Separate the idea that a "creator" has to be in our image or needs to be benevolent, there is no evidence of either of these two properties in the universe. Lets merely make the burden of proof intelligent design.
Maths is the abstract language of intelligent design it is the eternal language of the universe, it has and always will exist because 1+2 = 3 with our without the universe. The universe operates according to fundamental mathematically predictable principals that are provable, therefore there is intelligent design.
The dogma we must get past is the pollution of intelligent design by those who seek to corrupt it with morality or an outside identifiable source, it has neither it is neutral. Yet that intelligent design permeates the universe there can be no doubt or 1 + 2 would not always equal 3.
Topic: Is science a religion? - page 40. (Read 47434 times)
I do think that Science is a way of thinking, search for answers using the senses and its tools to gather data, verify iits validity, falsifying it at the same time, and once established it becomes truth.
For me Science is not a religion since Science is simply facts and the search of new ideas that eventually will become fact. Organized religion does not have that quest for facts since it already claims to have established facts according to their books.
For me Science is not a religion since Science is simply facts and the search of new ideas that eventually will become fact. Organized religion does not have that quest for facts since it already claims to have established facts according to their books.
Science as a religion is considered by only few exceptions who are mentally not prepared to face anything rather than invention and research.
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.
So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.
Is something available for you to take?
If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.
If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.
If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.
Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.
Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?
Again, you lend a phrase a meaning that no one else would give it. In English, the phrase "I take it" simply means "I understand that such and such is the case".
So, to paraphrase in simpler terms:
Is your response to my question ("do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?") "Yes", then?
Since you can't seem to figure out the answer from the answer, there really is no way to answer.
I "can't seem to figure out the answer from the answer" because you made no answer. While you avoid the question, it makes everyone reading this understand how manipulative you are. For a change of pace, you could just try being honest.
Nobody can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Religion and science are changing through the centuries. As well as our attitude to them.
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.
So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.
Is something available for you to take?
If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.
If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.
If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.
Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.
Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?
Again, you lend a phrase a meaning that no one else would give it. In English, the phrase "I take it" simply means "I understand that such and such is the case".
So, to paraphrase in simpler terms:
Is your response to my question ("do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?") "Yes", then?
Since you can't seem to figure out the answer from the answer, there really is no way to answer.
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.
So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.
Is something available for you to take?
If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.
If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.
If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.
Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.
Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?
Again, you lend a phrase a meaning that no one else would give it. In English, the phrase "I take it" simply means "I understand that such and such is the case".
So, to paraphrase in simpler terms:
Is your response to my question ("do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?") "Yes", then?
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.
So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.
Is something available for you to take?
If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.
If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.
If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.
Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.
Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.
So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
What's wrong, failed to meet your target quota this month for new
“Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes — I mean the universe — but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written”― Galileo Galile
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.
Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.
I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.
Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".
Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.
Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?
It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.
I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.
Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."
You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.
I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.
Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".
You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?
Is all that what we were discussing? I didn't realize that we were discussing that. Since I didn't realize it then, maybe we still aren't discussing the same thing.
I think one of the things we are discussing is how you attribute thoughts and ideas to me that are not mine. You make them up and say that such is what I think. Since you do this on a regular basis, you have a religion of deception, and there is no real use even discussing things with you. This doesn't mean that I won't play the discussing game with you, by discussing some things, but you seem to intentionally distort the things that we are discussing.
Anyone who wants to see that atheism is religion need only look at how adamantly atheists express the things that they believe... or the things that they believe that they don't believe. Where does one look for all this adamant expressing? Google searches on "atheism."
The next thing to do is look up all the definitions of "religion" in all the dictionaries that are available. When one does this, it becomes very evident that atheism is a form of religion.
Okay. Now you have it, point blank. Is any more discussion necessary? No! All that is necessary is research. Have at it.
And so, as I explained, by a similar use of "definition" you are almost completely atheist. Your use of word definitions makes that a possible conclusion.
So, no --- no more discussion required. I hope the atheists welcome you into their ranks with open arms and ignore the teeny one god you do believe in for the many many more you don't.
You forget one little strategic area in this kind of thinking. False gods are not God.
No -- to an atheist all gods are equal, and I've shown that by your logic you are essentially atheist.
Try again!
Wrong! The thing that atheists do is to attempt to hide the truth that God exists in such a way that they can get around believing this simplest of truths.
Since there is only one God, and all the rest are idols, there are no gods that atheists can assume are the same.
The atheist, being his own god, has turned himself into an idol for himself. If he hadn't, he would look at the scientific proof that God exists, and simply accept the fact of it.
Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?
Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.
I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.
Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".
Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.
Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?
It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.
I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.
Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."
You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.
I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.
Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".
You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?
Is all that what we were discussing? I didn't realize that we were discussing that. Since I didn't realize it then, maybe we still aren't discussing the same thing.
I think one of the things we are discussing is how you attribute thoughts and ideas to me that are not mine. You make them up and say that such is what I think. Since you do this on a regular basis, you have a religion of deception, and there is no real use even discussing things with you. This doesn't mean that I won't play the discussing game with you, by discussing some things, but you seem to intentionally distort the things that we are discussing.
Anyone who wants to see that atheism is religion need only look at how adamantly atheists express the things that they believe... or the things that they believe that they don't believe. Where does one look for all this adamant expressing? Google searches on "atheism."
The next thing to do is look up all the definitions of "religion" in all the dictionaries that are available. When one does this, it becomes very evident that atheism is a form of religion.
Okay. Now you have it, point blank. Is any more discussion necessary? No! All that is necessary is research. Have at it.
And so, as I explained, by a similar use of "definition" you are almost completely atheist. Your use of word definitions makes that a possible conclusion.
So, no --- no more discussion required. I hope the atheists welcome you into their ranks with open arms and ignore the teeny one god you do believe in for the many many more you don't.
You forget one little strategic area in this kind of thinking. False gods are not God.
No -- to an atheist all gods are equal, and I've shown that by your logic you are essentially atheist.
Try again!
Wrong! The thing that atheists do is to attempt to hide the truth that God exists in such a way that they can get around believing this simplest of truths.
Since there is only one God, and all the rest are idols, there are no gods that atheists can assume are the same.
The atheist, being his own god, has turned himself into an idol for himself. If he hadn't, he would look at the scientific proof that God exists, and simply accept the fact of it.
Science is not a religion. However, we may see something similar in them, because they both have their mythology. The Big Bang may have occured in the past. However, it doesn't mean that the way people talk about it is not mythologocal.
Science does not have a mythology, scientists do. Science is a set of methodologies that produce adequate knowledge, but there are no people that could encompass all the levels of knowledge adequately. 
Science is not a religion. However, we may see something similar in them, because they both have their mythology. The Big Bang may have occured in the past. However, it doesn't mean that the way people talk about it is not mythologocal.
Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.
I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.
Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".
Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.
Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?
It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.
I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.
Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."
You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.
I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.
Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".
You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?
Is all that what we were discussing? I didn't realize that we were discussing that. Since I didn't realize it then, maybe we still aren't discussing the same thing.
I think one of the things we are discussing is how you attribute thoughts and ideas to me that are not mine. You make them up and say that such is what I think. Since you do this on a regular basis, you have a religion of deception, and there is no real use even discussing things with you. This doesn't mean that I won't play the discussing game with you, by discussing some things, but you seem to intentionally distort the things that we are discussing.
Anyone who wants to see that atheism is religion need only look at how adamantly atheists express the things that they believe... or the things that they believe that they don't believe. Where does one look for all this adamant expressing? Google searches on "atheism."
The next thing to do is look up all the definitions of "religion" in all the dictionaries that are available. When one does this, it becomes very evident that atheism is a form of religion.
Okay. Now you have it, point blank. Is any more discussion necessary? No! All that is necessary is research. Have at it.
And so, as I explained, by a similar use of "definition" you are almost completely atheist. Your use of word definitions makes that a possible conclusion.
So, no --- no more discussion required. I hope the atheists welcome you into their ranks with open arms and ignore the teeny one god you do believe in for the many many more you don't.
You forget one little strategic area in this kind of thinking. False gods are not God.
No -- to an atheist all gods are equal, and I've shown that by your logic you are essentially atheist.
Try again!
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 science is not a religion because it is the way to discover the master piece of our Mighty CreatorI 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.
science might be the way proving all God works for this world but eventually due to intelligence of
human being instead of giving all the praise to God after discovering His creation Science itself build
another language to define what it is,.
Nope...
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho
Quote
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho
Science is based sometime on happy (or horrible) random accidents, or on someone's intuition. Some go through a lifetime of mockery to be proved right, or long time after their passing.
Science is not pure or right. Science is alive. Things we took for granted for centuries disappear from our collective mind after each breakthrough, becoming the new truth, the new belief.
Although most scientists won't admit they believe in a superior being, they will be the first to admit they need to have an unshakeable faith in themselves. That faith is the engine that makes them push and push and push.
Before the first strike of chalk on a blackboard one needs that light in their brain and believe in its unfathomably deep wisdom.
Is the science settled?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
Anyone who wants to see what the field of science really is, sincerely, with a questioning mind, Youtube search on "Dr. Don Patton" and watch some of his videos. Yes, they can be long. But they are interesting, and Dr. Patton does a very good job of explaining things at a level that almost anyone can understand.
Essentially, the thing that Dr. Patton shows over and over is how great men of science - many of them atheists - in their honest moments, state or write, that much of the basics of science is simply, arbitrarily decided upon ideas, and not really science at all.
Scientists themselves know that the idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is completely guesswork. The people who don't know this are the average everyday common people who have been lied to by politics and the media, and who have naively accepted the lies because they don't suspect that anyone, especially scientists, would lie to them like this.
Dr. Patton shows the books and the quotes by scientists that express that some of the greatest foundations of modern science are "things" that scientist have arbitrarily decided were true, when in reality, there is no way that they could be true.
Now, let me say that politics and the media, including some of the scientists, are attacking Dr. Patton one way or another because he is revealing the truth about them. You can listen to them and their attacks, or you can listen to the points that Dr. Patton makes.
The points prove themselves out. They prove themselves to be true so that it wouldn't matter who brought up the points, Dr. Patton or anybody else. Listen to the points before you judge.
And yet Dr. Patton's opinions are not science.
So what? Dr. Patton and others show that the opinions of scientists aren't science. Nobody was talking opinions until you brought it up.
Nope...
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho
Quote
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho
Science is based sometime on happy (or horrible) random accidents, or on someone's intuition. Some go through a lifetime of mockery to be proved right, or long time after their passing.
Science is not pure or right. Science is alive. Things we took for granted for centuries disappear from our collective mind after each breakthrough, becoming the new truth, the new belief.
Although most scientists won't admit they believe in a superior being, they will be the first to admit they need to have an unshakeable faith in themselves. That faith is the engine that makes them push and push and push.
Before the first strike of chalk on a blackboard one needs that light in their brain and believe in its unfathomably deep wisdom.
Is the science settled?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
Anyone who wants to see what the field of science really is, sincerely, with a questioning mind, Youtube search on "Dr. Don Patton" and watch some of his videos. Yes, they can be long. But they are interesting, and Dr. Patton does a very good job of explaining things at a level that almost anyone can understand.
Essentially, the thing that Dr. Patton shows over and over is how great men of science - many of them atheists - in their honest moments, state or write, that much of the basics of science is simply, arbitrarily decided upon ideas, and not really science at all.
Scientists themselves know that the idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is completely guesswork. The people who don't know this are the average everyday common people who have been lied to by politics and the media, and who have naively accepted the lies because they don't suspect that anyone, especially scientists, would lie to them like this.
Dr. Patton shows the books and the quotes by scientists that express that some of the greatest foundations of modern science are "things" that scientist have arbitrarily decided were true, when in reality, there is no way that they could be true.
Now, let me say that politics and the media, including some of the scientists, are attacking Dr. Patton one way or another because he is revealing the truth about them. You can listen to them and their attacks, or you can listen to the points that Dr. Patton makes.
The points prove themselves out. They prove themselves to be true so that it wouldn't matter who brought up the points, Dr. Patton or anybody else. Listen to the points before you judge.
And yet Dr. Patton's opinions are not science.
Jump to: