Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you are smarter than that post implied.

You don't give any evidence in that post of understanding the OP--even minimally.

Sigh.

Yes, that's your go-to argument here. Others don't understand your intent, because you framed it in such elevated, articulate language, and anyone who doesn't play the game your way is not intelligent.

BS, Bo. You know it; I know it; everyone reading knows it. What was it you pompously said about insulting people, earlier?

Or would that be "self-righteously"?

You're on the same rant you've been on for years that is so common among believers desperate to stem the tide of religions being seen as the outdated, outmoded, systems of thought that they are. "Science" is just another "belief" system.

Your contention is that because there are official scientific organizations, because there are people who defend science over ignorance, because there are folks who point out the rules of scientific method that these equate to churches, priests and dogma.

See? Your argument isn't "hard to understand" at all. It's just false, fallacious, ill-considered, nonsensical, overly general, vague, and meaningless.

Quite honestly, since you chose to make it personal, I've always thought you were smarter than to make such a ham handed argument and defend it with rank ad hominem.

I'd be the first to admit I was mistaken, in that thought.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Indigo5
I dated a girl for a few months who was an evangelical, science is hoax, follower. Really fascinating...She had all the literature...the whole if Dinosaurs were real then they would have been mentioned in the Bible etc. etc. She also argued that the scientific community was "evil" and hoaxing people to contradict the bible's telling of history and the timeline of creation..You can google "Dinosaur hoax" and discover an entire system of BS and believers built around it.

All I can say is ..I hope you find your way in life...same thing I told her..

I appreciate your concern because it seems genuine. Like I said before in this thread, I'm not denying any science or history.

Dinosaurs aren't usually carbon-dated because they're assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old, but when they are, the dates received are between 4,000-40,000 years old: Source.

Of course, this is some of the information that scientific priesthood refuse to acknowledge, so I understand why its so slow to dilute into public knowledge.

You are ill-informed or misinformed.

Dinosaurs are routinely dated by the material they are contained in..both below and above..as well as radiometric dating..

Not to interject reality or anything...but see here: www.factmonster.com...

I'll let you conclude what sort of animal that Grendel was; a bipedal, clawed, hard-skinned, huge-jawed, killing machine.

I conclude that Grendal was a fictional creature..

For sure, ancient discoveries of Dinosaur fossils sparked the imagination of ancient people who had no way of scientifically dating those bones, but no...Humans and Dinosaurs did not share the earth at the same time.

a reply to: Smellthecoffee

You've missed my point entirely.

Let me make it clearer: we are heading towards a world where you could be put in prison because of a tampered fingerprint or DNA even though you were a million miles away at the time...

People would believe the "science" over anything else.

Science is becoming an indisputable god.

originally posted by: rottensociety
a reply to: Gryphon66

I refer you to my previous post above yours.

"Science" is being used as a tool by those who wish to use it for their own ends and the foolish are conditioned into believing them. That sounds like most religions to me, does it not to you?"

Atheists defend their position as rigorous fanatics without a grain of concrete proof. "Science" has not given them that proof, it doesn't know for sure and yet they remain dogmatic. The Age of Science and Reason is as substantial as any myth.

Your post above mine? I see that you have an opinion on the matter. Is there any significance you'd like me to notice other than that?

I say that you're mistaken or intentionally misleading. The generalization that "science" is being used as "a tool" is of such illogical breadth as to be meaningless. Who is "using it for their own ends"? Who are "the foolish" that believe them?

These are mere characters in a sock-puppet show of your own devising. So?

Can you find occasions when science has been misused? Of course.

Can you find occasions when science has been misrepresented? Of course.

(Look at the thread we are in.)

Does the fact that science has been misused or misrepresented change the basic facts regarding the acceleration of gravity, or the weight of a hydrogen atom? Or the medical procedures saving lives utilizing antibiotics, artificial organs, and millions of compounds and methods that were only discovered by science?

Nope.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're still talking about "wet birds fly at night" instead of the points of the OP.

I didn't say anything about your personhood. I commented on the appearances of a post of yours.

You replied with an attack on my personhood.

Again, your assertions in the post I'm replying to have little to nothing to do with the assertions of the OP.

WHEN you reply to the assertions of the OP in a meaningful way, I'd be happy to respond more meaningfully.

originally posted by: rottensociety
a reply to: Smellthecoffee

You've missed my point entirely.

Let me make it clearer: we are heading towards a world where you could be put in prison because of a tampered fingerprint or DNA even though you were a million miles away at the time...

People would believe the "science" over anything else.

Science is becoming an indisputable god.

No.

A fairly poor attempt at conflating two completely different and incompatible systems.

One relies on a control-system written by middle-eastern goat-herders and cannot be changed, modified or argued over.

The other system relies on repeatable observations than can be modified, changed and argued over.

Can you guess which one is best?

I'll give you a clue - It's the system that doesn't rely on me asking an invisible sky-man for help.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're still talking about "wet birds fly at night" instead of the points of the OP.

I didn't say anything about your personhood. I commented on the appearances of a post of yours.

You replied with an attack on my personhood.

Again, your assertions in the post I'm replying to have little to nothing to do with the assertions of the OP.

WHEN you reply to the assertions of the OP in a meaningful way, I'd be happy to respond more meaningfully.

The meaningless phrase "Wet birds fly at night" is your own words, not anyone's in this discussion.

Several folks here have conclusively shown that your "points" in the OP are meaningless, biased nonsense. You've done nothing in response except to claim that you're not being understood and that you're playing a victim.

Weasel all you want about what you said. You made a statement about my intellect based on your intentional misreading of my post.

I, on the other hand, made a statement about what I had once believed about you, and my statement that I was obviously mistaken. Not about you at all, nor an "attack on your personhood." (What a pompous way to frame it.)

I have no interest in what you think might be a meaningful response ... you've demonstrated your agenda. I and others have pointed out the fallacious nature of your absurd claims. Your only response is "you're ignoring my points!"

Here is the downfall of your claims again in a nutshell:

You're implying that because there are formal organizations that promote science, that this is the same as a church or temple or ... what have you. Ridiculous. There are professional organizations in the motion picture industry, among electricians and even for garbage collectors ... is that also evidence of a "religion"? Of course not.

Yes, science does have rules (the scientific method). Does that mean that these rules are like the control mechanisms in any given religion (like say "The Ten Commandments") or whatnot? No, because the rules of science produce results that are the same over and over and over. No religious mumbo-jumbo has EVER reproduced a result.

Are there those that act as "gatekeepers"? Of course, you could phrase it that way. There are police officers, court officers and so forth that also act as "gatekeepers" for our laws and legal practices. Are they participating in a religion thereby? How about amusement parks that won't let kids under a certain height on a roller-coaster? Are they also some sort of arcane priesthood?

Assuredly not.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are missing my point. As I said in a previous post, scientific theories are being held as absolute "truth" before they are proven and over and above anything else. This is happening today.

originally posted by: rottensociety
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are missing my point. As I said in a previous post, scientific theories are being held as absolute "truth" before they are proven and over and above anything else. This is happening today.

And you're missing mine.

You're speaking in huge, incredibly vague generalities. You are not focusing on even a single specific, real-world example of your claims.

You're stating an opinion, not evidence. That's my point.

a reply to: rottensociety

I'm beginning to think it's more perverse than "missing the point" or having 0% understanding of the OP.

Sounds like they are determined to spew their own agenda regardless of what the OP is about.

Given that they seem to have 0% of an understanding of the major points of the OP, I fail to see what the point is in even attempting a dialogue with such perspectives.

Ahhh welll, I need to get out to my hobby table anyway.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: rottensociety

I'm beginning to think it's more perverse than "missing the point" or having 0% understanding of the OP.

Sounds like they are determined to spew their own agenda regardless of what the OP is about.

Given that they seem to have 0% of an understanding of the major points of the OP, I fail to see what the point is in even attempting a dialogue with such perspectives.

Ahhh welll, I need to get out to my hobby table anyway.

When you actually address any point made in rebuttal of your OP, you might have some standing.

As it is, you're merely avoiding the facts, and desperately trying to do anything to shed attention on the fact that your assertions are meaningless, if not absurd.

originally posted by: [post=20799192]rottensociety


From "Mythology" (Chambers Compact Reference):

"Science...presents itself as Truth, other than which there is none; it denies everything which cannot be encompassed within its sphere. The only justification for this exclusion is subjective. It is not founded on reason, it is irrational. It does, in fact, display a mythological nature.

So this is where you miss here...

Science does not "Deny everything which cannot be encompassed within its sphere."

It simply does not "Invent" things to fill the unknown and declare them truth.

Science allows for the unknown. Neither Denying nor fictionalizing...just exploring.

Mythology or Religion DOES invent things to fill the knowledge space "which cannot be encompassed within its sphere"..

And science "denies" that those things are absolute "truth".

a reply to: Indigo5

There are scientific theories that are being held up as "truth" in scientific journals when they are not true but only theories. This is a fact.

I have discussed this with people who are leaders in their field and I am repeating what they told me.

The Age of "Science and Reason" is not what you people think it is and that is all I have to say.

originally posted by: Indigo5

It simply does not "Invent" things to fill the unknown and declare them truth.

That is actually exactly what a theory is. In lieu of complete evidence, it is deemed fact. If the acolytes would stop bowing down they could see the non-objective nature of mainstream science.

wake me up the next time a religious text is submitted for peer review, lol

originally posted by: rottensociety
a reply to: Indigo5

There are scientific theories that are being held up as "truth" in scientific journals when they are not true but only theories. This is a fact.

Not to go all "scientific" on you...but you are declaring a "Fact" based on an insanely vague assertion and generalization.

If you want to discuss a specific theory that you believe is dishonestly being declared as "fact" by a fraudulent researcher...please be specific.

originally posted by: rottensociety
a reply to: Indigo5

There are scientific theories that are being held up as "truth" in scientific journals when they are not true but only theories. This is a fact.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific theories are the gold standard of understanding. Claiming a scientific theory is "only " a theory merely serves to illustrate your ignorance of exactly what a scientific theory is.

originally posted by: Indigo5

It simply does not "Invent" things to fill the unknown and declare them truth.

originally posted by: [post=20800361]cooperton

That is actually exactly what a theory is. In lieu of complete evidence, it is deemed fact. If the acolytes would stop bowing down they could see the non-objective nature of mainstream science.

Wow..uhh no..you need to look up the definition of theory.

originally posted by: rottensociety
There are scientific theories that are being held up as "truth" in scientific journals when they are not true but only theories. This is a fact.

Please detail these, and the Journal they are in....

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
wake me up the next time a religious text is submitted for peer review, lol

So you want to sleep forever?