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.

 

Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove



Originally posted by
While the scientific method is a legitimate process to learn about the world around us, scientism is the cult based on the idea that science has all the answers to life


Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers…

And I think you need to re-evaluate what a cult actually is…Science is not a cult…

Science may be guilty of a dogmatic approach at times, in it’s search for truth, but Religion is largely dogmatic in its declaration of truth…

Both Science and Religion can be dogmatic in different ways…IMO


- JC




posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:



I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.


Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???


One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.


Clinically inferior? Lol

Nope. Theists who acknowledge the existence of their Maker are spiritually superior. That is the purpose of life and that's why we were placed here on earth.

Those who don't acknowledge God are not very different from cattle. Like cattle, they just operate on instinct. Their lives revolve around eating, sleeping and mating. They lack faith, so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.



oh, so you are a FAKE christian. touting egotism as spirituality. it all makes sense now. and just like any sociopathic charlatan you get all insecure when you have to share the pie with a less pompous source of authority. someone will inevitably prove their way of doing things yields actual results and leave you looking less than competent. hence why you made a strawman thread to try and slander science. the funny part is you seem to think we wouldnt figure it out. or maybe you just dont care? hmmm.


The atheist I replied to said religious people (billions of humans) are "clinically inferior"

Sort your own camp out first, hypocrite.


i cant speak for others here, but i can comment on how you convey yourself. that includes how you react to criticism. and your reactions reflect more ego than anything else. besides you were the one to invite challenge and critique when you openly attack the scientific method and its various practitioners. if you dont want to be fingered, then dont point fingers. hypocrisy indeed.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove


Read the post I replied to

I read it. Is it your position that two wrongs make a right?


One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

One of my people? What are you trying to imply?

Atheism isn’t a sports team, an army or a political party. Neither is it a religion; there is no creed to affirm, no community of believers united by sacraments and rituals. Your problem is with an individual who made an absurd and vicious generalization about others. The proneness to do so is common to many, whether they’re religious or not. It isn’t due to their religious beliefs, or lack of them. Some people are just like that.


Care to comment on that?

Care to comment on the fact that I, an atheist, have treated you civilly and courteously, despite the fact that you were extremely patronizing and rude to me in another thread, and have churlishly ignored my questions in this one?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: glend


But what is knowledge in light of Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

You understand Gödel’s theorems? Then please explain them to us.

In your own words please. Mathematics is okay, but no links.

If you can’t do this, you have no business invoking them as evidence for anything. You’d be pretending to knowledge you don’t have. And I strongly suspect you do not have it.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
... this week.
Next week it will all have to be revised.

And that's why science isn't a religion. It can see where it is wrong and correct itself. It's called IMPROVEMENT. Always trying to better itself.

Religion does not and will not do that because the books that make up its core tenants are the word of [insert God here] and the word of [insert God here] is divine and correct.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: glend


But what is knowledge in light of Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

You understand Gödel’s theorems? Then please explain them to us.

In your own words please. Mathematics is okay, but no links.

If you can’t do this, you have no business invoking them as evidence for anything. You’d be pretending to knowledge you don’t have. And I strongly suspect you do not have it.


I didn't need to provide anything as evidence as I wasn't trying to prove anything in the first place. Nor do I have to understand relativity before I type, nothing can go faster than light. Nor understand the mechanics of my car to realize it won't go faster than 120 mph.

I am fully aware that chr0naut knows a lot more about science and religion than I do. I was not arguing against his point of view but wanted him to elaborate. He elaborated which I awarded by giving a star as I agree with his comment's.

So what's really your beef in my communication with chr0naut.


edit on 29-5-2017 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: glend




No, I have read what other mathematicians have said about them on other websites. So if you want to learn more about the theorems I suggest you visit websites that actually discuss mathematics instead of wasting your time here trying put other people down with you childish remarks.

Don't feel bad, I wouldn't be able to explain Gödel’s theorem either. I think I slept thru them classes.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove

as you are complaining about hypocites :


so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.


hoisted by your own petard



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: glend




No, I have read what other mathematicians have said about them on other websites. So if you want to learn more about the theorems I suggest you visit websites that actually discuss mathematics instead of wasting your time here trying put other people down with you childish remarks.

Don't feel bad, I wouldn't be able to explain Gödel’s theorem either. I think I slept thru them classes.


My specialization is programming so not my field nor primary interest. So I don't feel bad. Just annoyed.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: chr0naut
... this week.
Next week it will all have to be revised.

And that's why science isn't a religion. It can see where it is wrong and correct itself. It's called IMPROVEMENT. Always trying to better itself.

Religion does not and will not do that because the books that make up its core tenants are the word of [insert God here] and the word of [insert God here] is divine and correct.


I agree that science is not a religion.

But by the same definition, neither is it truth.

It is just a successive approximation towards the truth.

The logic of this is that until it 'gets there' to the point of being truth (and of which which we can never know when we reach that point - as shown by incompleteness) then science is currently, as best as we can tell, untruth, because as far as we know, in any specific subject of science, the pursuit of ultimate truth may even possibly have a nearly infinite succession of steps. We simply cannot know.

edit on 29/5/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove

It's like horoscope. It's fun to play with until you realize so much is made up. Then it becomes really fun to play with. Physics is my favorite toy. So many of the theories are plausible, but there's never anything wrong with trying to find another way.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Spoken like a true zealot!
Do you realise you sound exactly like a Jihadist?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: firefromabove

as you are complaining about hypocites :


so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.


hoisted by your own petard



He started it.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:



I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.


Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???


One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lol. Your sources claim that atheists don't believe in god because they are mad at god. Lolololololololol!!!!


I don't believe in any gods. For the same reason religious people don't believe in other people's gods. I don't believe in Allah because it makes no sense. I don't believe in yaweh because it makes no sense, i don't believe in thor because it makes no sense. Etc, etc.
edit on 29-5-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:



I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.


Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???


One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lol. Your sources claim that atheists don't believe in god because they are mad at god. Lolololololololol!!!!

Now this is interesting.
It raises a question in my mind of, do some people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:



I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.


Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???


One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lol. Your sources claim that atheists don't believe in god because they are mad at god. Lolololololololol!!!!

Now this is interesting.
It raises a question in my mind of, do some people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?


Do you believe that properly performed science can yield a better understanding of the world around us?

Do you believe that science can account for the existence of the popular concepts of gods?

I prefer science to religion because science yields results. Religion has people stuck in a millenias old roundabout that has a weak and arbitrary moral code. Science discards contradiction until only the facts remain. Religion clings to contradiction as mystery is the only thing it can offer.
edit on 29-5-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:



I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.


Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???


One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lol. Your sources claim that atheists don't believe in god because they are mad at god. Lolololololololol!!!!

Now this is interesting.
It raises a question in my mind of, do some people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?
do you believe that there is a proper way to apply science to a problem?



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:



I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.


Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???


One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lol. Your sources claim that atheists don't believe in god because they are mad at god. Lolololololololol!!!!

Now this is interesting.
It raises a question in my mind of, do some people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?


Do you believe that properly performed science can yield a better understanding of the world around us?

Do you believe that science can account for the existence of the popular concepts of gods?

What I may or may not believe is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join