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.

 

Science the new religion

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


WraothAscendant, there's a reason why MM hasn't addressed any of your points... she has no need to. i addressed them quite well.... why is it that you've completely ignored my counterpoints?


You have not. You have unloaded the same information in the same direction. Ignoring the questions I pose and probly just dismissing them as nonsense. Get lost. And shall I fathom a guess you two know each other? Or at least find the other one amicable? Hell your beliefs are complimentary and its all well and good to gang up but answer my questions.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]




posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Ok here is in a list format my questions perhaps you can get what I am saying now. Mind you all these questions link together in a way.

1) How is it impossible that science cannot be a religion especially when people such as your self use the scienctific method to prove or disprove the existance of a higher power? You are still straying into the realm of religion are you not? And of course that is not withstanding the zeal you then use to mock and laugh at the others that disagree. Though I wonder how that can be a truly unbiased experiment on such a thing can be done if you can kindly tell me. And I would like to know more or less all you people have said to me so far is less boiled down version of "just because".



2) Do you not agree that humans are falable? And do you further agree that we can and do lie, cheat, and twist things for our own purposes? Or even to say keep a lifestyle or career? And can you ALSO not agree that we can and do try to fool others and ourselves, for whatever purposes?

[edit on 21-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You have not. You have unloaded the same information in the same direction. Ignoring the questions I pose and probly just dismissing them as nonsense.


look at my post, i address each thing point by point



Get lost. And shall I fathom a guess you two know each other? Or at least find the other one amicable?


i find that MM is a decent human being and quite the contributing member to ATS... never really met her, don't know her apart from ATS



Hell your beliefs are complimentary and its all well and good to gang up but answer my questions.


i did answer your questions. just read my post over again.
maybe you can take the same care to respond point by point to my counterpoints



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I would like to direct people to this thread.

To answer the question though, it's entirely a matter of perspective. We need to agree of meanings for these words we're using "religion" and "science." Everybody in here seems to have different ideas about what those words mean. And, I'm not suggesting that there is any "fundamental" meaning for these words, just that whatever meaning we want to use for this discussion...we all need to agree on those meanings, or else we're completely wasting our time.

Are you tall?

Would an African pygmie think you're tall? Would Robert Wadlow think you're tall?

We need to agree on a basis from which to compare, or else all discussion is pointless.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
"You haven't answered my points!"

Yes, I have.

To recap: Science is not a religion, to say so is nonsense.

And if you're mocking me in your signature, how exactly is my name misspelled, might I ask?

BTW, telling people to "get lost" and "butt out" is censorship, which goes against the very nature and purpose of this discussion board. If you don't want people joining in the discussion, perhaps you should take the people who you agree with and wish to talk to and secrete yourselves somewhere nobody else can "hear."

Why do I need to answer points when MIMS has done such an admirable job? We get accused of tandem bullying all the time, but we don't know each other except on this site. It's just because we both have the same rational idea of reality and have come to the same conclusions independently of one another we feel the same.

Excuse me, I have to give my television it's daily ration of candy and worship now.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Has any one ever wondered if maybe religion is a science?

who knows, to come up with some of the ideas and beliefs in religion, people could have used a very primitive form of the scientific method. (water is falling from the sky, therefore someone must be up there pouring it on us)

you might say a scientist studies his field religiously, but you could say that about any profession, like an athlete that trains really hard, or a writer who rights all day. Does that make sports a religion, no. Does that make writing a religion, no.

It also sounded to me like WA was considering all scientists atheist, and all atheists scientist. I know plenty of atheists that don't study science at all.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by ThaDewd]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaDewd
Has any one ever wondered if maybe religion is a science?


yes, however, such brainfarts are passing.



who knows, to come up with some of the ideas and beliefs in religion, people could have used a very primitive form of the scientific method. (water is falling from the sky, therefore someone must be up there pouring it on us)


that's not a form of the scientific method, it's just making a hypothesis that then becomes a conclusion



It also sounded to me like WA was considering all scientists atheist, and all atheists scientist. I know plenty of atheists that don't study science at all.


well... in the field of science most are atheists. in the national academy of sciences in the USA, 90% are atheists.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's not a form of the scientific method, it's just making a hypothesis that then becomes a conclusion


This is where madnessinmysoul and I agree.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well... in the field of science most are atheists. in the national academy of sciences in the USA, 90% are atheists.


I'm going to have to disagree until you can show me statistics. Where is it written/recorded/proven/documented in the field of science most are atheists? I know I wasn't surveyed.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
This is where madnessinmysoul and I agree.


it happens occassionally.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well... in the field of science most are atheists. in the national academy of sciences in the USA, 90% are atheists.


I'm going to have to disagree until you can show me statistics. Where is it written/recorded/proven/documented in the field of science most are atheists? I know I wasn't surveyed.


i can show you the statistics... i'll do it tomorrow though, as it is getting a bit late over here. well, this was just the national academy of science.
in the general scientific community i believe it was approx 65% that were atheists..

and it is found that it is more likely for biological scientists to be atheist than physical scientis... but barely... it's like a 1-2% difference
a similar survey of the royal academy in england found that over 80% of the members were atheists with a similar difference between physical and biological scientists.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm going to have to disagree until you can show me statistics. Where is it written/recorded/proven/documented in the field of science most are atheists? I know I wasn't surveyed.


Maybe your invitation to be a new elect to the NAS got lost in the post. Shoot them an e-mail, tell them you got your BSc a few months back.

Most recent polls show a majority profess no belief in god(s). And remember these are polls, saint. It doesn't mean they ask every single person with a BSc.


According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.[17] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.[18]

A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheist or agnostic. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,"[19]
en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting to see that the scientists most removed from empirical natural science are most likely to hold such a belief (i.e., mathematicians).

Polls are always pretty naff anyway. S'pose it gives a rough guestimate.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   


MajorMalfunction:
Science is not a religion, to say so is nonsense.


Ok. Then how about this: give me operative definitions for both "science" and for "religion" and let's then let's take those definitions, and very simply, test them against things to see what does and does not qualify.

EDIT:
I see on the first page of the thread you did provide definitions. They need clarification, though.

Please give me a definition for "natural" and "supernatural." Please do not use the words "science" or "religion" in these definitions, so as to avoid a circular set of definitions.

Just briefly...



Religion is:
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


Let's say a physicist believes in physics. Let's say a physicist is in awe at the power and simplicity of the majesty of the laws of physics. Let's say a physicist believes that the universe was created according to the laws of physics. And, let's say that a physicist believes that the laws of physics govern the operation of the universe.

Does that mean that the physicist is a religious believer in the religion of physics?

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. Like I said, we need a definition for "natural" and "supernatural" before we can continue. But...just at a glance, I'd say there's legitimite room for interpretation here.

So, again...definitions for "natural" and "supernatural" please.



[edit on 23-8-2007 by LordBucket]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Religion - all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns (Penguin Dictionary of Religions)

from religio = reverence

Science - A process by which knowledge can be gained by empiricism, and the collective knowledge obtained by said process (me)

from scientia = knowledge

Natural = based in nature, that is, the material

Supernatural = beyond nature.

ABE: I'm sure this is just going to descend into semantic BS...

ABE2:


Let's say a physicist believes in physics. Let's say a physicist is in awe at the power and simplicity of the majesty of the laws of physics. Let's say a physicist believes that the universe was created according to the laws of physics. And, let's say that a physicist believes that the laws of physics govern the operation of the universe.

Does that mean that the physicist is a religious believer in the religion of physics?


A feeling of awe is not science. Science is a process and a body of knowledge.

As soon as he plays 'universe was created', he goes beyond science. If he said, 'the universe operates according to physical laws' or 'developed over time from physical laws', then that's cool. Otherwise, he goes out of the realms of science. Same for using 'govern' in the sense of teleology.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Seriously, people, you can't ask for definitions and then throw them out because they prove the point you don't like.

Natural means anything of the natural world, that is bound by natural laws and theory such as gravity, thermodynamics and evolution.

Supernatural means anything that lies outside of natural law.

By definition, there is no such thing as the supernatural because there is no "outside" of natural law that can be proven exists.

Science is the opposite of religion. If someone doesn't like it, too bad. You can't re-define something just because you don't like the way the definitions point out the truth.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Thanks for the stats Melatonin, I always enjoy people using references when talking about numbers.

"...expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god."

"...93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998."

"...over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheist or agnostic."

"When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out..."

However, in that polls both athiests and agnostics were lumped together. Half of that 60% stat was agnostic. Having doubts or not knowing is a leeeeetle bit different (okay, a lot) then being an athiest. I've been an agnostic before, I've never been an athiest.

This contrasts with madness' statement "well... in the field of science most are atheists. in the national academy of sciences in the USA, 90% are atheists."

So here is the split on that last number then. 34% Athiest, 30% Agnostic, 36% Do believe. Hmm....


[edit on 24-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The ancient priest were the first scientist.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Thanks for the stats Melatonin, I always enjoy people using references when talking about numbers.


I think madness has just got 'no belief' and atheism mixed up when recalling the info.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
The ancient priest were the first scientist.


Arooo? Raggy! Raggy! Reak to reee! /scooby off

No teasers, if you're gonna make a statement like that, you've gotta at LEAST explanation.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think madness has just got 'no belief' and atheism mixed up when recalling the info.


It happens and appreciate the clarification. Just too many false stats being declared these days and not enough people checking them.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think madness has just got 'no belief' and atheism mixed up when recalling the info.


indeed, it was a mistake. i'm very sorry.


Originally posted by Stormdancer777
The ancient priest were the first scientist.


no, the ancient priests were just people making up answers. the first scientists were probably the first astronomers and philosophers.

[edit on 8/24/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
It's an insult to science to compare it to religion. Science is about truth. What's religion about? Love? Peace? Truth? Don't make me laugh. Aside from that, the definition of religion is a belief structure based on at least one deity. Science is based on facts and theories based on facts. To say that science is the same as religion just because they are both ''belief'' structures is complete horsesh*t for completely obvious reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join