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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Gives the impression that you did not get what I was saying. But next time PLEASE don't prosetylize unless I ask for it.


T'was you who said:


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Not even your Jesus could change everyones mind remember...


I was merely addressing it. The only difference is you seem to believe he could not, whereas I believe he would not.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
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.


Sorry if you feel it is a waste of time...and are you sure I'm doing this for you?


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


We're all entitled to such.


[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]




posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Sure, a religion that denies religion but a religion all the same.


Science does not denies other religion. It was there long before religion and it's just sad that your religion is based on lies and beliefs. Your oringal post shows how brained washed and blind your just are and forever never see the other side (science is not a religion).

If you say science is the new religion then you are so wrong in many ways. Plus science was there long before religion as mentioned b4. Religion is man made, science is not.

The name of this thread is stupid. Seriouly STOP TRYING TO CONVERT THE WHOLE WORD. Just because science has proved so many flaws in your religion, doesn't mean you can turn science into religion (your side).





[edit on 1-9-2007 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by AncientVoid]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 




Science does not denies other religion. It was there long before religion and it's just sad that your religion is based on lies and beliefs. Your oringal post shows how brained washed and blind your just are and forever never see the other side (science is not a religion).


As agressor atheists (you know the ones that love to bast everyone else's beliefs) apply it ohhh yes it is. Simple fact of the matter is there is not really enough tangable evidence either way for such large questions as the existance of any sort of higher power, sure people can point to this or point to that but those things have counter points.



If you say science is the new religion then you are so wrong in many ways. Plus science was there long before religion as mentioned b4. Religion is man made, science is not.


Science isn't man made? Please explain that one to me please sir or ma'am.



The name of this thread is stupid. Seriouly STOP TRYING TO CONVERT THE WHOLE WORD. Just because science has proved so many flaws in your religion, doesn't mean you can turn science into religion (your side).


Really now. What religion am I now? Seeing as to how you are sooooo enjoying to make these suppositions. And just to shoot down your probly first choice no I am not of the steeple people.

And I might add. Let me try this little hypothetical gem on you.
What if there was a higher power. And what if it did not want us to have complete undeniable proof of its existance. You know wants us to figure things out for ourselves. And here is the key to the WHOLE thing it also SET THE WHOLE THING UP. Do you honestly think mankind, we little specks of things smaller than dust living on a grain of sand on this vast beach we call the universe would be able to prove or disprove it?

So anyway in a nutshell run along little one. And shut it.



[edit on 1-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 




T'was you who said:
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Not even your Jesus could change everyones mind remember...


Partial quote. Quote me completely or not at all. What you left out is "(if he even existed, though I am not going to argue it either which way because I wasn't there)" or something to that effect.



I was merely addressing it. The only difference is you seem to believe he could not, whereas I believe he would not.


Ok. We are going to cross into a boundry I will not pass and there is where I tell you what I think of your beliefs so how about we drop it?



Sorry if you feel it is a waste of time...and are you sure I'm doing this for you?


You were responding to my comments after all were you not?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Partial quote. Quote me completely or not at all. What you left out is "(if he even existed, though I am not going to argue it either which way because I wasn't there)" or something to that effect.


That was a parenthetical statement and makes no difference in my response. I quoted the sentence you made.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant


I was merely addressing it. The only difference is you seem to believe he could not, whereas I believe he would not.


Ok. We are going to cross into a boundry I will not pass and there is where I tell you what I think of your beliefs so how about we drop it?


Ups to you.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You were responding to my comments after all were you not?


Yep, but not necessarily for solely your benefit.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant


Science does not denies other religion. It was there long before religion and it's just sad that your religion is based on lies and beliefs. Your oringal post shows how brained washed and blind your just are and forever never see the other side (science is not a religion).


As agressor atheists (you know the ones that love to bast everyone else's beliefs) apply it ohhh yes it is. Simple fact of the matter is there is not really enough tangable evidence either way for such large questions as the existance of any sort of higher power, sure people can point to this or point to that but those things have counter points.



Counter points like the Earth is still flat? and Everything orbits the Earth? Of course there's not evidence for that. Religion is always right...



Originally posted by WraothAscendant


If you say science is the new religion then you are so wrong in many ways. Plus science was there long before religion as mentioned b4. Religion is man made, science is not.


Science isn't man made? Please explain that one to me please sir or ma'am.


Did man make gravity? Did man make the red-shift?



The name of this thread is stupid. Seriouly STOP TRYING TO CONVERT THE WHOLE WORD. Just because science has proved so many flaws in your religion, doesn't mean you can turn science into religion (your side).




Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And I might add. Let me try this little hypothetical gem on you.
What if there was a higher power. And what if it did not want us to have complete undeniable proof of its existance. You know wants us to figure things out for ourselves. And here is the key to the WHOLE thing it also SET THE WHOLE THING UP. Do you honestly think mankind, we little specks of things smaller than dust living on a grain of sand on this vast beach we call the universe would be able to prove or disprove it?

So anyway in a nutshell run along little one. And shut it.


Again, that's 'what if' and 'maybes' - what religion is based on.
Then he must be the stupidest god out there. Like you said, we can't prove it, so he must be really stupid or doesn't exist. There's tons of crap we can and can't prove, but doesn't mean i go and worship and follow blindly into somethings.

Umm no you run along to god, i'm sure he saved you a seat in the clouds



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 



Counter points like the Earth is still flat? and Everything orbits the Earth? Of course there's not evidence for that. Religion is always right...


All I shall say is an emote **rolls his eyes** I did have more...... harsh things to say but I decided why drop to your level. But I might add you are proving my point nicely in your extreme attempts. So, I guess I shall also have to say thank you.



Did man make gravity? Did man make the red-shift?


Those things my friend are not science. Gravity is the force that holds you to the planet. And red-shift has something to do with the farther away a light source source is the light shifts towards the red end of the spectrum or something like that. But the words (you know those things created by man to convey said things) "science", "gravity", and "red-shift" where in fact made by man. Sorry to inform you. Unless you feel langauge is some natural force which I would be forced to laugh at you, more than I am already at least.



Again, that's 'what if' and 'maybes' - what religion is based on.
Then he must be the stupidest god out there. Like you said, we can't prove it, so he must be really stupid or doesn't exist. There's tons of crap we can and can't prove, but doesn't mean i go and worship and follow blindly into somethings.
Umm no you run along to god, i'm sure he saved you a seat in the clouds


Hmmmmm ever heard about brainstorming? Its a major part of scientific exploration and has been known to include such words as "what if" and "maybes".
And really why would it be that such a god was stupid? Because you say so? And while we are at it why does it have to be a him?
You are so eager to be hostile, did my little thread tweak your nerves that badly? Might wanna ask yourself why if that is the case.
To clarify what you obviously missed as I thought would be self evident to anyone is that such a being would not need or probly even want worship, so doing such would be kinda silly. Seeing as to if he/she/it/them wanted us to figure things out for ourselves. You need to get over this insane fantasy you seem to have that I am christian. Or muslim. Or etc. It makes you look particularly silly.



Now run along.


[edit on 2-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant


Counter points like the Earth is still flat? and Everything orbits the Earth? Of course there's not evidence for that. Religion is always right...


All I shall say is an emote **rolls his eyes** I did have more...... harsh things to say but I decided why drop to your level. But I might add you are proving my point nicely in your extreme attempts. So, I guess I shall also have to say thank you.


Harsh things about me or science?


Originally posted by WraothAscendant


Did man make gravity? Did man make the red-shift?


Those things my friend are not science. Gravity is the force that holds you to the planet. And red-shift has something to do with the farther away a light source source is the light shifts towards the red end of the spectrum or something like that. But the words (you know those things created by man to convey said things) "science", "gravity", and "red-shift" where in fact made by man. Sorry to inform you. Unless you feel langauge is some natural force which I would be forced to laugh at you, more than I am already at least.


Too bad i never said those things were science



Originally posted by WraothAscendant


Again, that's 'what if' and 'maybes' - what religion is based on.
Then he must be the stupidest god out there. Like you said, we can't prove it, so he must be really stupid or doesn't exist. There's tons of crap we can and can't prove, but doesn't mean i go and worship and follow blindly into somethings.
Umm no you run along to god, i'm sure he saved you a seat in the clouds


Hmmmmm ever heard about brainstorming? Its a major part of scientific exploration and has been known to include such words as "what if" and "maybes".
And really why would it be that such a god was stupid? Because you say so? And while we are at it why does it have to be a him?
You are so eager to be hostile, did my little thread tweak your nerves that badly? Might wanna ask yourself why if that is the case.
To clarify what you obviously missed as I thought would be self evident to anyone is that such a being would not need or probly even want worship, so doing such would be kinda silly. Seeing as to if he/she/it/them wanted us to figure things out for ourselves. You need to get over this insane fantasy you seem to have that I am christian. Or muslim. Or etc. It makes you look particularly silly.


Sadly religion's 'maybes' are based on nothing, where as in science, it's based on facts and the natural world we see around us...

Saying science is religion is like saying maths and english is religion. Just stupid and no mobo jumbo...



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 



Harsh things about me or science?


About you. Your methods do come off crude, not at all effective, to be made of 100% pure unthinking hostility and largely "out of left field. Mostly due to your seeming love to breath what you want things to mean into things. You have after made serveral false assumptions about me and acted on them as if they were true.



Too bad i never said those things were science


Really? Considering that you had said science was not man made and I replied against that statement and you came back with with the question of are those things man made. Consistancy my friend.

AND to clarify. No "Red-Shift" and "gravity" are not science. Science attempts to study and understand those things science, is not the things in and of themselves. Just like the word rock is not a actual physical rock.



Sadly religion's 'maybes' are based on nothing, where as in science, it's based on facts and the natural world we see around us...
Saying science is religion is like saying maths and english is religion. Just stupid and no mobo jumbo...


Science does not the perfection with which you award it, it is a human thing after, mankinds search for understanding, and just as able to be be corrupted by man as anything else. Did not the Nazi's follow Eugenics after all, to its horrendous extreme? And before you say the Holocost was a purely religious thing I remind you that Jewish is a ethnic thing that also has a religion. The Nazi's hated the ethnic thing.

And just in case you don't know what Eugenics is...
–noun (used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).


And religion is born also out of mankind's want to understand. It also serves mankind's fear of death. And for others sadly it has served their want for control aka power. Which is were you get organized religion.

Yes and the definitions of words are all those words CAN mean to someone. That is after all what you are insinuating.
And I am not defending religion. I find them to be fools of a different sort, but there are fools on both sides of that little debate, because even the smartest person can be a fool at times.
Did not Einstein rue the day he suggested America make the nuke? I believe it's safe to say he felt he had been a fool. Though that is not a topic I have done very much reseatch on so its merely heresay.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 2-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Did not Einstein rue the day he suggested America make the nuke?


Let's find out:


In August 1939 nuclear physicists came to Einstein, not for scientific but for political help. The fission of the uranium nucleus had recently been discovered. A long-time friend, Leo Szilard, and other physicists realized that uranium might be used for enormously devastating bombs. They had reason to fear that Nazi Germany might construct such weapons. Einstein, reacting to the danger from Hitler's aggression, had already abandoned his strict pacifism. He now signed a letter that was delivered to the American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning him to take action. This letter, and a second Einstein-Szilard letter of March 1940, joined efforts by other scientists to prod the United States government into preparing for nuclear warfare.



Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I believe it's safe to say he felt he had been a fool.


I don't think it's safe to say that:


But during the war he did perform useful service as a consultant for the United States Navy's Bureau of Ordnance.

www.aip.org...


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Though that is not a topic I have done very much reseatch on so its merely heresay.


No worries, we're here to learn.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Hate to disagree. (no I don't)

This is from Albert Einstein- Wikipedia Entry


The United States took stock of this warning, and within five years, the U.S. created its own nuclear weapons, and used them on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. According to chemist and author Linus Pauling, Einstein later expressed regret about the Szilárd-Einstein letter.[52]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Okay, I cited the American Institute of Physics.

You've sited Wikipedia.

My question is this. If Einstein regretted that letter, why did he serve as a consultant for the United States Navy's Bureau of Ordnance during the war?

Also, wiki says "According to chemist and author Linus Pauling..." meaning it is heresay quoted the year he died.


[edit on 2-9-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Okay, I cited the American Institute of Physics.

You've sited Wikipedia.

My question is this. If Einstein regretted that letter, why did he serve as a consultant for the United States Navy's Bureau of Ordnance during the war?

Also, wiki says "According to chemist and author Linus Pauling..." meaning it is heresay quoted the year he died.


[edit on 2-9-2007 by saint4God]


Keyword DURING the war. Any regrets would be afterward.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Keyword DURING the war. Any regrets would be afterward.


Alrighty, I could see that. I believe it would be possible for him to tell someone in 1955 (or thereabouts) that he wish he didn't get involved. He did say though, "The world needs heroes and it's better they be harmless men like me than villains like Hitler." It's a long time after the war to have regrets but, sure.

Let's throw another interesting tidbit about Einstein into the equation (pun intended) as it relates to the topic. Some more quotes from him:

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

"When I am judging a theory, I ask myself whether, if I were God, I would have arranged the world in such a way."

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

[edit on 2-9-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
And the quotes are for? The proof that God exist?
And no, science without religion is not lame, but better...



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
And the quotes are for? The proof that God exist?
And no, science without religion is not lame, but better...


Not gonna respond to what I said earlier I take it. Guessed as much.
Do you really have that much of a problem with short term memory?
But anyway keep barking up the same tree by all means, growth can be optional.

Your little war with religion (Christianity in particular I am guessing) is most probly based on past events, an attempt to feel accepted by someone or multiple someones, having to deal with in a largely negative way that large mass many love to hate (I pity them more than anything else) hypocritical christians or a love to stir the proverbal crap.

But PLEASE get better material and try thinking for yourself, that doesn't mean agree with me but that also means stop parroting and start trying to figure out for yourself rather than accepting peicemeal (meaning completely) what others say.
You degrade your stance with the route and methods you are taking now. Your spew is almost as bad as those you so obviously dispise.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 



Alrighty, I could see that. I believe it would be possible for him to tell someone in 1955 (or thereabouts) that he wish he didn't get involved. He did say though, "The world needs heroes and it's better they be harmless men like me than villains like Hitler." It's a long time after the war to have regrets but, sure.
Let's throw another interesting tidbit about Einstein into the equation (pun intended) as it relates to the topic. Some more quotes from him:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
"When I am judging a theory, I ask myself whether, if I were God, I would have arranged the world in such a way."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."


Ok. Number one.
That says NOTHING about anything having to do with the nuclear bomb and his thoughts there in. Hitler was a evil man and HAD to be stopped and Einstein knew that, hell how could any good undeluded person not. The nuclear bomb though figured LITTLE in the fight in Europe if you'll remember, even if it was his reason for writing the letter to FDR, he knew that there were trying to make one, he wanted to make sure that if Hitler had one he wouldn't be the only one.
Your argument doesn't stand up. Your taking a quote about a completely UNRELATED MATTER. He was praising those who went off to war to fight Hitler without any mention of the bomb. Calling them heros.
Simply put he could very well praise those that stopped Hitler while decrying the invention of the bomb and his role in it. And it would be consistant especially if you look at the destructive power of the bomb and the fact hitler was stopped from making it so thusly it wasn't even really needed. Sure it stopped the war with Japan earlier and saved lives but it can still yet kill us all. WHich is what I think Einstein was probly thinking.

Number two. Don't care what Einstein thought about higher powers. He was a smart man but still human none the less. So his opinion gets filed away with the gazillion other OPINIONS other people have had. Wish both sides would just drop that already. Einstein wasn't perfect so what he thinks is largely unimportant on the topic of the existance of a higher power since he was human (albeit a VERY smart one) after all and capable of mistakes same as anyone else.




[edit on 3-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Let's throw another interesting tidbit about Einstein into the equation (pun intended) as it relates to the topic. Some more quotes from him:


yes, let us throw in the atheist!!



"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."


counter-quote...



It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.


same guy...
hmm... so he considers "religious" as an adequate description for "the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

looks like the quote you gave makes more sense now



"When I am judging a theory, I ask myself whether, if I were God, I would have arranged the world in such a way."


metaphor.
einstein
used
god
as
a
metaphor

god = laws of physics



"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."


again, metaphor. god is used as a poetic METAPHOR.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Your little war with religion (Christianity in particular I am guessing)



that little part in parentheses is a myth typical of the western christian persecution complex. atheists tend to go against ALL RELIGION, we just single out christianity in the west because it's the majority religion.



is most probly based on past events, an attempt to feel accepted by someone or multiple someones, having to deal with in a largely negative way that large mass many love to hate (I pity them more than anything else) hypocritical christians or a love to stir the proverbal crap.


incorrect, another myth perpetuated about atheists, 2 in a row



But PLEASE get better material and try thinking for yourself,


ironic, why don't YOU try thinking for yourself instead of following a fallacious meme


ok, now i'm going to ask you something:

where is the dogma in science?

religions have dogma, science does not. actually, quite the opposite. everything in science is subject to scientists saying "crap, we got this wrong, but look, we have a better answer now" QED, science is not a religion



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Le sigh here we go AGAIN.



that little part in parentheses is a myth typical of the western christian persecution complex. atheists tend to go against ALL RELIGION, we just single out christianity in the west because it's the majority religion.


My response was tailored FOR HIM based on HIS responses. That particular part was a A B dialogue C your way out.

And might I add. I am not christian so thusly why would I even care of their persecuition complex eh? Except I do agree alot of them have one or I should say I think they use it to hide their distress at the fact they know they are losing power. Oh no, these other religions want the right to exist so they must want to destroy us, oh no. **rolls his eyes** Human stupidity at its worse. We can agree on that one most likely.



ironic, why don't YOU try thinking for yourself instead of following a fallacious meme
ok, now i'm going to ask you something:
where is the dogma in science?
religions have dogma, science does not. actually, quite the opposite. everything in science is subject to scientists saying "crap, we got this wrong, but look, we have a better answer now" QED, science is not a religion


Hmmmmm ever try to disagree with global warming? Try it.\

And you can throw more words into the fire all you want.

Simple fact of the matter you cannot completely disprove whether or not there is a higher power. You are ACTING ON FAITH of what others have said. You have faith in what they say fine. By all means continue.

Let me try this little hypothetical gem on you. And answer or just bugger off.
What if there was a higher power. And what if it did not want us to have complete undeniable proof of its existance or of a life after physical death.
And since I obvious have to add this would not want or need worship or even noticing.
You know wants us to figure things out for ourselves. And here is the key to the WHOLE thing it also SET THE WHOLE THING UP. Do you honestly think mankind, we little specks of things smaller than dust living on a grain of sand on this vast beach we call the universe would be able to prove or disprove it? Yes or no.
We both know the answer though.

And I would like to add that might not be the case but being human, well, damned if I know.

Simple fact is your making a leap of faith, just as the christians are that there is in a fact a god, just in the opposite direction. You can only walk so far on what we know FOR CERTAIN and then you start leaping. Scientific method is based in the physical and if the spiritual does in fact exist Scientific method is woefully inequiped to study it.










[edit on 3-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Hmmmmm ever try to disagree with global warming? Try it.


You can disagree all you like. The problem is actually being able to bring forth evidence to support your position.

That's where deniers and cranks seem to have an issue.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join