Topic: Is science a religion? - page 15. (Read 47459 times)
Religion is faith, and science is the result of reason. Theology is the science of religion. It seems to me that in the future religion is doomed to disappearance, because people will be able to announce everything with the help of science.
No - Absolutely not.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Science and religion are generally two different things, and between them there is a very large abyss. Lately, religion is trying to keep up with science, because humanity is becoming more educated, so that in order not to set people against themselves, the church decided to go this way. But science is an exact thing and does not give concessions.Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Religion is NOT trying to keep up with science. Religion is as it always has been, except for the following little detail.
Science has grown by leaps and bounds. People who like science, wish that it would grow even farther. So they project the things they want to see in science, as though science has already proven those things, when science has not proven them. This is the way that people have made science an addition to religion.
Religious people are like people with a Down Syndrome. Everybody knows they are retarded but nobody dares to say it out laud.
One day, religions will be regarded as mental disorders. Maybe even treated with genetic treatments early on, at conception or shortly thereafter.
Just think of how retarded all the people are who talk against religion, but don't know that they are part of their own religion when doing so.
No - Absolutely not.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Science and religion are generally two different things, and between them there is a very large abyss. Lately, religion is trying to keep up with science, because humanity is becoming more educated, so that in order not to set people against themselves, the church decided to go this way. But science is an exact thing and does not give concessions.Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Religion is NOT trying to keep up with science. Religion is as it always has been, except for the following little detail.
Science has grown by leaps and bounds. People who like science, wish that it would grow even farther. So they project the things they want to see in science, as though science has already proven those things, when science has not proven them. This is the way that people have made science an addition to religion.
Religious people are like people with a Down Syndrome. Everybody knows they are retarded but nobody dares to say it out laud.
One day, religions will be regarded as mental disorders. Maybe even treated with genetic treatments early on, at conception or shortly thereafter.
No - Absolutely not.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Science and religion are generally two different things, and between them there is a very large abyss. Lately, religion is trying to keep up with science, because humanity is becoming more educated, so that in order not to set people against themselves, the church decided to go this way. But science is an exact thing and does not give concessions.Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Religion is NOT trying to keep up with science. Religion is as it always has been, except for the following little detail.
Science has grown by leaps and bounds. People who like science, wish that it would grow even farther. So they project the things they want to see in science, as though science has already proven those things, when science has not proven them. This is the way that people have made science an addition to religion.
Religious people are like people with a Down Syndrome. Everybody knows they are retarded but nobody dares to say it out laud.
One day, religions will be regarded as mental disorders. Maybe even treated with genetic treatments early on, at conception or shortly thereafter.
I wish this would start in the media and the universities. All these media and university people project science religion. How? They suggest to average people on the streets, that some science theories including big bang theory, black hole theory, evolution theory, relativity, etc. are fact. When average people start believing these unknowns to be fact, they are treating science as a religion.
It's about time that we base our religion and science and on facts. This doesn't mean that we need to have all the facts. But we need to recognize which things are facts and which are not.
The scientific facts of cause and effect, entropy, and complex universe prove the existence of God (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16961242). This means that God is a fact of both science and religion. From there we can start to prove which of the things that supposedly are said by God are really said by God. We can also start to prove which science theories are really factual, and should be elevated to the status of science law (science fact).
As it is, many hopeful people of both religion and science are projecting things that are not known to be fact as though they were fact.
NO THEY ARE NOT
theory, IS NOT FACT..UNTIL PROVEN TO BE SO..NOW PRAY TO THE WHEEL..IT ASK FOR PROOF..
God was once a theory now proven to be a lie ..
No - Absolutely not.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Science and religion are generally two different things, and between them there is a very large abyss. Lately, religion is trying to keep up with science, because humanity is becoming more educated, so that in order not to set people against themselves, the church decided to go this way. But science is an exact thing and does not give concessions.Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Religion is NOT trying to keep up with science. Religion is as it always has been, except for the following little detail.
Science has grown by leaps and bounds. People who like science, wish that it would grow even farther. So they project the things they want to see in science, as though science has already proven those things, when science has not proven them. This is the way that people have made science an addition to religion.
Religious people are like people with a Down Syndrome. Everybody knows they are retarded but nobody dares to say it out laud.
One day, religions will be regarded as mental disorders. Maybe even treated with genetic treatments early on, at conception or shortly thereafter.
I wish this would start in the media and the universities. All these media and university people project science religion. How? They suggest to average people on the streets, that some science theories including big bang theory, black hole theory, evolution theory, relativity, etc. are fact. When average people start believing these unknowns to be fact, they are treating science as a religion.
It's about time that we base our religion and science and on facts. This doesn't mean that we need to have all the facts. But we need to recognize which things are facts and which are not.
The scientific facts of cause and effect, entropy, and complex universe prove the existence of God (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16961242). This means that God is a fact of both science and religion. From there we can start to prove which of the things that supposedly are said by God are really said by God. We can also start to prove which science theories are really factual, and should be elevated to the status of science law (science fact).
As it is, many hopeful people of both religion and science are projecting things that are not known to be fact as though they were fact.
Badecker if your wondering why JESUS is the wheel ? some bible logic for you
Jesus got around so does a wheel 
Jesus got around so does a wheel
If people want to make science a religion then HAPPY DAYS 
.
Just remember science goes by fact ..SO NO MAKING SHIT UP..
A FLAME COULD BE YOUR GOD..SO PRAY TO THE FLAME..
When man started to make fire then science was born
And then the WHEEL could be like jesus ..
The flame is god And Jesus is the wheel
Now let us pray oh wheel i would like the ISLAM TO STOP
.Just remember science goes by fact ..SO NO MAKING SHIT UP..
A FLAME COULD BE YOUR GOD..SO PRAY TO THE FLAME..
When man started to make fire then science was born
And then the WHEEL could be like jesus ..
The flame is god And Jesus is the wheel
Now let us pray oh wheel i would like the ISLAM TO STOP
No - Absolutely not.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Science and religion are generally two different things, and between them there is a very large abyss. Lately, religion is trying to keep up with science, because humanity is becoming more educated, so that in order not to set people against themselves, the church decided to go this way. But science is an exact thing and does not give concessions.Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Religion is NOT trying to keep up with science. Religion is as it always has been, except for the following little detail.
Science has grown by leaps and bounds. People who like science, wish that it would grow even farther. So they project the things they want to see in science, as though science has already proven those things, when science has not proven them. This is the way that people have made science an addition to religion.
Science cant be a religion, but it's a part of my life my own religion)
Well here in my place, they say, Science is more on theories, Religion is more on homilies. Science based their belief on theories by using mathematical statements as a proof, Religion based their belief on writings written by the disciples of Jesus Christ.
Homilies can stand forever, because they are conjecture. Theories should be dropped as theories when it is found that they will never be able to be proven - like big bang theory.
The interesting thing about the Bible is, nothing in it has ever been proven false. There are only the things that are proven true, and the things that haven't been proven, yet.
Bible is much stronger than science.
Almost everything in the Bible has been proven false.
- Earth and universe were not created in 6 days
- Earth is not 6000 years old
- Earth is a sphere, not a flat plane supported on pillars
- Space is not filled with waters above the dome
- human death is not a reversible process
- humans were not created from dirt, we are animals that evolved from apes
- women were not created from a rib bone
- human population is not a result of one big incest, genetically impossible on the 6000 year old Bible timeline
Oh, and the most important one: There is no physical evidence of God. No sane person ever saw or heard God.
None of the things that you have said has been proven by you. Nor do you understand the proofs that others have suggested that they have for any of the things you have said. Because of this, science is a religion for you, even if it is not a religion for many who have relied on the proofs of science, with understanding that science barely shows anything at all, and that God is way beyond and above science.
The machine, nature, is the proof that God exists... proof that even the least intelligent of people can see around them. Isn't it about time that you increased your intelligence to that of the least intelligent?
All of the above have been proven by direct observations.
C'mon, even you, as uneducated as you are, cannot possibly believe that Earth is flat as described in the Bible.
No - Absolutely not.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Science and religion are generally two different things, and between them there is a very large abyss. Lately, religion is trying to keep up with science, because humanity is becoming more educated, so that in order not to set people against themselves, the church decided to go this way. But science is an exact thing and does not give concessions. Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
No - Absolutely not.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
Science must adhere to the nonreligious principals of re-examination, testing, demand for evidence and repletion of a single outcome.
(2,500 different religions, 3,700 different god groups, a clear correlation between place of birth and prominent religion... that's definitely not single)
In a nut shell:
Scientific method is NOT religious as it must reject the concept of belief, of faith, in order to avoid bias.
It should serve no purpose but knowledge.
Science is objective, science is open to challenge and change, science has no dogma.
You don't use the word "believe" with regards to scientific results.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong.
Scientific research, and conclusion are to be learned and understood.
Not believed.
Scientific method begins with observation, not conclusion.
If you use "god" as part of an assertion, that - for example - is already reaching a conclusion before researching.
So - No.
There is also no way to compare or reconcile between science and religion as the former is methodological and requires testing, examination, peer review, repeating results;
and the latter is...well... wishful thinking, faith.
The 2 do not mix, and have nothing to do with each other.
We are used to perceiving science positively, and we treat religion differently. Religion gives a person a knowledge of why he lives and how he should live. Science helps a person to develop and create something new.
Anybody who places science above God in his life, has created a science religion for himself.
We are used to perceiving science positively, and we treat religion differently. Religion gives a person a knowledge of why he lives and how he should live. Science helps a person to develop and create something new.
Science in and of itself is not a religion.
People who believe science theory to be fact, or
people who believe that science can fix all our woes, or
people who treat science like a god in their lives...
... are people who have developed a science religion for themselves.
People who believe science theory to be fact, or
people who believe that science can fix all our woes, or
people who treat science like a god in their lives...
... are people who have developed a science religion for themselves.
Science is not a religion it is a study based on educated and knowledgeable people who have the answers to every object in each case. So that the other scientists do not believe in God because all things are answers and explanations their study, the origin of things..., and how to come out or something.otherwise science is only study of universe ..therefore think of other people's religious scientist is atheist..
While many in main stream science claim to be atheist and believe in the Big Bang and the eventual Deep Freeze due to entropy. Is it not curious to consider that the very underpinnings of this belief is based on mathematics, was it too created in the big bang? if so how was it constructed? one digit at a time?
I think not it has always been there and will always remain its an eternal masterpiece that permeates every conceivable facet or reality yet in its self it is purely abstract. Without it nothing would exist, but it in itself it is nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is the language of the living universe. Its permutations are infinite, yet it did not grow, it has always been complete and eternal.
I think not it has always been there and will always remain its an eternal masterpiece that permeates every conceivable facet or reality yet in its self it is purely abstract. Without it nothing would exist, but it in itself it is nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is the language of the living universe. Its permutations are infinite, yet it did not grow, it has always been complete and eternal.
This is like asking yourself why your heart beats?why are you alive?we don't judge anyone's outlook in life but please don't be selfish on your thoughts
Science and all scientific discoveries are made through criticism, unbelief in the existing laws. Religion, on the other hand, forbids criticizing and doubting its laws - it's a sin.
Science cant be a religion, but it's a part of my life my own religion)
Well here in my place, they say, Science is more on theories, Religion is more on homilies. Science based their belief on theories by using mathematical statements as a proof, Religion based their belief on writings written by the disciples of Jesus Christ.
Homilies can stand forever, because they are conjecture. Theories should be dropped as theories when it is found that they will never be able to be proven - like big bang theory.
The interesting thing about the Bible is, nothing in it has ever been proven false. There are only the things that are proven true, and the things that haven't been proven, yet.
Bible is much stronger than science.
Almost everything in the Bible has been proven false.
- Earth and universe were not created in 6 days
- Earth is not 6000 years old
- Earth is a sphere, not a flat plane supported on pillars
- Space is not filled with waters above the dome
- human death is not a reversible process
- humans were not created from dirt, we are animals that evolved from apes
- women were not created from a rib bone
- human population is not a result of one big incest, genetically impossible on the 6000 year old Bible timeline
Oh, and the most important one: There is no physical evidence of God. No sane person ever saw or heard God.
I believe Bible is a collection of Bronze Age stories and moral codes. In today's world it is an utter nonsense. That is what I know.
Many people have a religion like that. Often, when they have this religion, it is based on a false understanding of what science is. If they understood science, they would understand that their religion was wrong.
It is not a religion. It is a fact. The book is a collection of scribblings of 40+ authors over the course of 2500 years. Finally assembled into a book in 325 ad.
Even today, there are many versions and translations. Some countries sanitize this book more than others. In the end, the Bronze Age moral wisdom shines through.
I believe Bible is a collection of Bronze Age stories and moral codes. In today's world it is an utter nonsense. That is what I know.
Many people have a religion like that. Often, when they have this religion, it is based on a false understanding of what science is. If they understood science, they would understand that their religion was wrong.
Jump to: