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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   


"Proof" is a mathematical concept. It cannot be applied to the physical world. It is not possible to "prove" anything. There is always the possibility of new knowledge coming along that contradicts the old. If you ask me, I would say that the entire concept of "science" is based on this idea, that it isn't possible to "know" anything. That you never dismiss information based on assumptions. This is the whole point of "science" as a method. To never "have faith" in anything, always test the information you currently have, always be willing to consider new information, and always be willing to refine, and update your old knowledge when new knowledge becomes available.

If you ever believe anything, you are exhibiting faith. Nothing is exempt from this. If you , against all indication to the contrary, continue to have blind faith that science is not a religion, then you are guilty of the very thing you find so repugnant:
Having beliefs based in faith.


EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!! Thank you! But they still danced around it. Go figure. Yet they call those that even allow for the possiblity of a higher power the crazy ones. Eh. We are all crazy in someones eyes. But from where I am sitting they are largely as guilty as religion of trying to put man on a pedistal, though a vastly different one. and twisting facts for their own preconvieved ideals benefit.

You can throw dictionary terms at me all day. But those dictionary terms are also made by humans and thusly can be wrong. Because everyone can be wrong, no everyone WILL BE wrong at some point. The mark of a truly sane and intelligent person if you ask me is that he or she can admit that.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
books.google.com...://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26 q%3DThe%2Blanguage%2Bof%2BGod%2Bby%2BFrancis%2BCollins&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPP1,M1

I just bought this book,

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins

He is the head of the human Genome project, and works with the cutting edge of the study of DNA, he believes that god and faith in science can coexist, so,

Has anyone read it?

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I wholeheartedly agree that what as interpreted and taught in conventional schooling as "science" is a belief-system limited in scope and context and imposes laws, doctrines and limitations such as religion does.

Fortunately "science" is not quite as bad as other religions, but its still a belief-system diverting the masses from unlimited, infinite being.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Has anyone read it?


I haven't. I've read a few reviews and articles of his, and from what I can gather some of his arguments are a bit flaky, IMHO. He's a big fan of C.S. Lewis' apologetics. He essentially couldn't handle ambiguity and uncertainty on some issues, and so shoved a god in to create an answer.

But, he is right that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and as long as his faith isn't pushed into his science, not a problem.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   


But, he is right that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and as long as his faith isn't pushed into his science, not a problem.


Cool, I will let you all know what I learn.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   


But, he is right that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and as long as his faith isn't pushed into his science, not a problem.


Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute here. Don't I remember you saying something to the effect that it was impossible for science to be a religion?
Nice attempt at backstepping.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute here. Don't I remember you saying something to the effect that it was impossible for science to be a religion?
Nice attempt at backstepping.


I think you're taking the semantics a bit far.

Take a break, have a cup of tea, maybe a biscuit, then read it again.

When I say they are not mutually exclusive, I mean you can hold a faith and be a scientist, or accept science as a valid approach to understanding nature.

It's not one or t'other.

Nowhere in that post was there meant to be even a shred of a suggestion that science = religion.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Sorry, but that is incorrect. Science is a way of describing and exploring the world using scientific method, which tests and re-tests current knowledge and hypotheses with actual evidence.

Religion is faith based on no evidence at all.

Science is NOT a religion. Those that say so are fooling themselves.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Sorry, but that is incorrect. Science is a way of describing and exploring the world using scientific method, which tests and re-tests current knowledge and hypotheses with actual evidence.

Religion is faith based on no evidence at all.

Science is NOT a religion. Those that say so are fooling themselves.



Go ahead and continue thinking that. Thats the beauty of it. You don't have to agree. Go ahead and keep bullishly parroting that same line you have been saying over and over and over again. You can't get past that one line of science being a religion that much has been painfully obvious, despite the perfectly valid arguments that have been put forward, you can offer no other line then to call them nonsense and repeating over and over again, it's just not anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. You should just cut and paste it a thousand times and be over it. You can't have you way with reality no matter how much you would like to bend words for your own benefit. Like I said ITS ALL SEMANTICS! And you are just as guilty of what you claim me and the others here are guilty of, just in the negatory way.

Or you could check that wikipedia entry I put in and lets see what you think and we can start down that little trail I started with that other guy amd I might add he ran off. Just refresher the wikipedia entry about the idea that "The map is not the territory." and we can do from there.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Science is a way of describing and exploring the world using scientific method, which tests and re-tests current knowledge and hypotheses with actual evidence.

Religion is faith based on no evidence at all.

Science is NOT a religion. Those that say so are fooling themselves.


The first thing a cultist will do is define for others what is correct and incorrect.

I agree that religion is not based on evidence.

I agree that science tests and re-tests current knowledge and hypthoeses with actual evidence. And that is a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it protects us from magic-oil-salesmen and irrationality and stupidity. And it is a curse because it limits are view to only the few things that can be tested by means of our normal senses. In this sense science IS a belief-system that is limiting our experience of life.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corum
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.


If I were you, I'd try to find out who peed in my cereal and ask them why they'd do such a thing.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I realise something. I am guilty of that which soo annoys me about "those other people" I am so complaining about. So for my own reasons I have launched a "crusade" (in this discussion at least) to "enlighten" the "infidels". And I can honestly say I was wrong in doing such. I broke my own rules. Which is never try to tell someone their beliefs are wrong. But to see other people soo mock and play like they have any inside track or so seem to love to say "Oh, look at me I am super intelligent "or enlightened" REALLY gets my goat so I attack, I mean as far as I am concerned anything done for egocentric reasons is ultimately a negate (read bad) thing. Not a good reason but I am human after all. Simple fact of the matter is none of us really really (the worm of doubt can enter into anywhere after all) know. There are any number of arguments that can be made for or against a any number of things beyond the basic "up is up and down is down" type stuff that we really must admit that we know very little, because as a sentient spieces we are really really really young. Hell we can't even abide for differences in opinion. But I think that is largely the leaders faults because its easier to keep control of a group if they have a enemy.

My arguments that science as some view it now is a religion (yes I have refined my statement) is ultimately pointless because I am either one "preaching the choir" so to speak or "baiting the opposition" with little hope of swaying the latter because in order to convince anyone of anything I am noticing is a LARGE part diplomacy or charisma and the targets have to have the ability or want to accept whatever. That old saying history is written by the victors come to mind. You can't convince someone of something they don't want to see, or their ego will not let them see.

Sure this is in a way a passive agressive way of saying that I will not persue this topic any longer. But I want to make it clear that I am not in anyway saying I have been intellectually defeated, because the simple fact is all that the others have had to do is throw simple dictionary descriptions at me, and I know how much of a changable not at all static things words are, though they ARE all we have. I have yet to have been convinced otherwise and no matter how many people join in against me to collectively throw dictionary terms at me I will not back down. Groups don't sway me when all of them individually could not. So I wish everyone a good day and maybe we can find something we can agree on.



P.s. And yes skyfloating. I agree. No duh huh? ;]
P.s.: And once again majormalfunction accepts no challenge to prove herself or himself beyond dictionary terms. I regress but I had to have that noted.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's the difference between the two in a nutshell
SCIENCE: relies on proof to believe in something.
RELIGION: relies on belief in something with the absence of proof.


You broke your nutshell trying to shove Religion into it with this definition. Religion does not necessarily mean an absence of proof. Would you like 'proofs' of my claim?


Secondly, there are many incidents where science utilizes proofs to establish a belief that something will happen (or that something has happened like in forensics). A predictable outcome is a belief. It's not a strong belief since it is based on previous proofs, but is a belief nonetheless and is prone to fallibility from time to time.

There are reasons why science is not a religion. To say it is because science does not have beliefs is not only incorrect, but also is barking up the wrong tree.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by jfj123
Secondly, there are many incidents where science utilizes proofs to establish a belief that something will happen (or that something has happened like in forensics). A predictable outcome is a belief. It's not a strong belief since it is based on previous proofs, but is a belief nonetheless and is prone to fallibility from time to time.
[edit on 30-8-2007 by saint4God]


Man, it's pointless to argue with them. Haven't you noticed that all this aruging is really getting no where? You could make all the sense in the world and all your doing is wasting your time. If someone does not wish to see what your saying they never will. Not even your Jesus could change everyones mind remember (if he did exist, not that I will argue either way because I wasn't present back then)?

[edit on 30-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
And to answer the alligation I have here to now not really answered. No I am not trying to make science out to be a religion to somehow make it ok safe for religion. Simple fact is I question EVERYTHING especially what people say and do because I have very little faith in anything, and none at all for my fellow man because the simple fact is people are not to be trusted for any number of reasons (many selfish or just plain malicious, some just pure silliness) are coloring what they are saying.

That and I question that if, well..... what most the religions claim is wrong (as I believe they are) and whatever being that is out there wants very little proof or contact with itself or our souls once departed. And that self same being (or beings) set everything up. Do you honestly think that us, we little specs of things smaller then dust living on a grain of sand on a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY large beach could prove or disprove it, muchless understand? Religion does make a great many claims for mostly its own benefit (control/power/whatever) and some calling for simple morality, after all that one line "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." is a good line and does promote some sort of sanity.



P.s.: PLEASE don't try to convert me to your religion you religious types. Or fill me in on your "truth" because I will question that too and I have probly heard it before and will continue to question.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Corum
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.



Dictionary term. Please try again. Or pay more attention to previous statements.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Man, it's pointless to argue with them.


Perhaps. Perhaps not. Arguably ATS too is pointless since most of the time it is bickering. One would have to have hope that it isn't pointless because it seems no change occurs in the participants of the forums. I don't have to have hope anymore though, I've seen proof
. That, my friends, had stemmed from only hope.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Haven't you noticed that all this aruging is really getting no where?


Yeah, that's how it appears...but things are not always what they appear.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You could make all the sense in the world and all your doing is wasting your time. If someone does not wish to see what your saying they never will.


Most probably.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Not even your Jesus could change everyones mind remember (if he did exist, not that I will argue either way because I wasn't present back then)?


Hey cool! Someone else brought up Jesus, so let's go there. This is a PERFECT example of when religion provided proof, yet there were many who did not believe. In fairness though, there were many who DID believe. And, even many more who believed without seeing. 5 stars for the example, thanks for bringing it up


proof texts:

The test -

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." - John 3:36

The disbelief -

"But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe." - John 6:36

"When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it." - Mark 16:11

The belief -

"Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." - John 16:30

The proof (after Christ resurrected) -

"A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" - John 20:26-28

The comparison

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." - Jon 20:29

"Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy," - 1 Peter 1:8



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
quote]
Hey cool! Someone else brought up Jesus, so let's go there. This is a PERFECT example of when religion provided proof, yet there were many who did not believe. In fairness though, there were many who DID believe. And, even many more who believed without seeing. 5 stars for the example, thanks for bringing it up

proof texts:
The test -
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." - John 3:36
The disbelief -
"But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe." - John 6:36
"When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it." - Mark 16:11
The belief -
"Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." - John 16:30
The proof (after Christ resurrected) -
"A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" - John 20:26-28
The comparison
"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." - Jon 20:29
"Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy," - 1 Peter 1:8

AHHHHHH!!!!!! By the gods you did NOT just quote a buncha bible mumbo jumbo at me. Ok, ok, ok, ok. Just gotta remind myself that I don't believe in telling anyone their beliefs are wrong. But I will say this.
All that mumbo jumbo you just spewed. Not going to convince a non-believer of jack so you can spew bible verses til you are blue in the face. And next time READ ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY NOT JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I will ask this. Do you even know his true B-day? Do you know truly when he died? I'm talking dates here. Don't say christmas and easter though. They were stolen from my people the pagans. Ever wonder what was up with the bunnies of Easter? And the word Yule in Christmas songs?


What we have here boils and ghouls is a classic example of religious hypocracy. Considering the context of the conversation.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
AHHHHHH!!!!!! By the gods you did NOT just quote a buncha bible mumbo jumbo at me.


I understand where you're coming from and used to see it as mumbo jumbo as well. The only reason why I quoted it was proof-texts to support what I was saying. I wasn't aiming at you or anyone in particular, it was meant as a forum address. Apologies if it seemed otherwise.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ok, ok, ok, ok. Just gotta remind myself that I don't believe in telling anyone their beliefs are wrong. But I will say this.
All that mumbo jumbo you just spewed. Not going to convince a non-believer of jack


True, nor is it my job to convince anyone of anything.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
so you can spew bible verses til you are blue in the face.


I'm not angry, anxious or long-winded, so no worries on me becoming blue in the face.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And next time READ ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY NOT JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I did, although I did address what I wanted to address



Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And I will ask this. Do you even know his true B-day?


Nope. Do you?


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Do you know truly when he died?


Sorry, I wasn't there. Were you?


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I'm talking dates here. Don't say christmas and easter though. They were stolen from my people the pagans.


Negative friend, the dates were consolidated by town officials so that the people would not be celebrating holy days on different days. Christians being flexible, agreed to do so...though I disagree with this decision. I'm perfectly happy celebrating Resurrection Sunday on a different day you celebrate Oestar/Ishtar/Ester/Easter.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ever wonder what was up with the bunnies of Easter?


Yes, then I got the answer, and now I know...but that was some years ago.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And the word Yule in Christmas songs?


Yes, then I got the answer, and now I know...but that was some years ago.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
What we have here boils and ghouls is a classic example of religious hypocracy.


How so?


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Considering the context of the conversation.


Speaking of, if we were in a ship together, we'd be lost in the ocean. I'm not sure what this has to do with the course of the discussion. I'm happy to answer questions, and it all fairness you're the originator, but what's the going rate for rice in China these days? Maybe U2U would be more appropriate for our separate conversation or another thread.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Eh some of that I jumped the gun. I am a hot head at times I am sure you have noticed. But either way.


I did, although I did address what I wanted to address


Gives the impression that you did not get what I was saying. But next time PLEASE don't prosetylize unless I ask for it. It's all well and good that you believe that. But I don't and won't so all your doing is wasting your time and my patience.

And yea. Stolen. Sure my bleak view of humanity colors that statement but eh. And it is just an opinion after all.


[edit on 31-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join