scientific THEORY, such as evolution, is a well-substantiated explanation and/or model of some aspect of the natural world/universe, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. (i.e. empirical evidence)
 
Last edited:

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
I do understand what you're saying

you're into half baked narratives

you can't point to the big bang because it needs something to have caused it

you need to point to what caused it

you're on nowhereland without the context so it's meaningless but a cute curiosity

and you're bringing up things that have happened before and if you're not there you can't simulate them

of course you can simulate with super computers

but to finish the equation you need to know what caused it

and there's nothing scientific that can create something from thin air

it's not scientific to think it can

because every effect must have a cause
and it's this cause that created the universe not the big bang

this cause is very unique because there's nothing else that has appeared in science without a cause

I'm saying

and then God said " let there be light!"

because God sits outside the dimensions of time, space and time ... and whatever it is that caused it can't have either

but let it be known that if a proven argument comes up that proves it wasn't God.. I'll be an atheist then!

in the meantime I can't go with the big bang because it's not the big bang that caused the universe to kick off
obviously!

The big bang was part of a process not the cause
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
therefore science doesn't need truth it needs hunches

that's ok but then it needs to be projected as a hunch

ok

if you can understand the big bang you can also understand creation from God

less hunches

God ( in the beginning (sits outside time and space
let there be light ( the bang but didn't come out of nowhere)

where the other theory Falls down is scientifical law demands cause before effect

otherwise there would be random effects all the time

The God explanation is at least equally easy to understand and when science works with stuff that can be repeated .. this had never been repeated

and also science believes that order can't come from chaos and nothingness

and the universe and mankind is so perfect including everything and including metaphysical

you can't recreate all of this over and over to make it THEORY
because there's very little scientific law in any of this

I don't deny what the guy is saying.. only how does he tie what he said in to all this Perfection from random stuff
 
Top Bottom