General

Hi.
I'm Dark_wizzie aka Celapaleis and everybody hates me for being in religion threads.

Thread bump.

There is a big difference between asserting divine, unquestionable, revealed wisdom and a practice of science as we know it today. The entire point of science is to remove dogma. I think calling science a religion is a bit like calling boxing a religion, as that those who box tend to like boxing and find it to be an ideal way to spend one's time. That's a bit removed from what we see in modern theistic religions.

I don't understand why being anxious or distressed affects my view of science. Science is science. Kk. More commonly I heart people thinking about god different when distressed, not science.

On god must necessarily being beyond our understanding: Going down that alley is to deny all burden of proof. God: Prove he exists. Nope, beyond our understanding, therefore can't prove it. Imagine if I were to do that in MIT. String theory? Bogus. Why? Beyond my understanding. My pet theory that we are put on Earth as an insane asylum from superior aliens? True. Evidence? Can't prove it, necessarily beyond our comprehension because they are more advanced. You can make a billion (more than) claims about a multitude of things that can never, ever be backed up by and measure of evidence. I cannot sincerely believe them... if I did they would all be contradictory in places and an incoherent mess. How do you sort out the crap from the truth? You need a way to validate and to prove it. What's unfalsifiable is utter junk.

OR, if you want to go one step further: There is this god I cannot prove, BUT, I know what he thinks and feels, what he wants! And I can show you the way! That's several magnitudes more ridiculous.

[quote=Aeon128]lol you still aren't getting it dude, what part of He can do what he wants don't you understand, even changing that rules as he pleases since He made them. They don't change for us because we are like npcs in a game, and He's the programmer. I don't get why you continue to rant about the absoluteness of laws and rules when i've told you how to think of it. You are really stuck in your ways aren't you.

Secondly because He is able to change the rules doesn't mean they aren't the rules, it just means He can do as he pleases.....science is still science, newton's laws to us are still newton's laws, even if He breaks them to walk on water. He's God......lol don't know how better to explain it to you if you can't understand one simple concept. It's like running around as Neo in the matrix, everyone else is stuck being normal but Neo can do what he wants. Makes sense now?[/quote]

Don't want to start another debate, but if an entity can interact with our universe and break laws we would be able to measure and quantify its effect on our universe, hence ultimately science would be able to either support or oppose the existence of such an entity.

[quote=Aeon128]lol you still aren't getting it dude, what part of He can do what he wants don't you understand, even changing that rules as he pleases since He made them. They don't change for us because we are like npcs in a game, and He's the programmer. I don't get why you continue to rant about the absoluteness of laws and rules when i've told you how to think of it. You are really stuck in your ways aren't you.

Secondly because He is able to change the rules doesn't mean they aren't the rules, it just means He can do as he pleases.....science is still science, newton's laws to us are still newton's laws, even if He breaks them to walk on water. He's God......lol don't know how better to explain it to you if you can't understand one simple concept. It's like running around as Neo in the matrix, everyone else is stuck being normal but Neo can do what he wants. Makes sense now?[/quote]

Kk makes sense.

[quote=TrueAtheist]Yes there are rules we are bound to as humans, these are physical laws. And virgin births and resurrections contradict our physical laws. You can't on one hand say God is in some other realm where he can do whatever he wants and then also say he can intervene and change our physical laws.

Physical laws do not change, hence why they are laws. Therefore God can not perform miracles, answer prayers, or intervene in the physical world any way at all otherwise that would be breaking physical laws.

The only way the God that you suggest could exist would be a deistic God that may have created the universe but who doesn't interact with it at all because that would violate basic scientific principles. The Christian God is not a deistic God therefore it contradicts science.[/quote]

lol you still aren't getting it dude, what part of He can do what he wants don't you understand, even changing that rules as he pleases since He made them. They don't change for us because we are like npcs in a game, and He's the programmer. I don't get why you continue to rant about the absoluteness of laws and rules when i've told you how to think of it. You are really stuck in your ways aren't you.

Secondly because He is able to change the rules doesn't mean they aren't the rules, it just means He can do as he pleases.....science is still science, newton's laws to us are still newton's laws, even if He breaks them to walk on water. He's God......lol don't know how better to explain it to you if you can't understand one simple concept. It's like running around as Neo in the matrix, everyone else is stuck being normal but Neo can do what he wants. Makes sense now?

[quote=Aeon128]lol that's the point of God, don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend *faceplam*. God transcends all we know, so he can do what he wants, especially the stuff that contradicts what we hold as our limits. I also believe in Science and my God and i never had a problem in my field of work. You are holding what you know as absolute, that's not science, the most you can say is that you don't have evidence of it being probable. You can't see past your limits i.e That's impossible for what I hold as absolute hence it's impossible for any other form of life that i have not observed thus far. Once you accept the premise it's really not that complicated. If you can't accept that ( which seems clear by now) then don't bother trying to talk about something you fail at comprehending or tell others they are wrong.

Think of it this way, there is a set of rules we are bound to as humans, and there is a being which goes beyond those boundaries.

OT: In short some people do treat science like a religion, and you can see it in their statements, beliefs and actions.[/quote]

Yes there are rules we are bound to as humans, these are physical laws. And virgin births and resurrections contradict our physical laws. You can't on one hand say God is in some other realm where he can do whatever he wants and then also say he can intervene and change our physical laws.

Physical laws do not change, hence why they are laws. Therefore God can not perform miracles, answer prayers, or intervene in the physical world any way at all otherwise that would be breaking physical laws.

The only way the God that you suggest could exist would be a deistic God that may have created the universe but who doesn't interact with it at all because that would violate basic scientific principles. The Christian God is not a deistic God therefore it contradicts science.

anything can be official a religion as long as a certain number of people worship it or something, eg jedi is an official religion

[quote=TrueAtheist]Want to know why that statement is nonsensical?

Because virgin births and resurrections directly contradict everything we know about biology, therefore it is literally impossible to believe in Christianity and believe in science.

You can't have it both ways. You don't believe in science, you believe in the version of science you want to believe that conforms to your religion.[/quote]

lol that's the point of God, don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend *faceplam*. God transcends all we know, so he can do what he wants, especially the stuff that contradicts what we hold as our limits. I also believe in Science and my God and i never had a problem in my field of work. You are holding what you know as absolute, that's not science, the most you can say is that you don't have evidence of it being probable. You can't see past your limits i.e That's impossible for what I hold as absolute hence it's impossible for any other form of life that i have not observed thus far. Once you accept the premise it's really not that complicated. If you can't accept that ( which seems clear by now) then don't bother trying to talk about something you fail at comprehending or tell others they are wrong.

Think of it this way, there is a set of rules we are bound to as humans, and there is a being which goes beyond those boundaries.

OT: In short some people do treat science like a religion, and you can see it in their statements, beliefs and actions.

[quote=Rtyu]@TrueAtheist: Those Nashis in their hands, being cupped and rubbed to inhale the texture, are beautiful.[/quote]

Soft, perky, and firm, [b]all at the same time.[/b]

[quote=Rtyu]@TrueAtheist: That's what they want you to think. :0 And the church needs money to sustain itself. Blame life and society. [/quote]

Priests gotta eat too, they should try those nashis

[quote=Rtyu]@TrueAtheist: Then they make these "new" discoveries and take all of our money and make us respect them. convenient..[/quote]

Scientific research actually receives relatively little funding for the services it provides, there are a lot of scientists doing important research that could lead to medical breakthroughs and they still have to beg for grants. The only area really is the military where research and development get a lot of funding.

But NASA got almost no funding at all, only 1/2 a cent of every tax dollar went to NASA, and when you compare that to what every other thing gets it's crazy how little we gave to it when NASA and space programs resulted in things like the invention of plastic and the internet.

And if you want to talk about taking our money, the Church has been doing that professionally for thousands of years They even get tax exemptions.

[quote=Rtyu]@TrueAtheist: I could try to observe my own results, but then I'd be suspiciously stopped somehow, or end up dead. And will the results be the same, or will they just deny my results if mine differ from accepted ones? emphasis on "are"[/quote]

The thing is there are scientific papers published all the time that change and add to what is the consensus in science at any given time.

If a scientist were to publish something for example that said gravity didn't exist and it's all an illusions based on some formula he discovered, there would obviously be a lot of backlash by the scientific community, they would scrutinize the hell out of his research, but if his formulas held up then the scientific community would be forced to accept that. There wouldn't be some conspiracy to kill him haha, because this happens all the time (not to the extent of gravity not existing, but to a lesser degree it happens quite often), and if the world's most progressive scientists were being killed off I think it would be noticed by now.

Just recently there was a study done that showed the universe is 80 million years older than we thought

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/21/science-planck-big-bang-afterglow.html

80 million years may not sound like a lot considering the universe is 13 billion years old, but it's actually quite dramatic of a gap considering we've been basing research on how old we thought the universe previously was. But this research is welcomed into the scientific community, it makes what we know more accurate and it builds upon previous research, that's why science only gets more accurate, it never achieves perfection, perfection and absolutes aren't realistically possible, but it refines itself in a way that religion can not, and that no other truth-seeking discipline comes close to achieving.

[quote=Rtyu]What I'm saying is that even evidence-based belief systems require some degree of faith, and faith-based belief systems require some degree of evidence.[/quote]

Yes I do think that trusting in science does require faith, but the difference with trusting science and trusting religion is that scientific research is public and visible, it's right there for anyone to look up or to test for yourself. The only thing stopping someone from confirming scientific claims themselves is if they lack the understanding or knowledge to conduct those experiments, but that's exactly why we have thousands of physicists, biologists, chemists, astrophysicists, etc. It's an appeal to authority in a sense, but it's completely justified, reasonable, and there's no reason to doubt it. Doubting it would imply that you believe every scientists is involved in a world-wide conspiracy theory to feed us false information on purpose, and that would require more "faith" than to accept science to begin with.

If you want to confirm anything in science you can learn the discipline, get the tools, and then confirm the results. You can't even begin to do this with religion, God is completely unfalsifiable.

No. I don't think so.
Religion is a scapegoat for people's problems and their need for dependency.

Science provides answers and paths, which eventually will lead to solutions. It's not a need for dependency but a need for exploration.

[quote=LetThereBeFradd]But I'm Christian and I believe in science...[/quote]

Want to know why that statement is nonsensical?

Because virgin births and resurrections directly contradict everything we know about biology, therefore it is literally impossible to believe in Christianity and believe in science.

You can't have it both ways. You don't believe in science, you believe in the version of science you want to believe that conforms to your religion.

[quote=Aeon128]That's the point i was trying to make in another thread, we all at some point take something and put faith in it, be it science or religion, it will happen, because we can't know that everything is 100% right or was done correctly or just made up because we weren't there or did the study ourselves. Look at scientific journals, yes they are peer reviewed, but at the end we still have to put faith that it was actually done or done to the extent it said it was done, why? Because we weren't there for the the study in the first place, we have to assume it was really done. Years later suppose all these scientific journals become one book, people will start questioning it's validity because of how old it is. Most of the atheist i've seen on this site are just zealous scientific nut cases that you can draw parallels to religious nut cases. A good set are dishonest scientists/people who refuse to believe that science and what they read can be manipulated just as much as religious texts.[/quote]

Most (if not all) landmark publications are replicated as part of the review process, many MANY more publications are replicated by third parties at one point or another as a starting point for their own research. Publication get removed/amended every day because of both internal and external reviews/replications.

[quote=Aeon128]That's the point i was trying to make in another thread, we all at some point take something and put faith in it, be it science or religion, it will happen, because we can't know that everything is 100% right or was done correctly or just made up because we weren't there or did the study ourselves. Look at scientific journals, yes they are peer reviewed, but at the end we still have to put faith that it was actually done or done to the extent it said it was done, why? Because we weren't there for the the study in the first place, we have to assume it was really done. Years later suppose all these scientific journals become one book, people will start questioning it's validity because of how old it is. Most of the atheist i've seen on this site are just zealous scientific nut cases that you can draw parallels to religious nut cases. A good set are dishonest scientists/people who refuse to believe that science and what they read can be manipulated just as much as religious texts.[/quote]

If you honestly think peer-reviewed scientific research can be "manipulated just as much as religious texts" then you either A) have no clue how the peer-review process works or B) have never read a religious text in your life

@Rtyu There are stark differences between evidence-based belief systems, and faith-based belief systems, definitely not equivalent.

[quote=Vicariously]I never said the study stated that science is a religion. The title of my thread is a question, not an authoritative statement.

....Okay then.

That's not how fossils came to be, they aren't casted or molded into fossils. It may be true for preserved footprints or something, but most fossils are the petrified or mineralized remains of once living organisms.
But see, if your science teacher told you that fossils are "casted or molded", you would blindly believe in him, wouldn't you?
We see this problem all the time. Gravity wasn't sufficient enough to explain the universe, so we came up with the theory of relativity, which isn't perfect either.
Science doesn't have all the answers and it can be wrong, but atheists get angry if you question science and they tell me, "I have faith that science will have the answers [b]some day[/b]."[/quote]

If a teacher tells their students that fossils are casted or molded, then that's not science, that's a lying teacher.

I don't think you quite understand what science is, science never claims to be perfect, science is a process. Scientists are the first to question other scientists, hence the entire peer-review process where thousands of scientists engage in hardcore scrutiny.

Science never claims knowledge in areas it doesn't have knowledge, only religion does that.

[quote=xsitsu]It's more of Atheism being a religion, and science being its bible.[/quote]

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Most atheists don't know a thing about science, science isn't scripture, science isn't a book. Science is a way of analyzing and measuring the world.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling a TV that is off a TV channel, or calling not playing golf a sport. Atheism is the absence of theism, it is the rejection of the belief in deities it is in no way shape or form a religion in and of itself.

If anyone classifies atheism as a religion it's because they don't understand the meaning of the word and they are attributing things to it that shouldn't be there.

@Rtyu How does that make any sense? Are you adamant about Santa not existing? Therefore you're religious because you don't believe in Santa..? It's the same logic you're trying to use.

-smh@basil-
Does no one here know what science is?
Science is a refined method of guess and check. It is not a religion.

hao2science:
- Identify a change
- Hypothesize a cause
- Test the cause and record observations
- ?
- profit

Science is a tool, nothing more.
It allows us to make sense of data gained by observation and construct models to predict the behavior of and understand the universe.

Well that's a stretch.

A couple problems, being atheist doesn't automatically mean you "believe" in science. Secondly science isn't a matter of belief, science is there and it exists whether or not you believe it to be true. Evolution occurs whether or not you believe it does, just like 1+1 equals 2 whether or not you believe it equals 3. It's not a matter of belief.

Science is definitely not religion, you would have to obscure every traditional meaning of the word 'religion' in order to classify science as a religion.

Here are just a few reasons I can think of as to why it's not.

-No worship of idols/deities
-No prayer based system
-No ritual based system
-No doctrine you're obligated to follow
-Doesn't make moral claims

Science is pretty much the opposite of religion lol.

Science isn't tax exempt.

Gotta love vague data.

@DrBanana Well i'm not sure what religions you are referring to, but i have no problems with my "religion", whether it be breaking apart or contradicting etc. That problem comes when people who don't understand it or it's basic premises misinterpret and mistranslate what is there, which also happens in science. It's just the problems of human nature and our imperfect condition. It's not hard to understand, We fail at life and then blame everything else but ourselves . We can't follow anything for too long, we get sick of it and want something else or our application of it brakes down and it doesn't work anymore for us so we try to find something else which restarts the cycle. History and the human condition.

Science is a tool, atheism is a lack of belief. nothing religious about either. 21st Century Internet Atheism however is probably one of the most hateful, biggoted and fanatic religious groups of all time though just sayin

[quote=Vicariously]I never said the study stated that science is a religion. The title of my thread is a question, not an authoritative statement.

....Okay then.

That's not how fossils came to be, they aren't casted or molded into fossils. It may be true for preserved footprints or something, but most fossils are the petrified or mineralized remains of once living organisms.
But see, if your science teacher told you that fossils are "casted or molded", you would blindly believe in him, wouldn't you?
We see this problem all the time. Gravity wasn't sufficient enough to explain the universe, so we came up with the theory of relativity, which isn't perfect either.
Science doesn't have all the answers and it can be wrong, but atheists get angry if you question science and they tell me, "I have faith that science will have the answers [b]some day[/b]."[/quote]

That's the point i was trying to make in another thread, we all at some point take something and put faith in it, be it science or religion, it will happen, because we can't know that everything is 100% right or was done correctly or just made up because we weren't there or did the study ourselves. Look at scientific journals, yes they are peer reviewed, but at the end we still have to put faith that it was actually done or done to the extent it said it was done, why? Because we weren't there for the the study in the first place, we have to assume it was really done. Years later suppose all these scientific journals become one book, people will start questioning it's validity because of how old it is. Most of the atheist i've seen on this site are just zealous scientific nut cases that you can draw parallels to religious nut cases. A good set are dishonest scientists/people who refuse to believe that science and what they read can be manipulated just as much as religious texts.

[quote=Anthorix]Poster, [b]you lied to me![/b]
It states that we use the same parts of our brain to have faith in how we act!
It does not state that Science is Religion.[/quote]
I never said the study stated that science is a religion. The title of my thread is a question, not an authoritative statement.

[quote=Anthorix]Sure we use the same part of our brain, but the terms are the same.
You made a mistake in thinking processes.

Example: We use brain parts for faith; everything is religion.
Example: We have pet dogs; Pet Dragons are real.

Fighting over dumb things...
----------------------------------------------------------------
I personally love the idea that it isn't important.
----------------------------------------------------------------
God(s) is was and always will be;

and/or

The Universe is was and always will be;
----------------------------------------------------------------

Both are possible ideas.

*Idiots fight over this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more religions that state that they are the right one! A bunch or bickering fools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/quote]
....Okay then.

[quote=Anthorix]Science as a religion is kinda silly.
I kinda have to believe that the bones of creatures where from living creatures that died and where cast or molded, to be fossils.
I do not believe some guy named Satan works everyday to bury fake creatures so to test the faith in the lord and savior blah blah blah.[/quote]
That's not how fossils came to be, they aren't casted or molded into fossils. It may be true for preserved footprints or something, but most fossils are the petrified or mineralized remains of once living organisms.
But see, if your science teacher told you that fossils are "casted or molded", you would blindly believe in him, wouldn't you?
We see this problem all the time. Gravity wasn't sufficient enough to explain the universe, so we came up with the theory of relativity, which isn't perfect either.
Science doesn't have all the answers and it can be wrong, but atheists get angry if you question science and they tell me, "I have faith that science will have the answers [b]some day[/b]."

This makes me facepalm so hard.

Poster, [b]you lied to me![/b]
It states that we use the same parts of our brain to have faith in how we act!
It does not state that Science is Religion.
Sure we use the same part of our brain, but the terms are the same.
You made a mistake in thinking processes.

Example: We use brain parts for faith; everything is religion.
Example: We have pet dogs; Pet Dragons are real.

Fighting over dumb things...
----------------------------------------------------------------
I personally love the idea that it isn't important.
----------------------------------------------------------------
God(s) is was and always will be;

and/or

The Universe is was and always will be;
----------------------------------------------------------------

Both are possible ideas.

*Idiots fight over this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more religions that state that they are the right one! A bunch or bickering fools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science as a religion is kinda silly.
I kinda have to believe that the bones of creatures where from living creatures that died and where cast or molded, to be fossils.
I do not believe some guy named Satan works everyday to bury fake creatures so to test the faith in the lord and savior blah blah blah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is not religion, it is science.
Do not switch definitions to make your life more eventful.
Do something that helps humanity or your family.
Anything is better than fighting over MANY religions around Earth.
Like using Science to prevent and cure diseases, which are not spirits or demons.

[quote=Vicariously]Do your emotions affect how you think about science?[/quote]

Wait what?
I am not religious or study science.

I just live life.

I am sure more than half the atheist are like me and don't give any rats about anything and just do their daily life.

Yes my emotions affect how I think about science.

Hmm, how disappointing. It seems that theists and atheists do not have any contentions with the oxford study. Didn't expect that....

How about I spice things up a bit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOY1y2SpD4o
This video is of Penn Jillette explaining why he became an atheist. With this video and the Oxford study in mind, I'm interested in how atheists would answer the question: Do your emotions affect how you think about science?

Does this make Bill Nye the Science Guy the pope of atheism?

I'd rather believe in evidence that has been proven multiple times and changes and new evidence shows rather than a faith that has never changed for thousand of years and people still feel like those old religious values can still be used today. Much of the bible is contradicting and morally outdated.

I have faith in science because it has shown time and time again that it works and will likely continue to work in the future. Faith in science is pretty well-justified.

Never thought of that...
Well, its your belief in something so sure. THAT means science should be ILLEGAL in schools! Pls make this happen so a 3 on AP Physics doesn't show up on my transcript.