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 rooted in what most would call "Religion"

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThisIsNotReality
Dawkins doesn't need to say things like that to make educated people still think of him as an ignorant fool.

He spends most of his time bashings every religion he can make a case against, but fails to address the ones he has nothing to say about.

You seem to be diverging from the topic. You said that you can identify the people you are talking about by their 100% adherence to Darwin's work, but Dawkins himself does not believe 100% of Darwin's work. Are you now saying that your categories are defined differently? If so, how are they defined?


He has no clue about Buddhism, he admits this himself. Now, I really ask myself the question, if ANYONE else, in ANY OTHER AREA of expertise, were to neglect, say 50% of said area, would anyone take him serious? Nope. Yet Dawkins can do so without sanction, and sell books about his ignorance on top of that too, brilliant!

Is Dawkins supposed to be an expert on religion? I don't think I've ever seen him say that all religion is fraudulent or bad or anything similar to those statements. Could you quote something?


And to me, this is where the whole Dawkins argument ends. I don't want to discuss someone who is completely and blatantly obviously biased in his research

Could you give an example of some of this research? I've got most of Dawkins' books in one form or another so I can look up specific passages if you'd like.


Then, someone asks me a question to which I do not have an answer, or to which I DO have an answer, but when I reveal it it would take apart my entire theory. So instead, I would just say; "Oh I don't have an answer for that, haven't studied it yet!"

Could you give an example that applies to Richard Dawkins or anyone else you indict? I haven't seen you give many examples and none that so far seem to match.


I love debating with a Dawkins-follower, the conversation usually ends pretty soon with a bruised ego, and it ain't mine, because when I talk about "religion", I feel confident in saying that I know a thing or two about the most important ones, unlike the clown who bashes two religions for a profession and know nothing about the others out there.

I would say that I am in some senses a Dawkins follower. I've read a lot of his work and in general find his campaigns to be pretty good. I'd be happy to debate you as long as you stick to some definitions. I look forward to your reply.




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


That's because our science is a relatively young one. If you had spoken to the Wright brothers, they couldn't have told you the first thing about jet engines. They could barely get their own to work. They proved they could fly, but they had the hardest time getting it to work efficiently. City to city was like getting a cup of water from the devil.


Over a century later, our science has grown, and look where we are now. We can travel into outer space!



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I find lots of people whom disdain science use that line as an excuse to allow themself to remain ignorant and live in a magical land.
You can't be wrong in spiritual natures..as it is simply a objective decision how you believe the universe works. I can say 100 years ago there was no universe and all the pictures, artifacts, and old buildings are just soul memories we were all implanted with. no evidence, lots of ways to dismiss this hypothesis, yet if I say its my belief, then it should be respected? Maybe...maybe if someone simply asked me and I answered...but the moment I start walking in public and start discussing...and ESPECIALLY when I go to congress and request history stop being taught exclusively and instead my hypothesis of the 100 year earth given equal time to the science...

Stop being lazy, read and research..you will find when you gain knowledge..actual hardcore scientific knowledge of an area, people will suddenly call you some religoscience person with a closed mind or whatever (aka, you stopped being ignorant on an area).

I have spiritual views...I don't feel the need to deny knowledge in order to keep them. If your spiritual views require ignorance, then perhaps your views are just madman musings moreso than plausable hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Sci·ence

noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural

1.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 doesn't seek to create anything new. Science observes and discovers what already exists. Anything that could ever be created or discovered potentially already exists, it just hasn't met the right requirements to occur. Science looks at things that have already happened and attempts to answer why. Proper scientists leave very little room for certainties and they are always prepared to raze and renew their thoughts and ideas about what might be real.

Anybody that speaks in certainties isn't speaking logically. There certainly are some oddball "scientists" around that refuse to follow logic, as is the case in any ideology. Science isn't a "thing", like a religion can be. It has similarities such as groups of like-minded individuals amassing for discussion and advancement of their beliefs. Most scientists simply want to understand how s**t works. They just want to know the answer to the question: Why? Why is there anything and how does it happen? Some people aren't satisfied with more simplistic answers that rely on belief without reason to believe.

100 years in the future I'm sure humanities basic beliefs will be vastly different. The next few decades are going to see astonishing advancements in nano-technology. Microbiological machines that can abstain our bodies from aging and sickness. The mindset of all people will be entirely different as a result of unparalleled discoveries about the fundamental structure of reality, and maybe the world will be a better place.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Do they have a website? I can't find anything on 'them'.


That's because they walk among us. It could be your closest companion, or your own family member. Its human ignorance. It's the simple human mind telling you to pay no mind. Telling you to stop reading my words and go gack to whatever it is you where doi.......



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Of course it would occur to me you are a Buddhist making a worthwhile attempt to explain things to me...It would also occur your explanation is lacking. Buddhism is indeed a religion.

You want to point to revisions in a Wiki page as proof it is not a religion? Would the Dalai Lama agree with you? Would millions of adherents agree with your position? Come now...let us not quibble over such an obvious fact...



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????

I'm a Christian... but still....

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Science is defended by many in the same manner as the followers of a religion

Many believers in science believe what scientists in lab coats say is true(even if they do not know if it truely is true) and people just buy it since if they are scientist and science is infallible then it must be true SCIENTISTS DON'T LIE!. Kinda how priests used to keep religious texts in a language not common to the average person to be able to get away with a bunch of bs.. that actually has nothing to do with what the religious texts say... science suffers of the same thing.

Science seems to ignore tough questions and just say they can't prove it YET... which is basically what many religions say about not being able to PROVE many of their beliefs too.

The faith people have in science is quite disturbing. Science is good in many ways but I think it dehumanizes and allows men to devalue others. This is pretty much what happened in WW2. Germany had top notch science and that lead them to beleive that they could speed up human evolution by creating a master race. Being able to view man as just an evovled animal that has evolved to a point where it can manage its own evolution allowed for Germany to justify the atrocites they did. This is essentially the same bs going on now by those who manipulate the world and decide the fate of nations. They feel since they are the cream of the crop they have control of where they want to take humanity.






edit on 18-8-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heresy
Wow, so let me get this straight: just because science requires proof it's evil. That's what your original rant summed up to. What your post amounted to was a rant on 'how dare people more intelligent than you and who have devoted their life to studying a subject in a rational, fact based manner point out you are wrong'.

You've really failed to grasp that science is the study of the facts. It's not an opinion, or made up like religion and a lot of conspiracy theories are.

Science is the tyranny of fact over fiction.

Let me explain simply the difference between science and religion

There's an apple in a box no one has seen. The religious person insists it's green. The scientist says 'it could be any colour'. The scientist opens the box and sees a red apple, and tells the religious person it's red. The religious person insists it's green. The scientist offers to show the relgious person the apple, but he declines and says the scientist is lying when he says he sees a green apple, or else he's removed the green apple and put in a red one. The scientist gets a scientist friend over who says, 'look, a red apple'. The religious person then insists the two scientists are part of a conspiracy, and that his unifiormed opinion is just as valid as theirs.

Science is what is. Religion is what people believe.


No i am not mad at the Truth at all. On the contrary. I'm not mad period. I am pointing out a group of people that really don't deserve a defense. Are you someone who has devoted their life to studying a scientific subject? To be honest their aren't many. About as many as are currently devoting their life to the Hypothesis of Truth through meditation. Not many at all.

So if you aren't one then you must be a believer in them. This is where things can get confusing. Real scientists don't argue truth. They seek it.

And Science is not what is. What is is what is. "Science" is a nomenclature and world view. Just like religion. The science of linguistics can lend to this fact.

What is 1? or two? What is an atom? First and foremost they are labels for forms. Human labels. Atoms exist whether we label them or not. Be careful not to believe in the ideology or labels over the actuality of anything.

There is a huge difference between a yogi who meditates for 40 years and a christain in the pews of an evangelical church. The same difference can be noted between an Einstein and your average atheist/Scientific America subscriber. Can you freely acknowledge the differences?

Peace!



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sablicious
I'll believe in any religion that can buttress its claims with empirical evidence and, in turn, leaves itself open to scrutiny.

Let me know when your religion of choice does thus, OP, and I'll be the first to jump on board.




You can't prove your own existence. Are you seeking it? What are you? Your answer is purely belief. No one is proving anything to you. You simply believe whatever "proof" suits you. I challenge you to prove to me that you actually KNOW anything. Without empirical evidence proving YOUR experience of knowing i conclude you know nothing. So until religion of science followers can empirically PROVE they KNOW something is True i conclude they know nothing. You can tell me 1+1=2 but you will never prove you know what it means. It is impossible. I declare that you believe it because there is no proof of your knowing.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThisIsNotReality

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by rwfresh
The people i am talking about are fundamentalists. Many have not even read the complete texts but promote these writings and ideas as 100% infallible and fundamentally true. Fundamentalist Darwinites.
...
Many atheists like Richard Dawkins.. who are not scientists have based their ideology of hate on the misuse and perversion of these ideas and theories.

But Richard Dawkins is a scientist and does not say that The Origin Of Species is 100% infallible. Could you name anyone else you think does?


Nomenclature and descriptions are not Truth. Ideologies are not Truth. Ideologies are subject to revision as the theory of evolution dictates. The theory itself will evolve into something unrecognizable. But the fundamentalists deny this even as the declare it eternally true.
edit on 16-8-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)

I don't know a single biologist who still believes in many parts of The Origin Of Species, and so if you are accusing people of being fundamentalists and those people don't exist, I think it's fair to say your point is nonsense.

Could you show that any of these people actually exist?


Dawkins doesn't need to say things like that to make educated people still think of him as an ignorant fool.

He spends most of his time bashings every religion he can make a case against, but fails to address the ones he has nothing to say about.

He has no clue about Buddhism, he admits this himself. Now, I really ask myself the question, if ANYONE else, in ANY OTHER AREA of expertise, were to neglect, say 50% of said area, would anyone take him serious? Nope. Yet Dawkins can do so without sanction, and sell books about his ignorance on top of that too, brilliant!

You don't just go bashing Christianity and Islam, but when someone then asks you about Buddhism say "oh I don't know much about that one", like studying physics but you're not really that interested in gravity, completely absurd.

Why does he not address Buddhism? Because his ignorance-filled books would not sell otherwise, I'm sure he's not too keen on admitting that Buddhism, a religion, is right on so many levels and goes perfectly hand in hand with science, no, he has to bash on stereotypical views of Christianity and as such, to me he is a complete clown who probably doesn't even take himself very serious (because if he did, he would have studied Buddhism by now, something I believe he did, but doesn't wish to admit because then he would have to answer questions about it, which would go against everything he stands for (i.e. religions are for deluded people))



And to me, this is where the whole Dawkins argument ends. I don't want to discuss someone who is completely and blatantly obviously biased in his research, like Dawkins is, because whenever valid points are brought up in front of them, such as questions relating to Buddhism, he simply says he doesn't know much about that. How anyone can take a person like that serious is beyond me, these are facts, this is not a conspiracy, this is plain reality.


I want to make the analogy with ATS for a second, because I am pretty sure that the people who support Dawkins, would also be the ones to instantly reject what I were saying in the analogy;

Imagine I came here with an entirely plausible conspiracy theory, I claim to be an expert in the field, and know pretty much everything about the subject. Then, someone asks me a question to which I do not have an answer, or to which I DO have an answer, but when I reveal it it would take apart my entire theory. So instead, I would just say; "Oh I don't have an answer for that, haven't studied it yet!"

Would anyone here take me serious? I'm going to go with 99% no. Yet when Dawkins does this nobody minds?


Deny ignorance, please, even if it is from someone who has fooled lots of people into believing his own deluded words. I love debating with a Dawkins-follower, the conversation usually ends pretty soon with a bruised ego, and it ain't mine, because when I talk about "religion", I feel confident in saying that I know a thing or two about the most important ones, unlike the clown who bashes two religions for a profession and know nothing about the others out there.


Here is empirical evidence that Dawkins is a juvenile twit. Sorry.. i don't normally pick on someone directly. But please. This guy is the poster child for the "religion of science". Aliens may have seeded our planet BUT that doesn't mean our DNA is potentially evidence of Intelligent design? DUHHHH. Yeah the aliens just seeded our planet randomly as an expression of evolution.. ??? WHO would read this guy's book?





posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 





What is 1? or two? What is an atom? First and foremost they are labels for forms. Human labels. Atoms exist whether we label them or not. Be careful not to believe in the ideology or labels over the actuality of anything. There is a huge difference between a yogi who meditates for 40 years and a christain in the pews of an evangelical church. The same difference can be noted between an Einstein and your average atheist/Scientific America subscriber. Can you freely acknowledge the differences?


Given the lack of syllogism in your statements, you, of all people in this thread, would be unable to acknowledge any difference between the two (either the yogi/Christian or the Einstein/average atheist-Scientific American subscriber). If you cannot state for certain that A=A, then all bets are off...



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by CaptChaos
 



No, it shows that our current understanding of solar dynamics is incomplete. As I stated before, science does not provide definitive answers, only progressively better ones. It is open ended. This is precisely what differentiates it from religion, which speaks entirely in absolutes.


But science as a system to answer EVERYTHING we need to know is totally and completely incomplete. If you wait for scientific america to tell you the meaning of life and how to live you will be waiting a long time. And even if they did tell you you shouldn't blindly believe it if you are a TRUE scientist. You need to experience the proof or you are no better than the Christians you hate. How do real scientists experience the truth? Through proof. And if you can't understand the proof they have produced first hand you are a blind believer.
edit on 18-8-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BlueMule
 



Scientism thralls need to pull their heads out of their asses and study comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparattive mysticism before they shoot their mouths off. "Science" can't tell you the nature of religion, myth, metaphor, poetry, fiction, wisdom, or even consciousness. But scientism sure seems to want to think it can. Maybe scientism thralls tend to be white male control freaks?


But scientism is not the subject of this thread, science is. There are indeed people who simply treat what writers for "Discover" magazine say as some sort of gospel. That is not science. The OP does not understand what science actually is. He cannot even tell tell difference between science and religion, never mind the difference between science and technology. Where did your blatantly racist aside come from?


I understand it completely. I also understand your defensive nature because it is you who is unable to differentiate between Science and the Religion of Science. If you could you would simply acknowledge what i am saying. You don't have to agree that these people do in fact exist.. But you can acknowledge what i wrote. Go read it again.. might help. I have no problem with real Scientists. None. Science is great. It's not an ideology to live by. Not in the least. It does not and cannot answer the most profound questions facing mankind. It is a system of discovery, a nomenclature/language for labeling apparent observations. It is not going to tell me the meaning of life or the first cause of Reality and existence. So when a group of ignorant poseurs try and declare these questions as dangerous and stupid i declare them the priests of the religion of science.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by rwfresh
 





What is 1? or two? What is an atom? First and foremost they are labels for forms. Human labels. Atoms exist whether we label them or not. Be careful not to believe in the ideology or labels over the actuality of anything. There is a huge difference between a yogi who meditates for 40 years and a christain in the pews of an evangelical church. The same difference can be noted between an Einstein and your average atheist/Scientific America subscriber. Can you freely acknowledge the differences?


Given the lack of syllogism in your statements, you, of all people in this thread, would be unable to acknowledge any difference between the two (either the yogi/Christian or the Einstein/average atheist-Scientific American subscriber). If you cannot state for certain that A=A, then all bets are off...


Prove it. You are alone in your assumptions. There is no truth in you. You demand proof so you are imprisoned by your ideology. What belief should i have in your intelligence or knowledge? How can you prove to me that you aren't a completely evil ignorant fool? There are those who seek to personally experience Truth and their are those who seek to discourage the personally experience of Truth.

You say A=A. You say, come and prove Truth in the arena i have created. And if you are unable to you are ignorant. That is the religion of science's frustrated final defense.

If you cannot state for certain that A=A is meaningless in the context of Truth and Reality, then all bets are off.

Prove A. It's stupid and juvenile.. Why place your entire base of knowing on an assumption? isn't that what you despise about Religion?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac
 


Thanks for the well thought out response. Science is what it is. And it does not and should not function as an ideology.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BlueMule
 



What's a superstition?


A superstition is an irrational belief, the origin of which is unknown to the holder.


is 1+1=2 a superstition?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BlueMule
 


[quote

Objective observation and analysis is the best way to determine whether an action is effective.


Is reading a science journal and believing the results considered Objective observation?


INo. Rational beliefs tend to lead to more productive actions. Religion, by its very nature, is irrational. Nevertheless, it can have positive effects if it is administered rationally. Science is a tool for examining the nature of reality; exorcism is a religious ritual.


hahaha what a load of absolute irrational jibberish. Sorry, it is impossible to prove what you are saying has any value whatsoever. It seriously sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Especially considering the intended meaning.


Sorry, but your strawmen didn't stand up very long.


Logic, and NO mathematician will argue this, is entirely subject to an initial set of ASSUMPTIONS. ie: UNPROVEN or UNPROVABLE beliefs. You understand this right?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by awakendhybrid
OP started out kind of rough in tone, but this turned out to be a pretty interesting thread.
I would tend to lean toward OP's main point--that some fundamental, base ideas of science have grown into beliefs. When you have a belief, then it gets personal. You're put in the defense and get one step closer to a full-blown ideology.

Beliefs are, of course, not infallible, but neither are they archetypal. They extend from observations and experiences. So in the beginning, at least, they reside in factual, experiencial knowledge. Having them morph into closed ideologies is a problem. Some avenues of science are starting to walk down this same path that many religions took.
I believe both scientific and spiritual matters have the capacity to avoid this pitfall, but until then we'll keep battling it out.


Great points! I would suggest that REAL Science and REAL spirituality are totally subjective pursuits for the same thing. Truth! And that the religion of science is in opposition to other religions just like Christianity and Islam are to some. And ALL religious organizations are in opposition to Real Science and Real spirituality. Peace!



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I believe all religions have their tails in the truth, although most of the truth has been long changed or erased from history.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join