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 I (BoX) believe the Religion of Scientism is looming very hazardously on the near horizon

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:06 PM

originally posted by: projectvxn
Science is a method of investigation.

All the woo crap that is posted around here is what is faith based and generally full of fairy tales.

I doubt that I understand your point very clearly. Perhaps you'd be willing to elaborate.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:08 PM

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Conceivable does NOT EQUAL plausible . . . and less . . . certain.

I'm familiar with the contention by some quantum physicists that we live in a SIMULATED reality.

That still would not necessarily mean that your version of it was THE TRUEST TRUTH.

The problem is what proof do you have that the words that you are reading, are from a real person rather than a AI computer that is plugged into your brain ?

Every memory is constructed from electrical impulses created via senses that the brain is programmed to assume are real. Yet the brain is blind and deaf to both sight and sound. It is only electrical signals that make it assume that its a real world.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:11 PM

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If you honestly fail to see the huge degree to which the scientific establishment, values, priorities, goals etc. have become saturated with religion . . . then I doubt there's anything I could say to improve your perception skills at all.

Eventually, it will become obvious to virtually everyone with any perceptiveness left. Until then . . . enjoy your construction on 'reality.'


Just over the horizon barely out of view of your back door . . . are a couple of things [let's say for argument] . . .

1. Is a looming Macy's Thanksgiving Parade balloon only about 100 times larger than average.

2. Is a death star with your house centered in it's targeting range finder.

Are you trying to insist that 1 & 2 are EQUALLY hazardous?


The only nonsense in your post. A threat can loom over something. Something cannot 'loom very hazardously' as that's bad grammar. If something 'looms very hazardously' then it is a danger - to itself, as it itself is in danger. Sorry, basic grammar.
It always makes me laugh when I hear the very religious claim that science is in fact a religion. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that science works. Religion is, more often than not, black and white. It is, in itself, a series of fundamental beliefs. For people like Ken Ham nothing can change their belief, not matter what. Not even cold hard facts. Science on the other hand is testable, provable - and changes depending on when new facts are discovered.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:11 PM

originally posted by: 0hlord
a reply to: BO XIAN

So, the earth goes around the sun. Ho Hum. The notion that believing so might just result in one's personal eternal damnation--though hideously false--when believed--becomes an intense motivator.

So, what you're essentially trying to say here, is the earth is flat?

Ummm, no?

More like a fact is just that: a fact. Look in the mirror at the color of your eyes. They are the color they are. There is nothing mysterious, powerful, or exciting about that.

But ... add in the trappings of religion to it. Hitler sort of did this with eye color. Blue eyes were the superior color. If you didn't have blue eyes, you were of inferior stock.

Now look at your eyes again ... in a world that prizes blue eyes with near religious fervor and zeal, the fact of you eye color becomes something more than that simple fact. Now it can give you power or hold you back.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:16 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Science is not only a method of investigation, its also a method of reasoning.

You cannot investigate ethics and morality with any testable experiments.

Oh, but you can... Subjectively, through reasoning.

Infact without reasoning spiritual practise can easily make one the opposite of what you aspire to be through that practise, when youre not interpreting your experiences from a place of authenticity, and being overly idealistic... IE the good christian who beleives in universal love while harboring feelings of judgement and negativity towards others... they say they love you, but what they really mean is they wish they could love you.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:19 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN
Sorry, i just didnt quite follow what you meant by that... but, you do know the earth is a sphere right?

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:20 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN
Whether science is a religion or not, it doesn't have the emotional appeal that makes for a genuinely popular religion.
As the environmental crisis gets worse, I would bet more money on the further development of a personified Gaia.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:23 PM
a reply to: 0hlord

Reason in that context is part of philosophical/theological study and discussion.

Science and the scientific method are different. They involve testable hypothesis and results that can be reproduced. There is very little that is subjective about that.

Hard science is about as objective as it gets.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:28 PM

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Not my reality.

BTW, religion is increasing in coverage and individual allegiances. I don't know that it's shown up on a lot of surveys yet but it is a building undercurrent. I'm not happy with that. Most of it is very destructive versions of religion. However, that is what the oligarchy/global government folks have long scheduled.

And, it WILL come to pass--precisely as predicted 2000 years ago and longer in some respects.

BTW, your understanding of the facts of the Bible and history don't remotely ring true to my research nor with my personal experiences over nearly 70 years.

Atheism/agnostics are the fastest growing section of the religious spectrum. It's just that the starting point was that 95+% of people believed in one religion or the other...and that stat has persisted for thousands of years...

So the 25 percent jump in people who don't believe in any religion is huge and nearly unprecedented.

Assuming the trend of "not one single shred of repeatable experimentation validating a religion" continues, one can assume that Religion will take the same path as languages.

Once 50% of the population stops speaking a language (religion), there is a snowball effect with the original language dying within a couple generations.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:29 PM
You really thought that comparing science to religion was going to kill it? Proof is in the execution, and science has executed it's marvels most spectacularly. But by all means, continue preaching your hate of science via electronics and other scientifically developed means from your scientifically developed sanctuary while sipping your scientifically developed and brewed coffee.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:31 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

In essence you are absolutely correct.

But ideally, science and religion walk hand in hand to explain, or help to explain the Universe, and our place in it.

Einstein once said, rather famously

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Science brings the "how" into the questions about the Universe. Religion may give us the "why". With both, the Universe becomes all the more wondrous.

Both can be used without corrupting the other.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:33 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You are welcome to be a loftier grammar expert than I am. I think my poor grammar still communicated to most folks that what was looming was not nice or wonderful.

It's not THAT high a priority, to me. I find that level of concern over grammar to be overly prissy.

Otherwise, it doesn't appear that we share enough of a common dictionary to have a remotely fruitful or meaningful dialogue.

Enjoy your construction on reality . . . while you can.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:34 PM
a reply to: seagull

Good points, imho.

I like Einstein's quote on the matter.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your ascribing hate to me shows a gross ignorance of my person and character as well as my statements on this thread.


That lack of accurate insight calls into question, for me, whatever else you may have to say on the thread.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:37 PM

originally posted by: TzarChasm
You really thought that comparing science to religion was going to kill it? Proof is in the execution, and science has executed it's marvels most spectacularly. But by all means, continue preaching your hate of science via electronics and other scientifically developed means from your scientifically developed sanctuary while sipping your scientifically developed and brewed coffee.

No, I don't think that was the point either.

When you start treating your science as if it IS religion, that's what needs to be killed. Science is not and never should be thought of as religion or given the belief in the same manner. For one thing, science is not about proving universal truths but simply about uncovering how the universe operates. Our understanding of that process changes more and more all the time.

So when you assign religious zeal to that, you have to place it somewhere as religious fervor devotes itself to truth. Either you devote yourself to change which then becomes the quest to venerate the latest new fad theory as the cutting edge of science and denigrate all who refuse to adopt it as quickly as you, or you adopt something science has theorized and suddenly it becomes "settled." At that point, anyone who adopts or endorses or even uncovers and advanced view of your settled truth is viewed as a hostile heretic (like a competing sect) that must be purged and purged ruthlessly.

It is one thing to ascribe such feelings to simple matters of ideology and faith, but even there they cause war and genocide and all manner of other troubles for us when those ideas clash, but when that fervor and those feelings creep into science, the havoc could hold us back, even move us backward into a new Dark Ages if we let the rot settle in quickly enough.

It is already doing its damage. Fewer and fewer people trust science and scientists all the time, and you cannot blame all of that on the religious. After all, if it is true that there are fewer and fewer of religious faith, how can there then be more and more who do not trust science? Those two trends don't seem to be very comfortable in coexistence.
edit on 1-6-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:38 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You might put that on a plaque on your wall.

It will be interesting to see a rush of events in the not distant future shred that perspective wholesale.

The oligarchy used evolution and materialism to shred historic Judeo/Christian faiths in the public square.

HOWEVER, they will soon implement the worst religion ever in their reversion to Babylon and worse.

Then the world will long for the presence of Christianity . . . and Christians.

Dark times ahead . . . to put it exceedingly mildlly.

And the Religion of Scientism will be initially a vanguard heralding the new paradigm shifts afoot.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:39 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thousands of independent, has nothing to do with Monsanto, studies have been a conducted on the safety of GMOs. People stay say they are poisoning us and we should buy 10 2lbs bags of "GMO tested" corn...that's faith man. That's outright denialism.

Hundreds of terabytes of data supporting anthropogenic climate change. Unable to be bought by oil companies, thousands of scientists have published 10s of thousands I peer reviewed evidence, but it's all a liberal lie.

Millions of lives saved by vaccinations over the last century, no link ever proven between vaccines and anything anti vaxxers say. But vaccines are also killing us all.

The crap that gets posted here REQUIRES that a thinking person ignore reality.

We have higher quality and quantity of life. We've brought world hunger down over 80% in the world in the last 30 years. There's a lot of factors to this. But science brought us drought resistant crops, crops engineered to produce more of their own natural pesticides so that poor farmers in crap countries didn't lose all their yield to an infestation.

Millions of people with diabetes are tested with GMO insulin.

We're all supposed to believe that all of these achievements, all of the data available, is all wrong and mercola, natural news, and that social media prick David Wolfe are right.

We're suppose to believe that the science that made us so healthy, comfortable, and complacent is "scientism", and that we should reject an evidence based world view.

I disagree.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:44 PM
a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks for the clarification.

Evidently you have yet to understand the OP.

I don't know of a single person on my side of the issues that is against solid, accurate, rationally applied science.

It is the RELIGIOUS system, values, behaviors, attitudes, gate-keeping, corruption, lies, etc. built up around such that are a horrendous problem.

If you have not read of such things--even in the MSMedia . . . then perhaps it would be worth your checking out.

Your post I'm responding to totally misses the point of the OP.

It was like . . . responding to a question about one's credit card interest rate with:

"Six igloos times 12 chickens."


"Wet birds fly at night."

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

IOW, NO ONE can compare to Yehovah's power--particularly over life and death.

Well it is only fair that the science guys try to catch up then, given the head start god has in the killing people game.

We are created in his image, after all.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:14 PM
a reply to: 0hlord

IF and WHEN you decide to reply to me with a shred of mutual respect, perhaps I'll treat your posts more seriously.


The insulting posts on this thread are outrageous.

Evidently on some topics, they are allowed.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in