It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Alright, here are some snippets of weird superstitious reverence from a post in this thread. The rest of the post was on page 14. Of course the whole thing was pretty hyperbolic and could have been satire, but there are plenty of examples of this sort of talk all over the Internet. Just go to the atheist section of Reddit and peruse a bit. Or should I provide more examples for you?

originally posted by: Smellthecoffee
a reply to: BO XIAN

.....they are as empty sounds dissipated on the wind of scientific knowledge....

....desire of this type of poster is to bring science down....

....Science has crushed superstition.....

....We, as the enlightened ones, should act maturely....

R.I.P. 'God.'

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:08 PM
a reply to: GetHyped

Yup, this confirms my above suspicion that you've never been involved in scientific research or education.

I do know the multiplication table up to number 10 by heart and have a scientific calculator on my PC. Take that !!!!

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:13 PM

originally posted by: LittleByLittle

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: defiythelie

Science is only un-provable to those who chose to be willfully ignorant of it's theories and laws or those that feel threatened by its findings.

Show me undeniable proof of Big Bang...

Show me proof that increase in CO2 causes Earth warming...and not the other way around.

And while you do that...dont forget the age old scientific claim...that correlation does not equal causation.

If we go into global warming I have a few questions on water vapor as maybe a part of Global warming. I am neither for or against the theory of AGW. I simply cannot make up my mind.

1 If we are heating the oceans with Fission plants and man maybe chemical waste would not that heating cause more water vapor?
2 Will this access heat disappear after a while or will it be added to other contributes like CO2?
3 If we are creating a water vapor problem why are the Politicians only worried about CO2?

I think we are mostly clueless about the process

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:16 PM
a reply to: Talorc

If you decide to look up figures of speech (which apparently, you aren't going to avail yourself of) look up metaphor.

Not to mention that you take phrases completely out of context ...

Not to mention that you have no, absolutely NO examples of what you're actually referring to, merely statements that you're trying desperately to make apply in this context.

Plenty of examples? Give us some.

Also, perhaps you can answer on the "Church of Scientism"?

Testimonies of what "Scientismatics" believe?



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:39 PM
This thread created by science. If it were up to religion, you wouldn't have the electricity, computer or internet to ply your dogmatic ignorance. You'd still be living in the Dark of Ages...just how they'd want it. It's why the Devil is known as the Light Bringer...the Morning Star. Never ever evererer question the Church or seek your own answers. In fact, religion is always playing catchup with science and being dragged begrudgingly into the modern world. Conversely, religion has stifled science on so many occasions as to lose count. Any casual Googlenaut can find them all in unbiased lit and pages.

Somehow, I don't see that ever happening with science. It won't stifle your religion unless you believe it will. It doesn't want to be forced into your church. It doesn't claim to have all the answers, and it certainly wouldn't use ATS as a spring board for research and serious unbiased scientific debate. If science were discover God, living in Iowa, as a barista, who said that the Universe was created by a questionable fart and proved it; then the science books would be rewritten the very next day. You can't say that about religion...ever.

Therefore, to call science a faith based religion is stupefying at least, and God awful zealot bullsh@t at most. You don't need a whispering Black Phillip to see that.

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 06:05 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

It's a really simple experiment.

If you don't want to participate, that's fine.

Religion claims that prayer has power to change reality. Need citations?

Per "Jesus Christ"

24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

No commentary there about what you (or anyone else) thinks is possible or likely or absurd. The Man said "whatever."

Further, you don't speak for all "reasonable people with religious faith" you can only speak for yourself. Don't spoil the fun for others.

You have not provided a case where science disagrees with the facts. You have provided an anomaly that wasn't investigated scientifically, so you have no idea what "science" would have "said."


Further, from your NYT article:

Still, Dr. Barie suggested that Mr. Moreno had taken the team treating him into largely uncharted medical territory. Dr. Barie said Mr. Moreno’s medical team had had no experience with someone who had fallen so far. He said that falls from even three stories can be fatal if the victim hits his or her head on landing.

“Above 10 stories, most of the time we never see the patients because they usually go to the morgue,” Dr. Barie said, though he added that the staff at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell had treated — and had written a medical journal article about — a patient who survived a 19-story fall, less than half the distance Mr. Moreno fell.

“This is right up there with those anecdotes of people falling out of airplanes and surviving, people whose parachutes don’t open and somehow they manage to survive,” Dr. Barie said in an interview after the press conference. “We’re talking about tiny, tiny percentages, well under 1 percent, of people who fall that distance and survive.”

Nowhere in that article did anyone say "science says the man shouldn't have lived."

Why? Because these doctors are scientists ... they don't deny the reality that is in front of their eyes. The man lived, questions follow: how, why?

Useful knowledge will be gained from this, hopefully.

How does your repetition of an experiment in absurdity add to this conversation? As pointed out, what would it actually prove, either way?

In answer to Jesus' quote, what would I receive by praying that your pencil floats? The concept that an absurd 'experiment' has no true weight in a philosophical argument seems to have eluded you.

Also, some rather rubbery figures that give the scientific prediction:

Distance of fall = 141 m (assuming each storey = 3m).
Duration of fall = 5.36 s.
Velocity at impact = 52.57 m/s = 189.25 km/h (terminal velocity in air for human body is reached after falling for 12 seconds, so I have not factored in air drag in the calculations).
Weight of average adult North American male human = 80 kg.
Impact Energy = 111,511.26 joules = 111.511 Newtons over a space of 1 meter.
The actual impact distance, where the elastic modulus of the skull would be exceeded, is much shorter, in the range approximating 2cm, so:
Impact force on skull = 22,302.2 Newtons.
Force required to crush human skull = 2,300 Newtons. Brain tissue and muscle tissues are much softer.

Now that it is 'investigated scientifically', can you see that it doesn't provide answers as to how the guy lived through it?

edit on 2/6/2016 by chr0naut because: The accident was also investigated by several government agencies, as mentioned in the article, but perhaps they didn't apply any science to the task?

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 06:45 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not down with the OP. Science being a religion doesn't make sense. I only mean that many people treat science like a superstition, namely in the way they speak of it, the things they attribute to it, and the beliefs they have about what it's "capable of."

Human beings make discoveries. Science doesn't discover things, nor invent things, nor create things. People do that, utilizing a certain method of investigation founded in logic.

The word seems to be used as a catch-all, encompassing technology, new discoveries, scientists themselves, and even physical laws. This is where the superstition comes in-- science is only a method; an infinitely useful, practical, ingenious method, but just a method nonetheless. This fact doesn't somehow diminish its importance. It's undeniably the most import tool we have at our disposal for understanding the universe. The way it's spoken of, however, might lead someone who's never heard of it to believe it's an autonomous entity discovering and creating things all on its own.

Just as an example: does artistry paint a picture, or does an artist? Everyone would say, obviously, that "artistry" can't paint a picture, only an artist using his artistry. The same goes for science. Does science invent new technology, or do people invent things using science?

Also, for instance, lightening might strike a rod; it's not uncommon for someone to say something along the lines of "that's science at work." How exactly is lightening behaving like lightening "science at work"? Of course science is the reason we understand why lighting strikes metal rods, but science doesn't cause lightening to strike.

This is mainly what I'm hung up on. Maybe I'm wrong and it's just ease of speaking, and it's easier for people to call all these forces, objects, and inventions "science." But I'm not convinced that's the whole explanation.

It also disturbs me somewhat because it takes credit away from people, from individuals and humanity as a whole. When you say science invented something, it's somewhat of a disservice to the inventor and to human genius. It's just like Christians claiming that "Christianity feeds the poor, look at all these charities." No, bullsh*t. Compassionate, good-hearted people (who happen to work with churches) feed the poor, not Christianity.
edit on 2-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:21 PM
This is the precise reason why I have stopped trusting people when they call me crazy for the things I have seen, the things other people have seen, ect. As the opening said we don't even see 1/10th of a percent of all there is to see and yet the yokels expect me to believe 'we don't see it, it doesn't exist' Humankind is so blasted simpleminded it nauseates me to my core. Much of the paranormal is based on energy waves and other such things we have no hope of explaining. The fancy science men might be able to. But this 'NWO' will make sure to keep us good and ignorant. Only letting out whatever small shreds of 'truth' to keep the LCD[lowest common denominator] Satisfied. The fools..I won't delude myself into think there are people out to ruin everyone's individual lives. However I DO agree the people that rule over the rulers do exist and they have agendas.

However where it goes into conspiracy territory for me is i feel there is something puppeting the puppetmasters. This is what we call 'god' Whether you believe such a thing is inconsequential. I just feel this is a good place to let me true feelings out unlike most websites. This is not to say I don't believe science isn't real. There have been genuine discoveries. However many more discoveries i feel have been stifled to keep the population ignorant. And the primary point I want to make is I'm not going to let people say my belief in the paranormal is invalid because some men in white coats have yet to prove it yet. And if the multiverse theory is any indication, many things have access to our reality. We would have to study thousands of different versions of the same general entity to even get the tiniest spectrum of how they act on the cosmic scale. This is why so many don't witness the same thing.
edit on 2-6-2016 by Brokenmirrorpng because: ALOT of stuff

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:29 PM

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

you're not getting it. You don't have the ability to think for yourself or think about anything nonparadigmic.. IOW you are stuck in the science because SCIENCE mentality.

You can't measure something for 10 20 or 60 years and assume it has been constant for billions of years...that's BAD science.

radioactive decay rates are reliant on time. I never said that I didn't believe that the TIME that has elapsed has not been the equivalent of 4.5 billion modern years(years being measured by the relatively current amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun). What I said was, the methods that science has used to come to their current conclusions are fundamentally flawed and I pointed out EXACTLY how they're flawed.

The idea that they improve on their mistakes is a fundamental flaw that I likened to the frog not jumping out of a pot of water slowly brought to a boil.

I used geology as a reference because the history of that slow boil is well documented, but it applies to ALL scientific paradigms. It's even worse with more modern ones like AGW because they don't just eliminate outliers, they completely manipulate data to get to their conclusions.


I'm "not getting it" because you provided an analogy about how science is false because of death by degrees but offered literally no supporting evidence as to why that is the case. Nor is it a compelling argument as to why something must be false even if you had provided evidence. Our understanding of cancer has evolved with time, that doesn't mean our current understanding of it is false.

You made a bunch of accusations with zero evidence. Come back with sources and we'll talk, otherwise I'll just assume you're full of it.

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:39 PM

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you entirely missed the point of the post you were replying to.

However, you gave a splendid discussion of 'wet birds fly at night.'

I think you missed the point of the post I was replying to as well as the point of my response.

And no...Wet birds never fly at night.

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:45 PM
I find it pretty cool that science has creation almost exactly like the bronze age goat herders just "made up" 5000 years ago.

And all things seen and unseen.

Then there was that little thing with AC vs DC. More recently. Tesla vs Edison, who wanted to win that one?

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 09:01 PM

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's because you are only criticizing science out of spite. This whole thread is a show of defiance.


Look... I don't want to join your church, can you please respect my decision?

I am not criticizing "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), I am criticizing those who tout theory as fact and ostracize and mock anyone who believes otherwise - such behavior is the antithesis to true science, and has been a hindrance to scientific progress.

...but science isn't a person. Are you talking about science here, or people? They are not synonymous. Science is a methodology independent of the minds that practice it. Science is a discipline, but it's the application of this discipline that has earned it such respect. Again, the proof is in the execution.
edit on 2-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 09:07 PM

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not in orbit, I'm on or near the surface of the earth. I should have made that more clear.

There have been no explosions nearby, nor am I (and my pencil) in a falling structure.

Now that absurd conditions have been eliminated that I didn't include in my little experiment because they are nonsensical in the extreme ...

Oh, and by the way, I have not made any claims about science "having all the answers." Please don't put words in my mouth.

Care to participate, now that you "understand" the parameters of the experiment?

You pray that the pencil floats. Let me know when you're ready and I'll drop the pencil.

Why would anyone pray that the pencil floats? Has there been some religious dispensation against gravitation that I am ignorant of? I doubt it. No reasonable person with religious faith would do what you suggest because it is absurd. Nor would it particularly prove anything if some nutcase tried (regardless if they succeeded, or not).

But I have provided a case where science disagrees with the facts. It proves nothing about religious faith but disproves science as a source for all reasonable answers. It is a case that proves faith in science (the OP topic) to be unfounded.

Well, this thread happened, so absurd appears to have invited itself in and taken a seat.
edit on 2-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 09:17 PM
a reply to: chr0naut

The supposition at stake here is absurd, in contradiction of known and accepted terminology, the basic meanings of words, general understandings about the world around us. In an absurd conversation, an "absurd" example seems appropriate.

Yet, even in absurdity, iIt points out a very significant difference between the generic claims of science and religion.

Science makes claims based on evidence. Religion makes claims based on belief.

No matter how much you want to wiggle out of the fact that religion (specifically Christianity) claims that God answers prayers (thus rearranging the laws of the physical universe) ... that fact remains.

What you receive by praying for a floating pencil (that actually floats) is certain proof that the claims of religion are factual and as reliable as the claims of science. If the pencil floats, prayer works, and is, indeed, just as reliable (and therefore comparable) to science.

If not ... well, it's not.


At best, you've done some calculations (not unimpressive ones by the way) based on some of the raw data in the article you linked.

And, conveniently, you've created an ideal mathematical solution that excludes a myriad of other possible factors/variables in the situation. For example, did you also calculate (or do you know) which side of the scaffolding struck the ground first? What kind of protective gear were the two men wearing? Were there harnesses involved? Were both men thrown clear of the scaffolding? Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not sure why you're so willing to contravene reality here as we're supposedly dealing honestly with each other ... but you have the reference point of your own chosen article that states that in approximately 1% of these cases, there are factors at work that are unaccounted for or unknown. That doesn't mean it's "magic" or "non-scientific" or even "unknowable" merely that we don't know at the current time.

That does not negate (as you so aptly pointed out in your example) the things we do know.

The things we do know are because of the actions and procedures of applied science and specifically NOT religious pursuits like prayer, shaking bones, or huffing incense.
edit on 2-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 09:27 PM
a reply to: Talorc

People have superstitions that relate indirectly to science, not the other way around.

Science concentrates on evidence, observable measurable evidence.

You just can't hang human ignorance on the various disciplines of science.

You apparently remain very concerned (or confused) by common use of figures of speech. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Does "artistry" paint a picture? I've never heard that used as a figure of speech.

I have heard statements personifying "Art" though ... for example "Art speaks to everyone in their own language."

Again, it's a figure of speech.

Have you ever heard a scientist make the claim that the actions of lightning are "science at work"? A high-school science teacher? Even a gifted sixth grader? I think not. If they did, again, they were using a common FIGURE OF SPEECH.

I'm not sure why that's your stumbling block here. However, you state that you disagree with the OP's absurd claim that science is a religion, and that's really my only point.


posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 09:51 PM

originally posted by: Masterjaden
LOL... First off, I'm not a science denier... farthest from it in fact... Secondly, you stated that theories are proven and you say I DON'T know about science...LOL...

You aren't a science denier but you already blindly dismissed and denied the Lucy evidence, and completely ignored my rebuttal about more specimens existing or the research papers that you probably haven't even read. You also blindly denied the science of radiometric dating without offering anything of substance. Do you have evidence that decay rates can change? Don't deny that you're a denier. I'd be willing to bet you are a cherry picker, and agree with tons of science out there, just not any fields that conflict with your personal beliefs.

I stated that theories are proven? Where? I said that scientific theories are well substantiated explanations for something that has been verified and confirmed. If you google "scientific theory" you will see countless definitions that confirm exactly that. Don't blame me because you do not understand the terminology. Theories contain hypotheses, so it is silly to claim that a theory is proven. However, it's safe to say that whatever it refers to is a real thing. If not, it wouldn't be a theory. Going for the "it's just a theory" rhetoric is beyond laughable at this point. Come up with something new. Theories are compilations of facts and hypotheses currently being tested. That argument goes back decades and is just as absurd now as it was back then.

You used an appeal to authority argument on Lucy.."paleontologists KNOW what they're talking about, so I'll defer to them...."

I never said to blindly believe a scientist's opinion. All you have to do is look at the research papers. Do you think they all just sit in a dark candle lit room, maniacally laughing and taking wild guesses while fabricating the research papers that are reviewed by other scientists yet nobody notices?? When you can fact check something, and verify it with testable repeatable results there is no appeal to authority.

TRY THINKING FOR YOURSELF... The conclusions they come to are ASININE when looking at what they're working with.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Can you pull up a peer reviewed research paper for me and show me where one of their conclusions is not based on the results of experiments? I'll let you pick any one you want out of the millions of papers out there, as long as you cite it. LMAO at "try thinking for yourself." You have given no logical reasons at all yet why you deny any of it.

Same with Gigantopithecus... Please, show me where there is ANYTHING other than molars and a partial jaw bone found of him... I'm all ears...

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I didn't think they had found even a molar or partial jaw bone yet, unless you are talking about their ancient ancestor. I do know that they have found some teeth and a finger from Denisovans, and they were able to get DNA from them which showed their genetic links to modern humans and neanderthals.

Lucy has a partial skull and other fragments, yet they claim to know how how the entire skull and brain casing looked... That is FABRICATION... PERIOD...COME ON please start thinking for yourself.

HOW ON EARTH can you logically conclude what the brain casing looked like from the skull fragments that they have???


LOL, capitalized catch phrases aren't going to save you from this one. If you read my previous response, this was already answered! They have found skulls from other Australopithecus specimens. They didn't have every single bone, but your arguments here are laughably absurd. They found enough fossils to compare common features from other hominids and modern humans as well.

PLEASE stop equating the scientific method to the scientific establishment. If science purely followed the scientific method, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

I am not equating them. I am specifically saying that they are different things. Science is a method, stop personifying it with "science says this" and "science says that". Science doesn't say anything, it helps us learn. You need to stop using the overarching term "science". It doesn't fit your argument. If you want to say politicians and corporate executives force certain areas to be funded and researched, that's not the same as saying "science is a religion".

edit on 6 2 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 09:53 PM
So ... no one has a link to the website of the Church of Scientism?

About about their Credo?

Anyone testifying how glad they are to be Scientismatics?

We keep seeing this claim made here, about the "religion" of scientism ... but not a single shred of evidence has been presented.

This is a false claim.

(Dispute with actual evidence.)

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 10:18 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... no one has a link to the website of the Church of Scientism?

Here ya go.

sorry..couldn't help myself.

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 10:21 PM

originally posted by: Talorc
. . .
It also disturbs me somewhat because it takes credit away from people, from individuals and humanity as a whole. When you say science invented something, it's somewhat of a disservice to the inventor and to human genius. It's just like Christians claiming that "Christianity feeds the poor, look at all these charities." No, bullsh*t. Compassionate, good-hearted people (who happen to work with churches) feed the poor, not Christianity.

Yes and no.

Certainly people are the agents of . . . a goal, an ideology, a structure, a system, a group, a set of values, an ideal, . . .

HOWEVER, Those individuals COMPRISE the group . . . and it is common vernacular to refer AS SHORTHAND to those individuals, those agents as the "[group label]." It is a reasonable linguistic and cultural convention.

The individuals would likely NOT have done XYZ without the ideals, the structure, the system, the ideal, the goal, the values that were/are part and parcel of the group identity.

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 10:22 PM
a reply to: Indigo5

Wait....all this time, "Scientism" was just an alternative name for "Scientology"????


hmmmm..............color me doubtful

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in