Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"

reply to post by jiggerj

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

Try reddit.com/r/atheism for one. Exchristian.com is another. I have about a dozen more

Do they hold mass?

Any time stephen hawking or any number of pop scientists does a public speaking event.

Their church is the global university classroom

Star and flag op. Im seeing this as well. Im predicting that soon will happen a news worthy event which will be an atheist commiting a violent act against a person who is not atheist. Its just animalistic human nature that seems to take over in some super simpleton uneducated brutes which i have been around at work, gyms, ex military, some cops, etc.

Hey, all religions have killed in the name of their own religions, same w various movements. Eventually it will be Atheisms turn

Originally posted by dominicus
Im predicting that soon will happen a news worthy event which will be an atheist commiting a violent act against a person who is not atheist.

Are you saying that an atheist will hold a gun to a religious fanatic's head and challenge him to declare that atheism is right and religion is wrong? I seriously doubt this.

reply to post by jiggerj


From an atheist point of view, killing someone is the greatest gift you can bestow at this time in our world. Releasing them from the agony of emotion, and the constant pressure of thinking and filtering and behaving and expressing...

To be nothing is to be free. From an atheist perspective, where there is no afterlife, to kill someone is to deliver them to peace. I'm not saying I support this view, I am saying that is how some will see it.

And honestly, anywhere that is not here on Earth is bound to be a bit more peaceful. Nature is the most beautiful thing, and there is an infinite amount of au naturale in the cosmos...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj

 

From an atheist point of view, killing someone is the greatest gift you can bestow at this time in our world. Releasing them from the agony of emotion, and the constant pressure of thinking and filtering and behaving and expressing...

To be nothing is to be free. From an atheist perspective, where there is no afterlife, to kill someone is to deliver them to peace. I'm not saying I support this view, I am saying that is how some will see it.

And honestly, anywhere that is not here on Earth is bound to be a bit more peaceful. Nature is the most beautiful thing, and there is an infinite amount of au naturale in the cosmos...

edit on 21-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

well isn't that the folly of the atheist? Exercising a belief with enough conviction to actually kill someone while also declaring an absence of a belief system. It is ludicrous and dangerous. And this ideology is ruling this planet.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by dominicus
Im predicting that soon will happen a news worthy event which will be an atheist commiting a violent act against a person who is not atheist.

Are you saying that an atheist will hold a gun to a religious fanatic's head and challenge him to declare that atheism is right and religion is wrong? I seriously doubt this.

It's not as obvious as that. But yes, this has happened and is happening now. A total system of control where freedom of belief is not acceptable. It starts with demonization of traditional religions. Where those religions are painted as the REAL problem with the world. You need only look to Nazi Germany or the Chinese Revolution to see how this plays out. How it comes about world wide is the meme that the world must be controlled by agnostic ideology for the safety of all people. Controls will be put in place and people will resist. The problem is total lack of morals or goodness by those that use this twisted world view as a means to control.

It's not just happening naturally. It's happening because a large group of twisted individuals believe this agnostic ideology SO much they are willing to do anything to ensure it's total domination.

There are more good but fearful people in the world than fanatics. Those good people can be forced to come together in an agnostic authority under a perceived threat. Evil people are used to execute the domination and good people silently comply. Speak out and you are a terrorist or fanatic. This is happening now.

Are atheists bad? No. Just the one's who believe other ideologies need to be eliminated for the world to evolve or be "saved". Diversity is the cornerstone of evolution but the religion of science believes in total domination with 1 survivor. Science tells us that lack of diversity is death, an evolutionary dead-end.

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by dominicus
Im predicting that soon will happen a news worthy event which will be an atheist commiting a violent act against a person who is not atheist.

Are you saying that an atheist will hold a gun to a religious fanatic's head and challenge him to declare that atheism is right and religion is wrong? I seriously doubt this.

It's not as obvious as that. But yes, this has happened and is happening now. A total system of control where freedom of belief is not acceptable. It starts with demonization of traditional religions. Where those religions are painted as the REAL problem with the world. You need only look to Nazi Germany or the Chinese Revolution to see how this plays out. How it comes about world wide is the meme that the world must be controlled by agnostic ideology for the safety of all people. Controls will be put in place and people will resist. The problem is total lack of morals or goodness by those that use this twisted world view as a means to control.

It's not just happening naturally. It's happening because a large group of twisted individuals believe this agnostic ideology SO much they are willing to do anything to ensure it's total domination.

There are more good but fearful people in the world than fanatics. Those good people can be forced to come together in an agnostic authority under a perceived threat. Evil people are used to execute the domination and good people silently comply. Speak out and you are a terrorist or fanatic. This is happening now.

Are atheists bad? No. Just the one's who believe other ideologies need to be eliminated for the world to evolve or be "saved". Diversity is the cornerstone of evolution but the religion of science believes in total domination with 1 survivor. Science tells us that lack of diversity is death, an evolutionary dead-end.

Sorry, that isn't the issue I was addressing.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Sorry, that isn't the issue I was addressing.

No problem. Sorry for not addressing the issue you were addressing! Peace.

reply to post by rwfresh

It's not as obvious as that. But yes, this has happened and is happening now. A total system of control where freedom of belief is not acceptable. It starts with demonization of traditional religions. Where those religions are painted as the REAL problem with the world. You need only look to Nazi Germany or the Chinese Revolution to see how this plays out. How it comes about world wide is the meme that the world must be controlled by agnostic ideology for the safety of all people. Controls will be put in place and people will resist. The problem is total lack of morals or goodness by those that use this twisted world view as a means to control.

In fact, the United Nations specifically promotes freedom of religious expression, and passes (impotently) resolution against the persecution of religious minorities. Both Nazism and Maoism were, formally, state religions.

It's not just happening naturally. It's happening because a large group of twisted individuals believe this agnostic ideology SO much they are willing to do anything to ensure it's total domination.

Do you have any evidence to support this belief?

There are more good but fearful people in the world than fanatics. Those good people can be forced to come together in an agnostic authority under a perceived threat. Evil people are used to execute the domination and good people silently comply. Speak out and you are a terrorist or fanatic. This is happening now.

Can you provide a specific example?

Are atheists bad? No. Just the one's who believe other ideologies need to be eliminated for the world to evolve or be "saved". Diversity is the cornerstone of evolution but the religion of science believes in total domination with 1 survivor. Science tells us that lack of diversity is death, an evolutionary dead-end.

Although there may be individuals who believe as you claim they do, I think this is an aberration rather than a widespread attitude. I suspect much of this thread has been psychological projection on your part.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rwfresh

 

In fact, the United Nations specifically promotes freedom of religious expression, and passes (impotently) resolution against the persecution of religious minorities. Both Nazism and Maoism were, formally, state religions.

Yes they do. But they do not promote fanaticism. And their definition is to their own means. And they are an entirely Agnostic organization. Right? Or did i miss the continuous celebration of various religious beliefs in the halls of the UN?

"Both Nazism and Maoism were, formally, state religions"

Really? Is this what Hitler and Mao declared? Or was the religion label given later on by those wishing to separate their ideology from the failure of those two? Maybe i am wrong. Show me the proof that Hitler or Mao declared them "State Religions" and i will accept it. I think what you will find is neither identified their ideologies with religions. On the contrary.. But hey show me the proof.

Do you have any evidence to support this belief?

Well i am unable to decide which religion is currently in control of the planet. But the one that is consistently promoted as being level-headed and at the top of the pack is the one that by their own definition, subscribes to no religion. No i don't have any secret documents that declare it quite as plainly as i am here in this thread.

Can you provide a specific example?

I can't be bothered because I've already read the bottom of this message where you declare your belief that it's all a crazy projection of mine hahaha. But i guess that could be an example no?

Although there may be individuals who believe as you claim they do, I think this is an aberration rather than a widespread attitude. I suspect much of this thread has been psychological projection on your part.

It's not widespread. I never said it was widespread. It's driven by a bunch of hard cores. Like most dominate ideologies. And then mindlessly supported by the sheep that buy into the water-downed belief system.

I suspect your inability to acknowledge the dominant ideology is a psychological projection implanted by the dominant meme itself.

Originally posted by dominicus
Im predicting that soon will happen a news worthy event which will be an atheist commiting a violent act against a person who is not atheist.

This type of crime has already happened. Athiests in the U.S are quite a small margin of people though.

Hate crimes have happened to Athiests also. They account for being the victim of a couple of percent of hate crimes per year in the US.

Originally posted by rwfresh
I can't be bothered because I've already read the bottom of this message where you declare your belief that it's all a crazy projection of mine hahaha. But i guess that could be an example no?

You really do seem to be talking about new athiests. Your original post was basically saying 'there are new athiests and they want religion dead'. They're not exactly a shadowy organisation. They're very vocal and public. That's the point to them.

Originally posted by rwfresh
It's not just happening naturally. It's happening because a large group of twisted individuals believe this agnostic ideology SO much they are willing to do anything to ensure it's total domination..

Are atheists bad? No. Just the one's who believe other ideologies need to be eliminated for the world to evolve or be "saved". Diversity is the cornerstone of evolution but the religion of science believes in total domination with 1 survivor. Science tells us that lack of diversity is death, an evolutionary dead-end.

This type of athiest has been around for centuries and is naturally reoccuring. Especially in university environments. As far as I know they're not a massive movement mainly because athiests really have no reason to meet up other than to oppose other people.

Its been a problem with the athiest movement in general that they have no reason in general to be proud of what they are or do anything with their numbers. The belief that they are suddenly becoming organised I think is flawed given the 'new athiest' movement has been around for about a decade and really doesn't have any significant victories beyond a few celebrity writers and a picture of a spaghetti monster.

I think it's very fair for people to ask you for examples where this movement is happening and why we should be scared of it. I'm as terrified as anyone of seeing Richard Dawkins on a late night chat show or the loveable rotound Chris Hitchens (RIP) on Letterman reruns but I kind of find it a little odd to claim that this movement is violent or implicatively dangerous when ultimately the question remains ... what have they done?

reply to post by Pinke


Atheists are a sect of the belief system. The people getting together to chat about abolishing religions in universities aren't the one's ruling the world although they are definitely the future. I think science of religion is dangerous because i believe it to be the ACTUAL dominate belief system currently ruling the world. I don't think saying their belief system is atheism is accurate enough, although it is part of it.

While we are all told the current wars are being fought over religious beliefs and religious fanaticism i believe it's the people propagating this information who are actually the dominant ones. They do not actually believe in any of the old religions. They have a different perspective which has been molded and cultivated through their belief system. Is Bush REALLY a Christian? Barack Obama? Is Netanyahu REALLY a practicing Jew? What about the people who run the world banks? Are they Christians? They all talk out the side of their mouth for support. That is why we all get the distinct feeling they think we are stupid sheep.

They all definitely operate on a belief system and the similarities in their apparent beliefs allow them to do the evil they do. We are over there in the middle east killing a lot of people right now. I really don't think we are over there killing people because we are moral Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists who want to help. And i don't believe Netanyahu is threatening war with Iran because Judaism must dominate the Ayatollah. I am suggesting their belief system is one that is grounded in Malthusian Darwinism. They truly believe in finite resources and that they must dominate the lesser humans as a matter of evolution. The problem is humans aren't the only hand in the game of evolution and killing ourselves off leaves us in the history books of evolution. It's cancerous thinking mistaken as truth.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
OK, here's couple for you sciencey religionists:

Why is the Sun's corona far hotter than the Sun itself? Good luck explaining that one. This proves that the THEORIES about the Sun being a ball of nuclear fusion are totally wrong.

On what do you base your idea of the Big Bang? Where does that nonsense come from? Redshift? Explain, "scientists":.

Black holes? A theoretical object which has never been observed. Gravity so strong nothing, not even light, can escape it. Except when sometimes it shoots stuff out for thousands of lightyears. Explain.

Scientists have several mechanisms by which the Corona, above the surface of the Sun, is hotter than the layers immediately underneath it. Firstly, the core of the Sun is believed to be far hotter (somewhere in the region of 15 million degrees Kelvin) and this is due to the fusion energies, compressional force, friction and possibly also electrodynamics. As you go out from the core, the temperature drops as the pressure drops to the point of it reaching as low as 5,700 degrees Kelvin. Then, above the surface of the Sun is an area that is almost invisible but paradoxically, the temperature rises again to about 1-2 million degrees Kelvin. The actual heat output of the Sun, averaged by volume is a quite low 0.032 Watts per cubic meter. For comparison, the human body puts out about 1400 Watts per cubic meter, but the Sun is so huge, the cumulative output creates a lot of heat. Most of the Sun is actually opaque and so much of the heat remains trapped and insulated from adjacent areas below its photosphere (visible surface). The higher temperature of the Corona (the invisible layer above the visible surface of the Sun) is thought to be largely hotter due to the completion of the ionization process of Helium that occurs in that region. This causes the area to be thermally insulative, but transparent, which concentrates the radiated heat from the Sun and holds it in place. The greenhouse effect on Earth concentrates heat by similar principles. This Corona is also very turbulent and very variable in temperature and this is because as an ionised plasma, it is highly driven by the unstable magnetic fields at the surface of the Sun. The magnetic reconnection forces (part of the sunspot/solar flare/CME process) adds significant heat to this outer layer.

The idea for the Big Bang was initially suggested from the red-shift that Edwin Hubble had initially observed and noted but there are now many significant observations independent of red-shift, that point to the universe being a singularity, sometime close to 14.2 billion years ago. Probably the most significant (but not the only proof) is the observations of the cosmic background at microwave frequencies gathered by the Wilson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This showed that the evenness of energy of the background of space indicated that places now vastly distant were once in contact and therefore the universe must have expanded away from its initial state.

Finally, although we cannot directly observe black holes, we are able to see phenomena that is conformant to that theoretical idea and cannot be explained by other known processes. As you noted in your post, something is shooting out matter (or x-rays & gamma rays) in a way not explainable otherwise. The primary way that we identify the location of a black hole is that we seen significant gravitational effects but cannot see the significant mass that must be causing it. Another way is from the x-rays and gamma rays that occur due to the tidal stretching of matter that occurs near, but outside of the event horizon (some of which may be Hawking radiation). We cannot 'see' the wind or radio waves but that doesn't stop us from knowing that they exist physically.

Science has no answers that are not unshakeable by new ideas and evidence. Science is a process of working to improve what we know, by increments. In most cases, science builds on previous ideas and does not actually disprove them, but instead completes our understanding.

To a certain extent science is the process by which we test paradigms, judging if they are true (as far as we can tell). There are similar explorations in both philosophy, religion or just about anywhere you may employ the mind.

In no case is our knowledge complete or perfect.

Originally posted by chr0naut


Scientists have several mechanisms by which the Corona, above the surface of the Sun, is hotter than the layers immediately underneath it. Firstly, the core of the Sun is believed to be far hotter (somewhere in the region of 15 million degrees Kelvin) and this is due to the fusion energies, compressional force, friction and possibly also electrodynamics. As you go out from the core, the temperature drops as the pressure drops to the point of it reaching as low as 5,700 degrees Kelvin. Then, above the surface of the Sun is an area that is almost invisible but paradoxically, the temperature rises again to about 1-2 million degrees Kelvin. The actual heat output of the Sun, averaged by volume is a quite low 0.032 Watts per cubic meter. For comparison, the human body puts out about 1400 Watts per cubic meter, but the Sun is so huge, the cumulative output creates a lot of heat. Most of the Sun is actually opaque and so much of the heat remains trapped and insulated from adjacent areas below its photosphere (visible surface). The higher temperature of the Corona (the invisible layer above the visible surface of the Sun) is thought to be largely hotter due to the completion of the ionization process of Helium that occurs in that region. This causes the area to be thermally insulative, but transparent, which concentrates the radiated heat from the Sun and holds it in place. The greenhouse effect on Earth concentrates heat by similar principles. This Corona is also very turbulent and very variable in temperature and this is because as an ionised plasma, it is highly driven by the unstable magnetic fields at the surface of the Sun. The magnetic reconnection forces (part of the sunspot/solar flare/CME process) adds significant heat to this outer layer.

The idea for the Big Bang was initially suggested from the red-shift that Edwin Hubble had initially observed and noted but there are now many significant observations independent of red-shift, that point to the universe being a singularity, sometime close to 14.2 billion years ago. Probably the most significant (but not the only proof) is the observations of the cosmic background at microwave frequencies gathered by the Wilson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This showed that the evenness of energy of the background of space indicated that places now vastly distant were once in contact and therefore the universe must have expanded away from its initial state.

Finally, although we cannot directly observe black holes, we are able to see phenomena that is conformant to that theoretical idea and cannot be explained by other known processes. As you noted in your post, something is shooting out matter (or x-rays & gamma rays) in a way not explainable otherwise. The primary way that we identify the location of a black hole is that we seen significant gravitational effects but cannot see the significant mass that must be causing it. Another way is from the x-rays and gamma rays that occur due to the tidal stretching of matter that occurs near, but outside of the event horizon (some of which may be Hawking radiation). We cannot 'see' the wind or radio waves but that doesn't stop us from knowing that they exist physically.

Science has no answers that are not unshakeable by new ideas and evidence. Science is a process of working to improve what we know, by increments. In most cases, science builds on previous ideas and does not actually disprove them, but instead completes our understanding.

To a certain extent science is the process by which we test paradigms, judging if they are true (as far as we can tell). There are similar explorations in both philosophy, religion or just about anywhere you may employ the mind.

In no case is our knowledge complete or perfect.

edit on 21/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

You are obviously not a follower of the Religion of Science. Heathen. Kidding.

Your message provides contrast between Science and the "religion of science". "religion of science" followers do not like to imagine that the scientific method itself is a 'work in progress'. Holding to it in a literal way, in spite of observational evidence demonstrating the potential that it maybe evolving along with the evidence it's producing.

Real science, the way you describe it is without a dominating quality. It is not an ideology but a product and tool of an open and free one.

Even if you don't understand these scientific explanations, they seem to make sense.

But because you don't know, or cant prove them, and yet you might agree with them would mean you are taking them on faith, which makes your scientific beliefs a belief.

I guess i am saying that i have never heard of these fundamental science religions until i read this forum page.

Are they the makers of "the universe" as seen on the discovery channel or what ?
If i were to look them up on utube what would i be looking for ?

Originally posted by DJW001
Objective observation and analysis is the best way to determine whether an action is effective.

Could you please show me how to make an objective observation of data? I find this to be a difficult thing to do. However, I do take solace in the idea that because of this difficulty, science exists.

Furthermore, could you show me how to make objective inferences and interpretations (or analysis) off of the data observed? How do you do this without mingling the object of thought with the thinking subject?

As for the OP, I feel the scientific method isnt too shabby of a "core" of idealogy. With the caveat that it only applies to items that we know to look for, and know how to look for. The results of that method, however, are only further points to which the method can be applied and not necessarily static stepping stones in a body of water on which all further stepping stones must conform. Sometimes you just have to get wet.

What do we call followers of this "scientism?" Scientismists? I dont like "new atheist."