Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: BO XIAN

It is assumed that life evolved on Earth because saying "it came from someplace else" does not explain how it evolved in the first place. Science starts by getting rid of "just so" explanations. Why is the sky blue? Because it's not green, end of discussion. Where did human beings come from? A god made them, no further questions necessary.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: chr0naut

INDEED.

Your courageous stands for the truth and sanity are very impressive, to me.

THX THX.

I think that the seeming display of memories of a gold fish are primarily yet another demonstration of the perverseness of the ROScientism. They can't conceive of much outside of the APPROVED DOGMA. They HAVE to keep hitting their pointed nogggins against the concrete walls of Truth because they can't tolerate thoughts of having to yield to any truths that might require an adjustment in their life choices.

You know, if you want people to think there's more to this thread than just fishing and circle jerking, then you should stop making it so obvious. It's like you aren't even pretending to be serious anymore.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Where there is money to be made and control to be had, there will always be a system that attempts to prop up itself higher than others.

When a so called scientist lies to the masses, it isn't in the name of science. It's in the name of power, money, reputation, control.

So while any topic and any matter are subject to the ills of man, it doesn't make all topics inherently flawed or false or anything it simply means humans tend to be humans.

The day all self proclaimed scientists can't be bought, manipulate data, etc is the day you see all Christians love like Christ did.

Religion is not inherently evil.
Science is not inherently a religion.

But, people are people. So one hundred percent of the time, selfish things will be done by some amount of the population. Priests, scientists, politicians, any average Joe included.

But I do agree with the premise that simply believing any scientific journal, blog, article, etc - especially when you can link such things with political and global agendas, is a form of belief that people should look further into before deeming it pure truth. Otherwise, they certainly are likely to believe in something entirely made up to control the masses - like religion.

I greatly agree with your assertions, wholesale. They bear repeating with emphasis.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BO XIAN

Where there is money to be made and control to be had, there will always be a system that attempts to prop up itself higher than others.

When a so called scientist lies to the masses, it isn't in the name of science. It's in the name of power, money, reputation, control.

So while any topic and any matter are subject to the ills of man, it doesn't make all topics inherently flawed or false or anything it simply means humans tend to be humans.

The day all self proclaimed scientists can't be bought, manipulate data, etc is the day you see all Christians love like Christ did.

Religion is not inherently evil.
Science is not inherently a religion.

But, people are people. So one hundred percent of the time, selfish things will be done by some amount of the population. Priests, scientists, politicians, any average Joe included.

But I do agree with the premise that simply believing any scientific journal, blog, article, etc - especially when you can link such things with political and global agendas, is a form of belief that people should look further into before deeming it pure truth. Otherwise, they certainly are likely to believe in something entirely made up to control the masses - like religion.

Very well put. Thanks.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks!

Good post, I just wanted to assert my opinion that on some grounds I agree with you, on others, there's some differentiating.

Intention and causality are important of aspects when observing what another is positing as truth - What's the goal?

Many scientific minds seek to learn, and teach - The entire premise of science is the scientific method, which is formulating an idea, and testing that idea within the world we can observe to either prove the idea true, or false. Unfortunately, sometimes "science" is used to push agendas, to justify wrongs, to put fear into people or have people divided, etc - Science is definitely being used like a religion would be used, which is where I definitely agree with you. Even revered scientists often take the seat of throne all too-quickly because they believe themselves some type of hero or all-knowing being - See Neil DeGrasse Tyson - He's a jerk. He constantly bashes on religion and people while being a half-wit himself when compared to the truly great minds of our modern and historical world.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks!
. . .

Intention and causality are important of aspects when observing what another is positing as truth - What's the goal?

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. A) What's the goal related thereto? B) What's the criteria that says the goal has been reached? C) What's the context?

Many scientific minds seek to learn, and teach - The entire premise of science is the scientific method, which is formulating an idea, and testing that idea within the world we can observe to either prove the idea true, or false. Unfortunately, sometimes "science" is used to push agendas, to justify wrongs, to put fear into people or have people divided, etc - Science is definitely being used like a religion would be used, which is where I definitely agree with you. Even revered scientists often take the seat of throne all too-quickly because they believe themselves some type of hero or all-knowing being - See Neil DeGrasse Tyson - He's a jerk. He constantly bashes on religion and people while being a half-wit himself when compared to the truly great minds of our modern and historical world.

INDEED.

The arrogance--insecurity based, RAD fostered raging arrogance is incredible in every sphere of human endeavor. However, it seems to have a particular flavor and intensity in 'scientific/materialist' arenas.

It would be LOGICAL for folks to go . . . hmmmm . . . I no longer agree with that construction on reality. I think I'll play and work over here in this different one.

But then to go the doggedly compulsively tenacious other leap further to constantly doggedly return to piss on one's former co-horts as though they were constantly castrating you--that's kind of pathological to almost an extreme.

It's kind of like . . .

"OK, God, I don't think you exist any more. However, I'm going to return to try and poke you and your humans in the eye every other half hour just for kicks."

Something else is going on that denial prevents them from seeing, imho.

And it is a very common phenomenon in the Religion of Scientism sphere.

So ... still no links to the "Church of Scientism"?

No links to the testimonies of confirmed "Scientismatics"?

Just as I thought.

Carry on!

a reply to: BO XIAN

Let's be honest here and admit that the real reason for your dissatisfaction is that those who have studied science are always there to inform you when you are wrong, particularly when you want to share your errors on a public forum. It's not our fault that you so consistently fail to fact check yourselves. On the bright side, we can help you with that.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks!

Good post, I just wanted to assert my opinion that on some grounds I agree with you, on others, there's some differentiating.

Intention and causality are important of aspects when observing what another is positing as truth - What's the goal?

Many scientific minds seek to learn, and teach - The entire premise of science is the scientific method, which is formulating an idea, and testing that idea within the world we can observe to either prove the idea true, or false. Unfortunately, sometimes "science" is used to push agendas, to justify wrongs, to put fear into people or have people divided, etc - Science is definitely being used like a religion would be used, which is where I definitely agree with you. Even revered scientists often take the seat of throne all too-quickly because they believe themselves some type of hero or all-knowing being - See Neil DeGrasse Tyson - He's a jerk. He constantly bashes on religion and people while being a half-wit himself when compared to the truly great minds of our modern and historical world.

Mr Tyson is an astrophysicist and cosmologist. That's more than half the people on this site can say.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm saying a true genius like Einstein will say " There is no way to say God does or does not exist"

While fools like Tyson like creating division by bashing on God and saying it's sure he doesn't.

I don't care if Tyson is smarter than 99.9% of the world, he's more obnoxious than that amount as well, not to mention makes derogatory statements towards people he doesn't like - Doesn't make him less intelligent than others, just less of a true scientist looking for truth and more of a figure touting his own ways.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm saying a true genius like Einstein will say " There is no way to say God does or does not exist"

While fools like Tyson like creating division by bashing on God and saying it's sure he doesn't.

I don't care if Tyson is smarter than 99.9% of the world, he's more obnoxious than that amount as well, not to mention makes derogatory statements towards people he doesn't like - Doesn't make him less intelligent than others, just less of a true scientist looking for truth and more of a figure touting his own ways.

Tyson considers himself agnostic. I also think he finds the whole question irrelevant and annoying. Global warming, terrorism, energy crisis, water and air pollution, nuclear stockpiling, trump is running for president, and all we can think to ask ourselves is "god or no god?" First things first, you know? Because if and when we locate a "higher power" half the world is going to want to capture it or kill it, and the other half will expect it to solve all of our problems out of some sense of paternal instinct. Lolwut.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm saying a true genius like Einstein will say " There is no way to say God does or does not exist"

While fools like Tyson like creating division by bashing on God and saying it's sure he doesn't.

I don't care if Tyson is smarter than 99.9% of the world, he's more obnoxious than that amount as well, not to mention makes derogatory statements towards people he doesn't like - Doesn't make him less intelligent than others, just less of a true scientist looking for truth and more of a figure touting his own ways.

Tyson considers himself agnostic. I also think he finds the whole question irrelevant and annoying. Global warming, terrorism, energy crisis, water and air pollution, nuclear stockpiling, trump is running for president, and all we can think to ask ourselves is "god or no god?" First things first, you know? Because if and when we locate a "higher power" half the world is going to want to capture it or kill it, and the other half will expect it to solve all of our problems out of some sense of paternal instinct. Lolwut.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson may consider himself agnostic, but he makes statements against belief in God which are definite.

An agnostic would say "I don't know and can't know". It is fairly unconditional and not a 'scientifically ethical' stance to take. Tyson says "I don't know, but.."

Tyson's dissertations against religious belief disagree with his attested philosophy.

If Tyson truly had no knowledge of God then anything he says in regard to God must therefore be entirely opinion, and not founded upon knowledge.

a reply to: chr0naut

There ya go being sensible, again.

LOL.

Thanks.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks!

Good post, I just wanted to assert my opinion that on some grounds I agree with you, on others, there's some differentiating.

Intention and causality are important of aspects when observing what another is positing as truth - What's the goal?

Many scientific minds seek to learn, and teach - The entire premise of science is the scientific method, which is formulating an idea, and testing that idea within the world we can observe to either prove the idea true, or false. Unfortunately, sometimes "science" is used to push agendas, to justify wrongs, to put fear into people or have people divided, etc - Science is definitely being used like a religion would be used, which is where I definitely agree with you. Even revered scientists often take the seat of throne all too-quickly because they believe themselves some type of hero or all-knowing being - See Neil DeGrasse Tyson - He's a jerk. He constantly bashes on religion and people while being a half-wit himself when compared to the truly great minds of our modern and historical world.

Mr Tyson is an astrophysicist and cosmologist. That's more than half the people on this site can say.

I don't want to deride the amazingness of Mr Tyson, but when I was at university all those years ago (and studying a Bachelor of Astronomy and Space Sciences) the classes were full. His credentials aren't that special.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks!

Good post, I just wanted to assert my opinion that on some grounds I agree with you, on others, there's some differentiating.

Intention and causality are important of aspects when observing what another is positing as truth - What's the goal?

Many scientific minds seek to learn, and teach - The entire premise of science is the scientific method, which is formulating an idea, and testing that idea within the world we can observe to either prove the idea true, or false. Unfortunately, sometimes "science" is used to push agendas, to justify wrongs, to put fear into people or have people divided, etc - Science is definitely being used like a religion would be used, which is where I definitely agree with you. Even revered scientists often take the seat of throne all too-quickly because they believe themselves some type of hero or all-knowing being - See Neil DeGrasse Tyson - He's a jerk. He constantly bashes on religion and people while being a half-wit himself when compared to the truly great minds of our modern and historical world.

Mr Tyson is an astrophysicist and cosmologist. That's more than half the people on this site can say.

I don't want to deride the amazingness of Mr Tyson, but when I was at university all those years ago (and studying a Bachelor of Astronomy and Space Sciences) the classes were full. His credentials aren't that special.

I'm not saying credentials are special, but they are a bonus.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm saying a true genius like Einstein will say " There is no way to say God does or does not exist"

While fools like Tyson like creating division by bashing on God and saying it's sure he doesn't.

I don't care if Tyson is smarter than 99.9% of the world, he's more obnoxious than that amount as well, not to mention makes derogatory statements towards people he doesn't like - Doesn't make him less intelligent than others, just less of a true scientist looking for truth and more of a figure touting his own ways.

Tyson considers himself agnostic. I also think he finds the whole question irrelevant and annoying. Global warming, terrorism, energy crisis, water and air pollution, nuclear stockpiling, trump is running for president, and all we can think to ask ourselves is "god or no god?" First things first, you know? Because if and when we locate a "higher power" half the world is going to want to capture it or kill it, and the other half will expect it to solve all of our problems out of some sense of paternal instinct. Lolwut.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson may consider himself agnostic, but he makes statements against belief in God which are definite.

An agnostic would say "I don't know and can't know". It is fairly unconditional and not a 'scientifically ethical' stance to take. Tyson says "I don't know, but.."

Tyson's dissertations against religious belief disagree with his attested philosophy.

If Tyson truly had no knowledge of God then anything he says in regard to God must therefore be entirely opinion, and not founded upon knowledge.

I think he has criticized organized religion, and for good reason. There are entire stadiums dedicated to this stuff, where people gather to throw money at god. Do you know people have actually paid to see a guy literally beat the holy spirit into his followers? It isn't Neil's fault he gets asked loaded questions. they ask for science, that's what they get. you sure your not just mad because he makes some pretty good points? That's what this is, a jealousy thread.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You're understanding of me is about as nonexistent as your understanding and perceptiveness of the Religion of Scientism.

Essentially zilch.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TzarChasm

You're understanding of me is about as nonexistent as your understanding and perceptiveness of the Religion of Scientism.

Essentially zilch.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Let me make one correction to your statement here... You can never prove an idea true, or rather the only thing you can ever prove true to someone else is that their consicousness exists, and the only thing you can prove true to yourself is that your own consciousness exists. You can falsify or support but not prove true.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

That's philosophical and doesn't really mean much when learning about science. Science pretty much denies that statement and says we can learn, we can understand that other conscious beings exist, we can take a position of being correct about things that do not change, and when we gather even more evidence, accept change if our current models need updating.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BO XIAN

Let's be honest here and admit that the real reason for your dissatisfaction is that those who have studied science are always there to inform you when you are wrong, particularly when you want to share your errors on a public forum. It's not our fault that you so consistently fail to fact check yourselves. On the bright side, we can help you with that.

Wtf? What errors are you even talking about? His main claim is that theories shouldn't be touted as fact - if you think such a statement is an "error", then you are continuing to prove the point of the OP and an obvious member of ROS.