It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

page: 24
59
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Not that I'm arguing for God but I'm sorry you're wrong. You're assuming a separateness that isn't necessarily the case. You're assuming that humanity as it is, is ONLY what you see and experience in this corporeal form.

Here's a hypothetical that would answer your supposed conundrum...

Human consciousness is not limited to these bodies but is instead a frequency of energy that is generated when the human nervous system starts functioning. That frequency of energy when combined with all other frequencies of energy is a conglomerate consciousness that is by definition, everything and all powerful.

There are levels of consciousness, not limited to the physical encapsulation in a human body, that transcend both time and space. YOU and everyone else that experiences those negative aspects of individuality, CHOSE to experience those experiences OUTSIDE of space/time and as part of that higher level of consciousness.

The two sides of a coin that is a necessary component to experiencing the self, requires negative in addition to positive. In fact, the negative IS good by definition, because otherwise there would be no experiencing of any positive. There would be no reference point available.

Now, the fact that the above is a possibility precludes your notion that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be both all good and all powerful... That's because it depends on what the reality of existence is.

Sure, if your concept of reality is the only truth, then God cannot exist in that way... Luckily for everyone, that isn't the only possibility.

Here's another thing that is necessary to understand before ANY discourse on reality can even occur...

There is ONLY one fact, one thing that you can know with certainty. That fact is that your consciousness exists.

Because it is possible that your consciousness is creating all of your experience, you can know NOTHING else with any certainty. You can't even KNOW you have a physical body with certainty.

Once that is understood, then we can have discourse on what we agree is reality and that is what it is. It is a agreement on what reality is, because everyone experiences reality slightly differently, and some, drastically differently.

Jaden




posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66

No one here referred to the scientific method. They have been referring to the scientific establishment, or the scientific paradigms...It is only the adherents of the religion of science that have tried to connect the two...

Jaden

p.s. FYI, the scientific method and the scientific establishment aren't like space/time, they aren't inextricably linked...lol


Incorrect. Check the title or most posts. "Science" is referred to generically as a figure of speech.

There is no religion of science.

PS: What's your next strawman argument?



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your post comes off a bit angry. Try not to get so emotionally invested in Internet forum topics.

See, there's layman's science and there's real science. Layman's science is full of all the wild attributions that people make up, like building destinies and making claims. Layman's science is just glorified superstition. The way some people refer to science in this thread helps to confirm that.

I'm not feigning misunderstanding, man. I genuinely don't understand why people talk about science like an entity, and I think their choices of words are odd. The only explanation I can come up with is superstition.

Also, what word meanings am I muddling? I'm the semantic nitpicker here, remember.
edit on 2-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

yes, what you mean is that science is just a tool and how we apply it is on us.

but reality is very dark, i am sorry but it is the truth, when a lot but not all! humans are so easily corrupted in modern society by money and power and this in effect shows in results made by not so idealistic notions as all of us would like them to be instilled in science.

for instance there are a lot of various parapsychology researches about real nature of reality and yet...were are they today. They are completely gone, as if they were all crap.
But if you read old books about this area of science, it is clear that they had many interesting results in experimentations. Results pointing to reality very different compared to what is supported by mainstream today.

today this area of research is gone or almost gone...but i think that with the rise of research and realizing true healing potential of psychedelic substances this research into parapsychology could also come back in some form,
hah, fun trippy times ahead ... for some, or not.
But there are certainly many interesting papers from what i have read about latest medicinal research about psychedelic.

I think that these things are a bit connected. Well at least, there are doors still left to explore and observe "weird stuff", i wish science will realize it than - if not before, a bit of more subtle reality of existence.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

Of course, now you want to interpret what you think my emotions are. Another diversion. Deal with what I said or don't, it makes no difference to me.

Now you're defining what science is, or trying to establish special criteria that only exist in your own mind.

What about professional science? Is that real science or just layman's science?

What about high-school science? What about 3rd grade Earth Science? What about science as understood by a Hawking or an Einstein?

Artificial categories mean little.

You can make up your own definitions all day long ... that doesn't mean they're accepted in any sort of standard set of meanings.

If you don't understand the concept of "figure of speech" just look it up. I even gave you the terms to understand what you're claiming not to understand.

Finally, who said nitpickers (or, as I said, those arguing mere semantics) were knowledgeable about language?

Not me, for certain.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Let's do an experiment.

I'm holding a pencil over my desk.

Now, science predicts that it will fall to the surface of my desk when I drop it. Every time.

Religion predicts that a believer's prayers can cause God to "act in mysterious ways" right?

I would like to ask any believer here to pray that the pencil will float in mid-air when I let it go.

Ready? Let's see what happens. Tell me when you're ready.


There are lots of scientific scenarios where the pencil won't hit the desk, such as the introduction of other forces that overcome gravity or redirect the path of travel of the pencil. If you were in orbit, the pencil would, most likely, float where it was released. Likewise, If you and the desk were falling, the pencil would also float where you released it, relative to the desk and yourself. The shock wave of a nearby explosion could also throw the pencil upwards or away. So the assertion that science predicts that it would ALWAYS hit the desk is not factual.

But, you seem to have made the assumption here that science, because it has AN answer, has ALL answers, this is not rationally consistent.

Consider this real world example: According to this New York Times article, a man fell 47 stories onto concrete and survived. Science would dictate that his survival should not be possible. He should have splashed like a balloon full of water. Should we assume that because of one case where science fails that science fails everywhere? No. Neither should the reverse case be true.

edit on 2/6/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Your musings about what you think about reality and other people are your own.

I don't mean that as "rude" ... I'm merely pointing out that you make many assumptions that others don't make.

Most parapsychology "research" was crap, poorly designed, no peer review, etc. Did you have something specific in mind?

Psychedelic substances and their medical value (or lack thereof) is a matter of chemistry and biology not speculative musings and pseudo-science.

I have no issue with exploring weird stuff. I have an issue with people attempting to change the meanings of words and disparage science.

I really mean no offense here. Please don't take it that way.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not in orbit, I'm on or near the surface of the earth. I should have made that more clear.

There have been no explosions nearby, nor am I (and my pencil) in a falling structure.

Now that absurd conditions have been eliminated that I didn't include in my little experiment because they are nonsensical in the extreme ...

Oh, and by the way, I have not made any claims about science "having all the answers." Please don't put words in my mouth.

Care to participate, now that you "understand" the parameters of the experiment?

You pray that the pencil floats. Let me know when you're ready and I'll drop the pencil.




edit on 2-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Let's do an experiment.

I'm holding a pencil over my desk.

Now, science predicts that it will fall to the surface of my desk when I drop it. Every time.

Religion predicts that a believer's prayers can cause God to "act in mysterious ways" right?

I would like to ask any believer here to pray that the pencil will float in mid-air when I let it go.

Ready? Let's see what happens. Tell me when you're ready.


Ever hear the one about the skydiving priest? Even men of god don't dare jump out of a plane without a parachute. Tells you where their faith is, amirite?


Do you know of a case where any religion states that jumping from a plane without a parachute will not have dire consequences?



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not in orbit, I'm on or near the surface of the earth. I should have made that more clear.

There have been no explosions nearby, nor am I (and my pencil) in a falling structure.

Now that absurd conditions have been eliminated that I didn't include in my little experiment because they are nonsensical in the extreme ...

Oh, and by the way, I have not made any claims about science "having all the answers." Please don't put words in my mouth.

Care to participate, now that you "understand" the parameters of the experiment?

You pray that the pencil floats. Let me know when you're ready and I'll drop the pencil.



Why would anyone pray that the pencil floats? Has there been some religious dispensation against gravitation that I am ignorant of? I doubt it. No reasonable person with religious faith would do what you suggest because it is absurd. Nor would it particularly prove anything if some nutcase tried (regardless if they succeeded, or not).

But I have provided a case where science disagrees with the facts. It proves nothing about religious faith but disproves science as a source for all reasonable answers. It is a case that proves faith in science (the OP topic) to be unfounded.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No emotional interpretations, just an observation that you seem irritated. It's pertinent if it's affecting your ability to argue reasonably.

I haven't made up any definitions. Science has a pretty clear definition already, and that's what I'm going by. And layman's science is just that-- science as it's understood by regular people who are usually misinformed. There's no artificial category.

The crux of this thing is that science, as it's understood by most laymen, is a form of superstition. There are plenty of things to support that; just look at all the "pop science" factoids that are repeated daily, which are usually based on dubious studies and fantastic misinterpretations of good studies. It all culminates in some kind of weird superstitious reverence, where people start believing science builds destinies and creates utopias.

The problem isn't with science itself, it's with that typical human tendency to weave superstitions. Surely you can agree to that?

Ah, and I see that science realizes things now:


i wish that science will realize it



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It's a really simple experiment.

If you don't want to participate, that's fine.

Religion claims that prayer has power to change reality. Need citations?

Per "Jesus Christ"



24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


No commentary there about what you (or anyone else) thinks is possible or likely or absurd. The Man said "whatever."

Further, you don't speak for all "reasonable people with religious faith" you can only speak for yourself. Don't spoil the fun for others.

You have not provided a case where science disagrees with the facts. You have provided an anomaly that wasn't investigated scientifically, so you have no idea what "science" would have "said."

EDIT:

Further, from your NYT article:



Still, Dr. Barie suggested that Mr. Moreno had taken the team treating him into largely uncharted medical territory. Dr. Barie said Mr. Moreno’s medical team had had no experience with someone who had fallen so far. He said that falls from even three stories can be fatal if the victim hits his or her head on landing.

“Above 10 stories, most of the time we never see the patients because they usually go to the morgue,” Dr. Barie said, though he added that the staff at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell had treated — and had written a medical journal article about — a patient who survived a 19-story fall, less than half the distance Mr. Moreno fell.

“This is right up there with those anecdotes of people falling out of airplanes and surviving, people whose parachutes don’t open and somehow they manage to survive,” Dr. Barie said in an interview after the press conference. “We’re talking about tiny, tiny percentages, well under 1 percent, of people who fall that distance and survive.”


Nowhere in that article did anyone say "science says the man shouldn't have lived."

Why? Because these doctors are scientists ... they don't deny the reality that is in front of their eyes. The man lived, questions follow: how, why?

Useful knowledge will be gained from this, hopefully.
edit on 2-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
"Defiance"?

Look... I don't want to join your church, can you please respect my decision?

I am not criticizing "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (Science), I am criticizing those who tout theory as fact and ostracize and mock anyone who believes otherwise - such behavior is the antithesis to true science, and has been a hindrance to scientific progress.


ABSOLUTELY INDEED!

However, as the contrarian naysayers hereon are proving post in and post out; day in and day out

with their hyper-RELIGIOUS-attitudes and diatribes the Religion of Scientism folks CANNOT tolerate ANY heretics from THEIR sacred cows!

LOLOLOLOL.

Sigh.

It would be humorous if it weren't so 'uninformed-ly' pathetic.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Absolutely INDEED.

IIRC, 75% or more of the Nobel Laureates have been of Jewish heritage . . . which is no small miracle . . . given their tiny portion of the global populace.

I wonder how many of them treated science in hyper religious ways vs as an objective strategy of exploration and investigation.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Bo. Hold up a sec.



However, as the contrarian naysayers hereon are proving post in and post out; day in and day out

with their hyper-RELIGIOUS-attitudes and diatribes the Religion of Scientism folks CANNOT tolerate ANY heretics from THEIR sacred cows!


What?? Science is not a 'religion'. You know that.
Some people science and its findings more palatable and convincing than dusty tomes full of ancient fables.

That doesn't make it a "religion."



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you entirely missed the point of the post you were replying to.

However, you gave a splendid discussion of 'wet birds fly at night.'



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

Irritation is an emotional state. As is anger, which is what you stated in the post that I responded to.

Stop the personal sidebars and concentrate on the argument or be ignored.

Science has a "pretty clear definition" of what? Try quoting a source or a textbook or anything with some standing.

Yes, you divided science into "real science" and "layman's science" ... if you don't understand the meaning of categories, look it up.

The crux of "this thing" is that a vague, overly general, meaningless statement was made about science and religion.

Science is science. It's either factual or not factual. You're merely gesturing toward generalities.

Pop science is not held out as anything other than a cultural plaything. It's "fun" and "informative" and leads some folks to actually find out more on a given subject.

What "science" are you referring to? Provide a specific example and follow up with examples of actual people demonstrating "weird superstitious reverence" ... and if you don't, you're merely providing anecdotes.

Your claim; your evidence.

Or, admit that you're speaking in incredibly general terms and that you're not talking about science, you're talking about pop culture ... which is not the same thing.

I have made no claims about the gullibility of people, which, I would argue, is made patently clear in the OP and many subsequent posts. You're desperately trying to muddle the point with tangential nonsense.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Don't mix up the religion of Hollywood with the religion of Scientism, they are two different beasts.

It's a figure of speech referring to the teachers of the law who tout theory as fact, and excommunicate and mock anyone who disagrees. Some high priests have sympathy (i.e. don't suffer from tunnel vision) and are not as extreme with their zealous religion, but these are rare to come by.


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

And, they haven't begun to understand the difference between EXTRINSIC vs INTRINSIC religionists and their being opposite on a list of variables. I guess THAT SCIENCE is too much for their understanding/analysis skill sets.

Exactly. The High Priests of the Religion of Scientism are those folks who are so zealous about gate-keeping on tenure, publishing, grants etc. such that only their CO-RELIGIONISTS are allowed in those gates . . . only their co-religionists get the top positions; the top book contracts; the top peer reviewed journal articles etc. . . . for whatever corrupt money or power-mongering benefits they are so religiously addicted to.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I'd like to have some reference here to adherents of the Religion of Scientism, please.

Do they have a website?

Can you find people giving a "Credo" of belief in Scientism? And not just some convoluted restatement and interpretation of what you think someone means or is saying.

Christians, Jews, Muslims ... even Wiccans and Scientologists all make claims about the religion they are following.

So, where's the "Church of Scientism"??? Where are the confessions of faith, the personal testimonies?

Thank you kindly in advance.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

hah, i was just havin a go from my perspective. But at the end i would like to learn about it also from scientific perspective and what it presents now about it is lacking.

for me it is simple.
i am regular meditator with a lot of interesting observations about simple being and who we are. And it is a pity, that science does realize so low of our real potential and that of nature. Electromagnetism being just one example exposed in the article of op.

we can do so much better as modern society, i am sure we agree about that. And science will discover a bit of that and start to realize a bit more potential, sooner or later in my opinion.

well this will bring a major shift probably, as materialistic views will be soon also discovered as crap.

And in my posts i was just implying open doors, hah, nothin personnel at all and psychedelics are fun but also very useful in many ways, which will be researched more in the future, i don't know how well you are up to date with that, but for now there are some promising results already, you can google it, if you are interested...

Most natural "drugs" aka. medicine is beneficial in some way, but of course with power, comes responsibility, we tend to forget that a lot in general in my opinion : )



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join