Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: cooperton
Is that where anything goes that defies the dogma of the scientism priesthood? A common tactic - laugh at anything that threatens the validity of your beliefs.

INDEED.

At some point, the acolytes of the Religion of Scientism can stew in their own outrage . . . abundantly demonstrating the truth of the OP.

Their pretense at objectivity is obviously bankrupt from the start.

Their perceptivity and understanding are grossly lacking enough that I feel less and less inclination to bother even reading their blather.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

And the hypocrisy in such matters gets deeper and deeper.

originally posted by: cooperton

THIS is EXACTLY the problem - anyone who questions the contemporary mainstream scientific dogma is immediately labeled "scienfically illiterate". This is an immense hindrance to scientific knowledge, and is all too common in mainstream science. Just like the church body at one time was a hindrance to scientific advancement, now the scientific field itself is a hindrance to scientific advancement. They stick to old theories and hold them dear as infallible dogma, disallowing a dissection of the plethora of new empirical evidence demonstrating the old theories as invalid.

Classic deflection. Rather than addressing anything, you resort to mocking. Some offer level-headed responses, but you are consistently defecating in these forums with no content whatsoever. You blindly mock anything that doesn't adhere to your set belief system.

Let's do an experiment.

I'm holding a pencil over my desk.

Now, science predicts that it will fall to the surface of my desk when I drop it. Every time.

Religion predicts that a believer's prayers can cause God to "act in mysterious ways" right?

I would like to ask any believer here to pray that the pencil will float in mid-air when I let it go.

Ready? Let's see what happens. Tell me when you're ready.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Let's do an experiment.

I'm holding a pencil over my desk.

Now, science predicts that it will fall to the surface of my desk when I drop it. Every time.

Religion predicts that a believer's prayers can cause God to "act in mysterious ways" right?

I would like to ask any believer here to pray that the pencil will float in mid-air when I let it go.

Ready? Let's see what happens. Tell me when you're ready.

Ever hear the one about the skydiving priest? Even men of god don't dare jump out of a plane without a parachute. Tells you where their faith is, amirite?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Gravity.

God.

Who do you trust?

LOL.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TzarChasm

Gravity.

God.

Who do you trust?

LOL.

Jokes aside, bait thread is bait. And on a conspiracy forum no less. I'm not too worried bout where this goes.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TzarChasm

Gravity.

God.

Who do you trust?

LOL.

Jokes aside, bait thread is bait. And on a conspiracy forum no less. I'm not too worried bout where this goes.

Anything can be semantically defined as a "religion."

Anything believed. Cartoons. Science fiction. Etc.

That should tell us something about religion.

a reply to: WhateverYouSay

you're not getting it. You don't have the ability to think for yourself or think about anything nonparadigmic.. IOW you are stuck in the science because SCIENCE mentality.

You can't measure something for 10 20 or 60 years and assume it has been constant for billions of years...that's BAD science.

radioactive decay rates are reliant on time. I never said that I didn't believe that the TIME that has elapsed has not been the equivalent of 4.5 billion modern years(years being measured by the relatively current amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun). What I said was, the methods that science has used to come to their current conclusions are fundamentally flawed and I pointed out EXACTLY how they're flawed.

The idea that they improve on their mistakes is a fundamental flaw that I likened to the frog not jumping out of a pot of water slowly brought to a boil.

I used geology as a reference because the history of that slow boil is well documented, but it applies to ALL scientific paradigms. It's even worse with more modern ones like AGW because they don't just eliminate outliers, they completely manipulate data to get to their conclusions.

Jaden

a reply to: Gryphon66

you seem to argue even though you did not look at full documentary...

and IF you did than "by some" is a large understatement,
by some = AS IN all universities have different medical and scientific programs because of influence.

How can real scientists learn about truth and figure out real nature of reality if entire educational system is build around false truths, methods and principles because of influence of oil and its waste products and much more.

Also I said I agree with you about religion, what else do you want me to say, science is what thread is about not religion!
Also as I said in previous posts, there are two parts of nearly every religion eso and exoteric, one being hidden esoteric side which is still pure in some of religions, the other being mainstream or public side, which is corrupted and used for fear and control of society.

that is all I have to say about this and I won't argue with you further, we are "free thinkers" after all and thanks for opinion.

originally posted by: damwel
Just another attempt to discredit credible concrete things by people who believe there is a giant ghost in the sky who loves them so much, he makes them suffer.

On that line. I think Ted Bundy was innocent. In fact either Ted Bundy was innocent of God doesn't exist.

The Bible says that God has given men bodies as it has pleased him. So, if God made Ted Bundy tall and handsome knowing full well that it would disarm Bundy's victims into a position of trust instead of making the man short and troll and unapproachably short and ugly, then God was just as guilty as Bundy.

So, therefore Bundy must have been wrongly convicted. Or God makes murderous beasts attractive for the pure sadistic pleasure of watching beautiful young women be attracted and trusting of a handsome dude and be lured to their deaths.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: cooperton
Is that where anything goes that defies the dogma of the scientism priesthood? A common tactic - laugh at anything that threatens the validity of your beliefs.

INDEED.

At some point, the acolytes of the Religion of Scientism can stew in their own outrage . . . abundantly demonstrating the truth of the OP.

Their pretense at objectivity is obviously bankrupt from the start.

Their perceptivity and understanding are grossly lacking enough that I feel less and less inclination to bother even reading their blather.

Yes and perhaps you should take a hammer to that bankrupt, false, pretending stack of silicon science quietly humming in front of you while you type.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry, I'm not religious...I found HUGE logical problems with the scientific paradigms when I started researching their foundations.

Some of the things that lead me in that direction were the ACTUAL bones found of gigantopithecus, the actual bones found of Lucy, etc... go look them up.

gigantopithecus illustrations show an entire creature while only TEETH and a partial jaw bone has been found... You're telling me, you call that empirical science????

Lucy is one of the most complete skeletons ever found, go look up the ACTUAL bones that were found, not the made up full skeleton...

Modern science and much of its precepts are a friggin joke not worthy of but a cursory look. Looking to the scientific establishment for truth would be like looking at congress for an honest man...

Jaden

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

Says the scientifically illiterate young earth creationist.

THIS is EXACTLY the problem - anyone who questions the contemporary mainstream scientific dogma is immediately labeled "scienfically illiterate".

No, only people who deny reality because their magical beliefs compel them to. Case in point: your ignorant rejection of scientific evidence because you believe the earth is young and your personal god created all of life as-is.


Making ignorant attacks against scientific understandings of the world and clinging to literal interpretations of religious scripture is nothing to be proud of.

But hey, I'M the dogmatic one (lol!) for pointing that out, amirite?

a reply to: GetHyped

No, all I did was point out the attitude you were exuding and that anyone immersed in the paradigms spit out any time their dogma is challenged. I actually LOOK at # and evaluate it on its own merits.

I read the summary and it is intriguing. I would have to read the full article and the study it is trying to refute to give you an answer as to its validity. I'm not going to pay for the article though to do so is what I said.

Please stop putting arguments in my mouth, that's called a straw man fallacy...I wish to high hell that they would stop teaching scientific establishment doctrine and start teaching rational logical evaluation along with showing non-contrived evidence and showing people how to evaluate it themselves. They DON'T. They merely say, here is the doctrine, believe it or else@!!!!!

Jaden

a reply to: UniFinity

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Well put.

And, RIGHT, the thread is about the Religion of Scientism--to whatever degree it exists--and NOT about a lot of whining bullies' personal vendettas against Christianity or any other religion.

a reply to: GetHyped

Straw man much??? I didn't CRITICIZE a paper I haven't read. I criticized a non-scientific attitude that is exuded by those claiming to be purveyors of science.

You keep putting words in my mouth and you're going to piss me off..

Jaden

a reply to: darkbake

WOW...you realize you made a contradictory statement there right?

Theories CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT be proven correct. They can ONLY be falsified or supported.

That is one of the most basic tenets of science, and the fact that so many people believe that they can be proven correct and ARE proven correct proves the ops point...LOL and people are too mired in their beliefs to even see it.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: darkbake

WOW...you realize you made a contradictory statement there right?

Theories CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT be proven correct. They can ONLY be falsified or supported.

That is one of the most basic tenets of science, and the fact that so many people believe that they can be proven correct and ARE proven correct proves the ops point...LOL and people are too mired in their beliefs to even see it.

Jaden

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Evidently a shocking number of folks get their jollies from talking about "wet birds fly at night" instead of dealing honorably, logically and factually with the OP issues of the sociological and psychological factors contributing to morphing science into the Religion of Scientism.

Maybe such objectivity is beyond their habits and mind-sets. Perhaps they've been awash in their bitter outrages against Christianity soooooo long that there's not a fair-minded brain cell left to their cognitions.

Regardless, that's NOT the topic of this thread. They can rant, rail, spew, throw cow pies aplenty but it's still not the topic of this thread.

However, it is kind of nice that their RELIGIOUS FERVOR as purported proponents of 'science' continues to prove in post after post the points of the OP.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Case in point: your ignorant rejection of scientific evidence...

What scientific evidence am I rejecting? You assume that anyone who doesn't adhere to your beliefs is rejecting fact - you're a textbook zealot.

originally posted by: GetHyped
No, only people who deny reality because their magical beliefs compel them to. Case in point: your ignorant rejection of scientific evidence because you believe the earth is young and your personal god created all of life as-is.

Young earth beliefs are flat out nonsensical, but I don't see anything wrong with believing that [insert your god] created the universe. What's the point in attacking that particular belief? You only wind up taking an idealogical position and waging an argument that's both meaningless and dangerous.

Science has nothing to say on god. And not necessarily because science doesn't want to but because science is not capable. God can't be defined nor quantified in scientific terms to even begin looking for it. So it's a pointless endeavor. I think the proper position, which I hold, is agnosticism. I wonder why taking this position is so hard for people. Has science disproven god? (and by that I don't mean what the bible or any other religious text says)

You mentioned " denying reality". What reality are you referring to exactly ? You don't mean the one that humans have defined with our limited sensibilities do you? Or the one that science has given us? Or the one that's forced down our throats by governments and corporations? The idea of reality is only relative and carries no weight in a discussion like this. Just my two peanuts on the matter...