Topic: Is science a religion? - page 12. (Read 47459 times)

Religion isn't progressive. Science is.

Religion stays as is since the day its created. Science develops in time.

Religion is religion, science is science.

Science biatch!

While science is explaining things, science isn't moving fast enough for many scientists and "politicians" who have an agenda. Science theories abound that will never be proven true or false, fact or fiction, in many lifetimes.

Because these theories can't be proven, but because the scientists want them to be true, scientists apply probability to the theories. They suggest that the odds of the theory being true are greater than not being true. Based on this, they call the theories fact when they are not know to be factual.

When somebody does this, he is taking an idea and turning it into a religion. Therefore, religion isn't disappearing. Rather, a new "science religion" is taking over.

People need to realize that if science is in theory form, and if it is believed to be fact when it is only in theory form, it is just the same as any religion, because it is not known to be fact, but is only believed to be fact.

Now religion is gradually disappearing, because much can be explained with the help of science. The main thing is not to impose your opinion on anyone, you need to respect someone else's choice.

As far as i am concern most people nowadays worship science. It doesn't really matter about those things besides it is your own beliefs, lets just respect one another's ideology.

Yet, you can't disconnect the brain and mind from the heart and soul without destroying the person. Because of this, both science and religion are connected throughout the person.

Religion has to do with guessing, guesstimating, and even estimating, based on ideas that are or seem solid.

Science has to do with solidity.

Science theory is guessing based on things that are solid(ish). This means that if you believe science theory to be true, you are treating science as a religion. Why? Because, if science theory were known to be true and factual, it wouldn't be science theory. Then it would be science law... something solid and factual.

This means that believing things like big bang, relativity, evolution, black hole theory, etc., to be true, is actually becoming religious about science. Why? Because nobody knows that they are factual. There could be other reasons why things exist as they do than these. If these were factual, scientists would have declared them fact - science law - long ago.

Among the listed theories in the previous paragraph, evolution has been proven to be entirely incorrect long before it was even suggested. In what way? By cause and effect.

Cause and effect is all-pervading in the universe. We have never found anything that operates outside of cause and effect. This means that random beneficial mutations are not random, but are really programmed into the universe by way of cause and effect. This was entirely known with Newton and before. Isaac Newton was born and died long before Charles Darwin.

The only reason why evolution remains as theory is that a bunch of jokers scream and throw fits any time someone suggests that the evolution be dropped as theory.

Science is the relationship of his brain, mind and mind
Whereas religion is related to heart and soul

^^^^^ However, science proves God, which shows that it is not a religion.   

In the last century, religion very closely began to cooperate with science, and the whole point is that people have become more educated and have overshadowed the head, as it was in the Middle Ages, will not work. The Church now adheres to the tendency that everything the Bible says can be confirmed by science. But it seems to me that on the day when humanity meets the first stranger, religion can fail.

Now you are lying. You are taking things out of context.

I said, "Science in and of itself is not a religion," https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14633760.

Religion is something that people do. If there are people who make science to be their religion, then for them it is a religion. However, science in and of itself is never a religion.

Since you are trying to turn science fact into religion simply because science fact proves that God exists, without religion as any part of the science equation, you are trying to make science into a religion for yourself.

You keep making claims that science is a religion......

I have described you perfectly.

Now you are talking as though science is a religion. So, it is you making the assumptions, because as a religion, that is what science becomes, right?

I suggest everyone posting to this thread and any others about science vs. faith read "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.  It is fantastic.

BADecker's evidence in a nutshell......

Link 1
Machine like nature of the universe.
Cause and effect
Nations looking for God?
BADecker believes that all machines are ultimately the result of a god.

Link 2
Cause and effect

Link 3
Cause and effect

Link 4
Cause and effect

Cause and effect rebuttal
If cause and effect is proof of a god, then who made god? Was it god's god? And who made god's god? was it god's god's god? This is a cycle of infinity. This is no proof.
BADecker simply applies an assumption that  this a god. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC7Ttc9g1u8   

Machines like nature of the universe rebuttal
BADecker believes that machines need a maker and that maker has to be a god. The reality of this is that evolution has caused the changes. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html   

BADecker then claims that this is only theory. The reality is that science is disproving/proving all theories  we (humans) have believed for years. That is the nature of science. For it to be tested by others. People like BADecker will continually use their same argument of assumptions to state there is no proof that god does not exist. The reality is that history has shown that early Vikings believed  "lightning flashed whenever Thor threw his hammer". Science has proven this incorrect.

Nations looking for god rebuttal
BADecker claims that people are looking for how the universe was made. This is true. However, BADecker then claims that because the answers are still not found, the answer must be a god. WRONG.... this is not proof. This is an assumption again on BADecker's part. Science is unlocking secrets every day. Religion is being disproven daily and BADecker continues to hold on to his mindless views.

BADecker's links are all assumptions. Problem is that he believes them and only him. That's why other's don't argue his point. He is a caged animal and attacks when cornered with no semblance of proof.

Do you even science fact:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380 ?

Not really, but environmentalism has many similarities with religion. There is the original sin, climate-deniers and so on.

Environmentalism has "become a religion" and does not pay enough attention to facts.

Science will always have only partial answers. The deeper we get into science, the less complete the answers will always be. Why? Ultimately, science should show the knowledge of everything. But nobody can maintain such a great amount of knowledge in himself.

Nor is there a way to express all that knowledge other than the simple fact of knowing that it exists. Why? Because all knowledge is already is expressed within the existence of that which exists. To express it in some other way would be to make more "stuff" than that which exists, just to maintain all the knowledge. This means that the other "stuff" would have to have additional knowledge within itself just to exist. in other words, all scientific knowledge exists as the substance of everything, already.

This shows us that we are religious beings. We are not able to find all knowledge - all science = all knowledge = the existence of everything. The more knowledge we have, the less we have the ability to find out more. We will always need religion to maintain ourselves in living without complete knowledge.

According to John Hedley Brooke all these are due to a huge misunderstanding that starts from the wrong definition of what is religion and what is science. This misunderstanding is fueled the distrust and lack of respect between the two sides. That is, religion is not the route search of the objective truth - that which science seeks - but the communication path with the supernatural, that may we think and many times these are complementary forces each answering in different human needs.

BSDecker is like a cornered animal.  Bites whenever he gets a chance.

He attacks anyone who tries to pop his bubble.  Don't take it personally.

He is very insecure and tries to stick to his half-backed, developed in the church basement 'proofs' of God existence.

He is incapable of critical thinking and will defend his Bronze Age zombie fantasy until he dies.

I think it's time to reconcile with the fact that God does not have a scientific explanation, it's only the servants of the church who are trying to find an explanation to attract more people to the faith, otherwise more and more people become atheists. It is still difficult for me to answer the question of how God and science can exist together.