Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: andrewh7

I have asked Holy Spirit to prompt a loved one on the other side of the globe to phone or email me within 24 hours and usually it has happened within 3-7 hours.

I do not doubt your intent->manifestation. But just because you can create a telepathic request that your loved one allowed to surface to consciousness it does not mean that other souls who are not Christian do not have this ability.

And if you meet information from unknown source that surface within you test the fruits of the information to be sure the information is mutualistic in behavior.

The reason I am not Christian is because Christian faith simplify and keep unnecessary mysteries that should be revealed and can be revealed if you seek and go down the rabbit hole.

Where Christians do keep mysteries on how it works. I am interested in theories that can explaining how the manifestation can be manifested thru for instance entanglement in quantum physics.

a reply to: reldra

I don't know what percentage of science has been morphed into a religion but it's more than 51%, imho.

Shoot . . . if some of the black ops type scientists are to be believed, a shocking chunk of the text book science for the last century has been deliberately falsified.

a reply to: cooperton

Both require belief beyond empirical evidence.

Now now! Tsk tsk.

You KNOW some of our 'beloved' current High Priests of the Religion of Scientism

were THERE at the Big Bang! They have verified such phenomena with their own pristine-pure-science-eyes.

/sarc

Welllllllll, they SOUND like they were there, awash in their Religious Fervor about it all! LOLOL.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
if some of the black ops type scientists are to be believed, a shocking chunk of the text book science for the last century has been deliberately falsified.

What "black ops type scientists" exactly? Source?

Exactly what part of the textbooks has "been deliberately falsified" Source?

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. Bears repeating with emphasis. Well put.

originally posted by: SevenThunders
Good thread. Science has become completely politicized and is dictated by who is providing the funding. The results are of course biased by this. The medical sciences are some of the worst offenders since there are billions of Big Pharma dollars at stake with it's conclusions. This is how we ended up with forced medical procedures like vaccines, with a rather dubious safety record.

Physics is also a big offender. In the case of physics I believe there are active attempts to suppress the advancement of science to protect state military secrets.

It has become a religious cult in the sense that just a handful of anointed practitioners dictate the allocation of vast resources for the benefit of the few cult leaders, at the expense of it's brainwashed followers.

Your analysis is spot on. And WONDERFULLY ON TOPIC! LOL.

My close relative working with the German Project Paper Clip scientist on our nuclear testing would strongly agree with you about the withheld science.


THANKS BIG.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
Only if you go all irrational and stuff.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Even I got that one!

Cute, Phage, cute.

I didn't think you were into cute.

a reply to: staple

He may well have hated 'religion' as much as Christ did/does.

However, he was a strong Christian in a list of ways.

And, I doubt he was all that religious about his science.

originally posted by: Barcs
. . .
Sure, corporations and governments pick and choose which research to fund, but that doesn't make it a religion.

The religious fervor and the abject worship of scientific institutions, scientific memes, scientific themes, structures, processes etc. as though they were ultimate, magical, miraculous saviors inherently by merely being "scientific" produces the Religion of Scientism.

originally posted by: pyramid head

. . .

isn't that exactly what carbon taxes are?

The thing "all scientists support".

LOLOLOLOL.

You mean to tell me that carbon taxes are NOT part of the tithes in the church of the Religion of Scientism?

Oh, Dear Me. I must have misunderstood. /sarc

originally posted by: Phage

That would be some politicians, not all, and certainly not all scientists.

At least not scientists with any integrity left.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

You may well be right.

I do try and be generous most of the time. LOL.

a reply to: mbkennel

different degrees of infinity?

I knew I was bad at math . . . but that's way out of my league. LOL.

Maybe the science itself is not a religion. It's humans that makes it a religion. Bigotry, ignorance, slave mentality, prejudice, arrogance, pure stupidity all these human factors contribute to this phenomenon. Normally it takes a global natural disaster to wake these poor souls up. Bible calls it God's wrath.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: reldra

I don't know what percentage of science has been morphed into a religion but it's more than 51%, imho.

Shoot . . . if some of the black ops type scientists are to be believed, a shocking chunk of the text book science for the last century has been deliberately falsified.

One of the core tenets of scientific reasoning says that arguments must be falsifiable or refutable to be valid (i.e: have a testable alternate case).

In this way, any data that is absolutely factual must be beyond the method of science to evaluate (which is unarguably true).

This non-inductive reasoning (proposed by philosopher Karl Popper) is popularly supposed to eliminate God from science but in fact it instead only underlines a deficiency in the scope of what science can evaluate.

So scientists deliberately falsifying textbook content are, perhaps, just doing as they are told. Certainly, my old textbooks contain much that is now discredited (but like fashion, may come back to popularity once more).

originally posted by: groveacc
Maybe the science itself is not a religion. It's humans that makes it a religion. Bigotry, ignorance, slave mentality, prejudice, arrogance, pure stupidity all these human factors contribute to this phenomenon. Normally it takes a global natural disaster to wake these poor souls up. Bible calls it God's wrath.

INDEED. That's what I've been trying to say from the beginning. THAT'S the topic of the thread--the morphing of science into a religion by the corrupt etc. practitioners of 'science.'

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: reldra

I don't know what percentage of science has been morphed into a religion but it's more than 51%, imho.

Shoot . . . if some of the black ops type scientists are to be believed, a shocking chunk of the text book science for the last century has been deliberately falsified.

One of the core tenets of scientific reasoning says that arguments must be falsifiable or refutable to be valid (i.e: have a testable alternate case).

In this way, any data that is absolutely factual must be beyond the method of science to evaluate (which is unarguably true).

This non-inductive reasoning (proposed by philosopher Karl Popper) is popularly supposed to eliminate God from science but in fact it instead only underlines a deficiency in the scope of what science can evaluate.

So scientists deliberately falsifying textbook content are, perhaps, just doing as they are told.

Certainly, my old textbooks contain much that is now discredited (but like fashion, may come back to popularity once more).

Thanks. Great points.

However, I was talking about scientific facts, findings, innovations that have been withheld from the public for !!!CONTROL!!! and other oligarchy nefarious reasons.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: mbkennel

different degrees of infinity?

I knew I was bad at math . . . but that's way out of my league. LOL.

The Aleph numbers only deal with infinite sets and are different than the 'catch-all' concept of infinity.

We could have things tending towards infinity positively along a number line or going to infinity in the other direction, negatively. Or we could define an infinite number of subdivisions between two numbers on a number line, or we could apply all sorts of mathematical criteria that an infinite set may have, and so on.

Generally, though, infinite means 'not finite', i.e: an actual number cannot be defined.

In Calculus and other math we cheat (a bit) by pretending that infinity is a number but what we are really saying is that the answer 'approaches' infinity. If you tried to get to the exact answer by successively approximating increasingly accurate answers (like with a recursive sum that gets closer at each pass) it would approach better and better answers forever.

So infinity is not a number but a concept of a sequence which never ends.

See, not really hard to grasp & we got there without a single actual sum.

a reply to: BO XIAN

INDEED. That's what I've been trying to say from the beginning. THAT'S the topic of the thread--the morphing of science into a religion by the corrupt etc. practitioners of 'science.'

It is what I think too. Science is not the problem, science by itself is completely neutral and without subjectivity. The problem is all those high priests wrapping themself inside the white clothing of science and using their hightly developed rhetoric skill to subdue less "skilled in the art" peoples only for personal profits, often just for ego gratification.

Science is an incredible value adding option for anyone being "photogenic" with the white coat and capable of sustaining a conversation at the level of a simple physics high school teacher. Long gone are the time when choosing a career in science was a lifelong vow of poverty...

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: reldra

I don't know what percentage of science has been morphed into a religion but it's more than 51%, imho.

Shoot . . . if some of the black ops type scientists are to be believed, a shocking chunk of the text book science for the last century has been deliberately falsified.

One of the core tenets of scientific reasoning says that arguments must be falsifiable or refutable to be valid (i.e: have a testable alternate case).

In this way, any data that is absolutely factual must be beyond the method of science to evaluate (which is unarguably true).

This non-inductive reasoning (proposed by philosopher Karl Popper) is popularly supposed to eliminate God from science but in fact it instead only underlines a deficiency in the scope of what science can evaluate.

So scientists deliberately falsifying textbook content are, perhaps, just doing as they are told.

Certainly, my old textbooks contain much that is now discredited (but like fashion, may come back to popularity once more).

Thanks. Great points.

However, I was talking about scientific facts, findings, innovations that have been withheld from the public for !!!CONTROL!!! and other oligarchy nefarious reasons.

Well, I do know of at least one thing withheld to prevent the proliferation of WMD's, but that isn't really scientific fraud as the theory being taught is essentially correct without it.

I think the reverse is the case that scientists are too ready to broadcast their discoveries, even when it is a bad idea ethically. They hardly ever run things through the "what if a nutcase gets hold of this" filter.

A good example of irresponsible science would be the cheap and publicly available CRISPR/Cas toolkits available for genetic re-sequencing (Too powerful a tool to be so un-moderated, IMHO).

a reply to: chr0naut

Well, I do know of at least one thing withheld to prevent the proliferation of WMD's, but that isn't really scientific fraud as the theory being taught is essentially correct without it.

There is a big difference between the theorical knowledge of how an atomic weapon work and the TDP (Technical Data Package) of the howto and precise technical procedures of how to make one, like the industrial steps to follow... Pure theorical knowledge is harmless, but the industrial procedures are valuables state secrets.