Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: BO XIAN

Yet you quoted myself talking to someone completely different?

K.

a reply to: BO XIAN

And Chuck Missler isn't at all a biased source...How exactly is Astronomy faith based...?
Is it the mathematical process utilized to find celestial bodies or what..?

How is evolution faith based when we have physical evidence from both the remains of organisms and evidence for genetic mutations occurring generationally...?

Then, I think you are overdue for being worried. They have done exactly that. Welllll, not that they have done it--but they are in the employ of those who have done it--using them as stooges. Tyson & Nye are merely poster boys of the general rule.

Dude your answers are incredibly vague,who's they and what have they done...?
Bill Nye and Tyson haven't done anything remotely nefarious aside from advocating for greater scientific literacy.
Oh yeah that's right,I guess because you brand science as a religion that somehow makes it...a bad thing...I think...?

WRONG. The regimes the last 100 years which elevated science above religion have killed many 10's of millions more than any other values orientation--by far. I forget the calculated total . . . 130-150 million?

Statistically religion has killed roughly around 809 million people,I'm positive the regimes your referring to are Stalin,Mao,pol pot and probably Hitler. Most of pol pot and Mao's deaths were due to famine,Hitler was catholic and so was much of the German empire at the time. The only one you could really nail for secularism being responsible for a ton of deaths is Stalin, and he authorized something like 20 million. Genghis Khan killed 20 million more people than Stalin and that was the 13th century.(Genghis BTW was more than likely a follower of Shamanism or Tengriism) So basically your argument is, religion is responsible for less deaths in the last century while intentionally ignoring the thousands upon thousands of years of religious violence before the 20th century..
You are something else man... Here's a link for you to digest

a reply to: darkbake

I doubt I can convince you of the faith required if you don't already see it. I may eventually try but it's a low priority at the moment.

Certainly the Religion of Scientism is rife with faith-filled and founded BELIEFS pronounced as proven peer reviewed fact.

One example could be the early studies purportedly showing a genetic cause for homosexuality . . . later admittedly full of doctored data by the homosexual researchers.

Yet, a ton of 'fellow scientists' had tons of faith in that very research.

I generally avoid creationist and AGW threads because they are doomed before they start. As I stated previously, I initially suspected this might be one of those threads in disguise, and now that it's clear that's where we're headed anyway, I will take my leave.

I wish you all well.

i would just like to thank you all for some wonderful thoughts and please keep it civil as we are discussing very delicate subject with people who are in opposite general groups "god" vs "no god"

it can be hard to be civil, but it seems we are doing fine...i am a bit impressed with ats posters as in other similar threads things don't go to so smoothly for many pages.

: )

also I would like to point out again that religion is not just about the bible and going to church and "old man in the sky". Although many people are religious in such a way and there is nothing wrong with that if it makes them happy and respect and appreciate life and beings more.

But there are so many different ways of being religious as are ways of being a scientists...and in general people are not devoted enough to really grasp the real meaning of some science or true religion, if they are not really into it...

and also many people are limited to "either or" type of thinking.

for instance, if religion is true, than evolution is false.
if evolution is true, than religion is false.

and it is sad that many scientists don't see past that and it is the same for religious people, also.

middle way is often the best, but the hardest to walk and talk as it requires a bit of constraint, not to fall in some bias conformation egotistical trap.
And when that happens and it can happen sooner or later, we have lost objectivity we once may have had on subject...

some related quotes from Buddha:

“Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”
“Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”
“In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.”

a reply to: BO XIAN

Thinking science is a religion is ignorant and stupid. Religion says they have all the answers, Science finds the best answers based on logic, reason, testing, proof, evidence and peer based review.
Religion says it has all the answers. Science does not, and seeks to find answers that are missing.

Thinking science is a religion is just as ignorant and beyond stupid

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

What you said here underlies the WHOLE POINT of this thread... NO you are WRONG...Neither Evolution being true, global warming being caused by man a reality nor the earth as related to the past being measured by the revolution of the earth around the sun merely thousands of times is necessarily true or false...It HASN'T been meted out to be the case, it HASN'T been proven...

It is the fundamental PROBLEMS with the scientific establishment that has put that erroneous thought out there to so many like your self...

The underlying structure is all fugged up, and that's because of how these theories were developed, modified and bolstered.

It actually started with geology, and then archeology etc...

It was believed the earth was thousands of years old, then when theories were developed and tests designed to extrapolate the truth, then it was a million years old, then when those proved to be wrong, it was millions of years old, then tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions...This is ALL historically documented... Look at scholastic books from history and scientific papers of the past and you will see it ALL...

You just don't seem to get that these tweaks over time are much more similar to a frog not jumping out of a pot if the water is cool and gradually heated up to a boil than it is to fixing small errors over time.

Going from a couple of hundred thousands years being necessary to BILLIONS of years being necessary is not a small correction, it is a HUGE correction, but because it was done gradually, the thought that the underlying premise that started it all, (erosion characteristics measured over a VERY short time and extrapolated GREATLY), is wrong.

That's the problem with interdisciplinary theorem. They become interconnected to the point that tweaks have to be all encompassing, modifications and introductions of new theories must be situated to bolster the other, even if later shown to be erroneous.

The tweaks become distortions, the data showing error, discarded outliers, and the decries of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, religious dogma that CANNOT be CHALLENGED...

We end up with religion, instead of knowledge... There you go, call them the gnostic scientists. They know because they know, do not question them because you are not among the initiated...

Jaden

p.s. and btw, I am NOT a young earth creationist...but I don't dismiss their beliefs out of hand and I DO consider how their thoughts might be possible...

Despite capitalizing certain words, your argument was totally unpersuasive. You say I'm wrong, and you waffle on, but the essential crux of your argument is that because science has been wrong before, it is probably wrong now.

You bring up the age of the earth, disregarding global warming and evolution, presumably because in the scheme of things those are new so wouldn't fit your historical theory.

On to the meat. The earth has been dated according to elements with very long radioactive decays to be about 4.5 billion years old. If we dated the earth previously and it's supposed age was much smaller (I'd like you to provide me with examples of this, as I am unaware of them), it was because we didn't have the knowledge or technique of radioactive dating.

Exactly how do you plan on challenging that, apart from writing a lot and saying very little?

ETA there is another fatal flaw in your post. You suggest that because it has changed before it is wrong now, AND you say all science will just conform to the established view. Those are quite literally mutually exclusive points of view.

Science finds the best answers based on logic, reason, testing, proof, evidence and peer based review.

yeah...but is this the reality in science?

for instance...just like there were doctors who commercialized tobacco products as healthy and made a lot of propaganda against weed to illegalize it even though it IS medicine in reality for some diseases?

can anyone say this was based on real observation and evidence OR is this evidence of religious science?

religious in a sense that it points people towards some agenda...

Well, if a Scientific Inquisition executes by beheading as well torturing, and stoning for every dumb answer, then it would really be a religion.

Accelerated technological progress, well, that would be like God getting mad, when some opened the Ark of the Covenant...Or the cookie jar!

Well, if a Scientific Inquisition executes by beheading as well torturing, and stoning for every dumb answer, then it would really be a religion.

Accelerated technological progress, well, that would be like God getting mad, when some opened the Ark of the Covenant...Or the cookie jar!

Religion defines my destiny for me based on inflexible and contradictory fairy tales written hundreds of generations before I was born.

Exactly, religion and science cannot be compared at all. Science is proven every moment of every day when you use a phone, a computer, TV, a microwave oven, or go to the doctor and get medicine or xrays.

Religion is never proven and never will be.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My reason for agreeing with op is this. People who believe in science will allow giant leaps of logic and observation in order to fit a model. Science in the sense that quandries are observed, measured, and tested is great. Saying that the underlying purpose of said quandry has no purpose or reason for being other than quantum dominoes being set into action for no reason from nothing a long time ago seems like a belief system. If god revealed itsself tomorrow would all graduated cylinders disappear along with every other instrument of measurement,would our minds stop thinking, eyes wouldnt see hands wouldnt feel? I imagine hypothetically that we would maintain our senses therefore we would maintain science. We would continue to observe and manipulate the reality we exist within. Sorry for butting into your conversation.

a reply to: jbowenh

I didn't observe you butting into anything. Certainly you are welcome to state your perspective--particularly in such a good and civil manner.

Thanks.

a reply to: BO XIAN

COVERING UP CLIMATE ENGINEERING CONTAMINATION, "EPA CAUGHT BUYING IT'S INDEPENDENT SCIENCE ADVISORS"

.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org... 8c657e058ff47de2546bcfa6ab4d7e97c647ae60fae165bc439d1eaf02192b7

VIA GEOENGINEERING WATCH

And example of corrupt science . . . bought . . . by the Religion of Scientism oligarchy . . . it seems to me.

You do realize that you're sending an electronic message to an electronic message board that is simultaneously accessible to people all over the world by virtue of a global communication network? Build a computer using prayer and then we'll talk.

originally posted by: andrewh7
You do realize that you're sending an electronic message to an electronic message board that is simultaneously accessible to people all over the world by virtue of a global communication network? Build a computer using prayer and then we'll talk.

No one here is denying empirical evidence or applied science, we are refusing to blindly believe the theoretical framework that has been deemed infallible by the scientific priesthood.

a reply to: andrewh7

I have asked Holy Spirit to prompt a loved one on the other side of the globe to phone or email me within 24 hours and usually it has happened within 3-7 hours.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: andrewh7

I have asked Holy Spirit to prompt a loved one on the other side of the globe to phone or email me within 24 hours and usually it has happened within 3-7 hours.

Don't even try. The material reductionists have a truth-blocker installed in their cerebral mainframe that prevents them from considering that anything beyond material literalism is possible. They don't (can't) believe the straight-forward scientific evidence that demonstrates matter's subjugation to consciousness and energy - i.e. the copenhagen interpretation, E=mc^2, etc.

Is there a god of science? I know there is a church of science, but there is also the westboro Baptist, so I guess everyone has their radicals. What are the ten commandments of science, may I ask? And is there a creation story, and a hero's journey? Does science have a messiah? This should be funny. Do you know the mad libs game? Good times.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
What are the ten commandments of science, may I ask? And is there a creation story

Yeah. This is is laymen's terms for the acolytes: matter/energy exploded out of nothing somehow. This chaos turned into planets which, in an organized fashion, managed to acquire a homeostatic orbit around big balls of fire that also came from chaos. One of these planets luckily was in the "goldilocks zone" and stayed there for a long time somehow. Oh yeah, physical laws and intelligible mathematics are a given - don't think this is a sign of intelligence, it is just an accident. Then, lightning struck pond scum and an elaborate cell spawned that was able to replicate, make energy, transcribe rna, translate proteins, create a protein scaffolding, encapsulate itself from the environment and establish a general homeostasis (all requirements for a viable cell). From here, randomness ultimately culminated the immensely complex human body - that's right, your great great ancestors were microbes. But this all took 14 billion years; an amount of time that you cannot fathom, so sure, it has to be possible. If you don't believe this you're excommunicated.

Does science have a messiah?

Darwin, Dawkins, degrasse tyson, idk, the priesthood is still voting.