Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's because you are only criticizing science out of spite. This whole thread is a show of defiance.

"Defiance"?

Look... I don't want to join your church, can you please respect my decision?

I am not criticizing "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (Science), I am criticizing those who tout theory as fact and ostracize and mock anyone who believes otherwise - such behavior is the antithesis to true science, and has been a hindrance to scientific progress.

a reply to: BO XIAN

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.

bwahaha

scientist being to religious, while religious being scientific in a way - being rational and logical enough to realize that science is just as much corrupted and religious as any other.

oh the irony...only on ats, hah!

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

Lucy

Lucy Fir

Waterloo

The loo = toilet

40 days = water



Evilution

Just look at clues in our languages in the world and cross reference you can deduce why some major events like Noah's flood occured.

Look at other things. Like the name for ground pounders in the military. Infantry. And then look at religions that promote inappropriate relationships with minors. And its the very reason we have the military and often it is used by means of divine inspiration and judgement against evil. Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Le jeune is french for "The young".

Coupe. Military coup, overthrow of the government. Often third world governments are overthrown because the heathen kings who reject proper religion are being judged by a Higher Power because either they personally are immoral or are allowing it to occur in their kingdoms. Babies are described as making a coo-ing sound. All kinds of things that even though science is valuable point to a Higher Power besides Benny Hinn and his large tupee.

a reply to: Indigo5

I have to laugh at this very concept that keeps getting hammered on... You DO realize that most of the technological breakthroughs were accidents of science right??? They weren't predicted by science, determined by science etc...

In fact, many of the breakthroughs we have were discovered by religious adherents as opposed to atheists...lol.

Atheists are the vocal minority in the scientific community because the religion of scientism rejects those who vocalize their beliefs when it isn't the beliefs in the all powerfulness of science, because SCIENCE...LOL

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Indigo5

I have to laugh at this very concept that keeps getting hammered on... You DO realize that most of the technological breakthroughs were accidents of science right??? They weren't predicted by science, determined by science etc...

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of "Science".

"breakthroughs were accidents of science right??? They weren't predicted by science, determined by science etc..."

The difference between a pilot study and an experiment?

When Apple, Google et al. run a pilot study..it can succeed or fail and if it fails someone is to blame.

When a research team runs an EXPERIMENT...there is no win or fail...Whatever the outcome is ...is a "win" because it provides new knowledge. What happens when???...And ANY outcome is a win to expanding the knowledge space.

Put another way...

"breakthroughs were accidents of science right??? They weren't predicted by science, determined by science etc..."

There are no accidents when you don't know what comes next.
If they knew with certainty and could "predict" or "determine" the outcome with certainty...they would be wasting time with the experiment.

Science is a method for "EXPLORATION" of our universe and it's workings.

It's like claiming that the first European explorers of America failed in their exploration when they discovered the Grand Canyon because it was not on any maps....Where religious zealots are like cartographers that refuse to leave home and deny the Grand Canyon exists because it is not on their maps.

When you run an experiment, you do so because the outcome is not certain and whatever the outcome is ...is a win. No "accidents" in that paradigm.

a reply to: Miracula2

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.

This is a very interesting post. I think you put it very well there.

I have no comment on the Ebola thing or the comet or any other coinkydinks mentioned, though.

a reply to: Miracula2

Lucy Fir

Waterloo

The loo = toilet

40 days = water



Evilution

Just look at clues in our languages in the world and cross reference you can deduce why some major events like Noah's flood occured.

oops!

C'mon now, then, come back into the classroom....you were doing well a minute ago....

originally posted by: BO XIAN

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.

That is jibberish. Care to try again? People don't worship scientists. They worship celebrities. Take a look around you. LMAO at miraculous saviors. I bet the average person could not name more than 5 modern scientists, but could name 20+ celebrities easily. You are using confirmation bias and pretending that science has no scrutiny or fact checking.

Carbon taxes are a political thing, not a scientific thing. There is no scientific research that shows taxing people will magically reduce carbon emissions overall.

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

Then you aren't talking about science. You are once again talking about corrupt politicians and corporate executives.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Miracula2

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.

This is a very interesting post. I think you put it very well there.

It's a take on the whole God watches the dove fall and yet it still falls thing.

God is either all powerful (omnipotent) or he is not.

God is pure good or he is not.

If he is all powerful, then he is not all good since he allows or creates serial killers and pedophiles.

If he is all good, then he is not all powerful since pedophiles and serial killers exist.

The religious rebuttal to this is centered on "Free Will"...the concept that god gives man free will (which is a good thing)...but then you ask why an omnipotent god would include "evil" options along with that free will? A religious person would say that "evil" just is part of free will..but an omnipotent, all powerful creator would also be the creator of those options...it goes in circles fast.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
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.

Like who? I keep hearing about these "high priests," yet all of top scientists have put in tons of research and work into the field.

originally posted by: Barcs

That is jibberish. Care to try again? People don't worship scientists. They worship celebrities. Take a look around you. LMAO at miraculous saviors. I bet the average person could not name more than 5 modern scientists, but could name 20+ celebrities easily. You are using confirmation bias and pretending that science has no scrutiny or fact checking.

Don't mix up the religion of Hollywood with the religion of Scientism, they are two different beasts.

Like who? I keep hearing about these "high priests," yet all of top scientists have put in tons of research and work into the field.

It's a figure of speech referring to the teachers of the law who tout theory as fact, and excommunicate and mock anyone who disagrees. Some high priests have sympathy (i.e. don't suffer from tunnel vision) and are not as extreme with their zealous religion, but these are rare to come by.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
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

Can you please show me these ACTUAL gigantopithecus bones that have been verified and studied and link the research paper that shows it? I've been following the bigfoot thing for a while and still haven't seen any proof. You say illustrations hold more weight than actual fossils? Pardon me if I don't die laughing.

The Lucy claim is BS. Remember paleontologists do this for a living, they know how to compare fossils and features, they aren't just guessing, even when they have an incomplete skeleton. Lucy isn't the only Australopithecus afarensis specimen that has been found, and finding full intact skeletons is extremely rare because of the nature of fossilization and how rare it is, not to mention how harsh the African climate can be.

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.

It's funny how the deniers always know the least about science. SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are well substantiated and backed by evidence. If they weren't they would be called hypotheses. THAT is one of the most basic tenants of science. Theories are made in reference to proven verified phenomenon, but of course you intentionally equivocate a SCIENTIFIC THEORY with just a plain old layman's theory when they aren't even close to the same thing. Science is not absolute, but it definitely proves things and shows how things work.

I have to laugh at this very concept that keeps getting hammered on... You DO realize that most of the technological breakthroughs were accidents of science right??? They weren't predicted by science, determined by science etc...

I have to laugh at your blind hatred of a method of study. When scientists are running experiments and tests over and over again, i wouldn't call it an accident when they finally discover something. You do realize that the prediction aspect of science comes AFTER the hypothesis or theory has been established, right? Science doesn't determine anything, it's A METHOD. You guys really have trouble understanding this.

In fact, many of the breakthroughs we have were discovered by religious adherents as opposed to atheists...lol.

Who cares? Where they following the scientific method or not? Why does their religion or personal beliefs matter?

Atheists are the vocal minority in the scientific community because the religion of scientism rejects those who vocalize their beliefs when it isn't the beliefs in the all powerfulness of science, because SCIENCE...LOL

And now we get the comparisons from science to atheism as if they are even remotely similar concepts. For the record just over half of the scientists in America are religious. When you look at TOP scientists, that figure goes way down. Of course it doesn't matter, one can have personal beliefs about god or anything else, but still keep their scientific research objective. Who says science is all powerful? You guys just keep assigning BS terms to science that don't apply. Science is FAR from all powerful, it is a method of research that updates our knowledge and understanding of things. Sorry that this bothers you so much, but religion isn't even in the same galaxy as science. They are polar opposites.

originally posted by: cooperton
Don't mix up the religion of Hollywood with the religion of Scientism, they are two different beasts.

Good thing I don't give a crap about "Scientism". I care about science.

It's a figure of speech referring to the teachers of the law who tout theory as fact, and excommunicate and mock anyone who disagrees. Some high priests have sympathy (i.e. don't suffer from tunnel vision) and are not as extreme with their zealous religion, but these are rare to come by.

Ah, yes, a figure of speech, so in other words it's pure BS. Theories are based on fact in science, so yeah, they are taught that way. Scientists do research, you are talking about educators now, rather than scientists and the claims of scientists being "high priest" is just condescending rhetoric.

a reply to: Indigo5

God is pure good or he is not.

If he is all powerful, then he is not all good since he allows or creates serial killers and pedophiles.

Right.......

If he is all good, then he is not all powerful since pedophiles and serial killers exist.

Also correct.

The religious rebuttal to this is centered on "Free Will"...the concept that god gives man free will (which is a good thing)...but then you ask why an omnipotent god would include "evil" options along with that free will? A religious person would say that "evil" just is part of free will..but an omnipotent, all powerful creator would also be the creator of those options...it goes in circles fast.

Right!!!
These are all concepts.

And you are exactly right.

originally posted by: Barcs

Good thing I don't give a crap about "Scientism". I care about science.

I wish that were the case, I really do. but if you truly cared about science and its adherence to due process, you would realize that evolution is still just a theory, yet you consistently have claimed that evolution is fact:

originally posted by: Barcs

...The mechanism (of evolution) IS genetic mutation sorted out by natural selection. This is proven to be true.

originally posted by: Barcs
...evolution is as much a fact as the earth being round and revolving around the sun.

Your objectivity to science went out the window long ago, which puts you in the subjective field of religious scientism.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The claims made by science are factual, reproducible, and measurable. If they aren't, we aren't talking about science.

Science makes claims? I thought that people make claims.

There was another poster who said something along the lines of "science allows me to build my destiny."

Science allows, science makes claims..... very interesting choices of words. It's been noted.

Argue gross semantics somewhere else.

Also "it's been noted"??? LOL. Too bad it hasn't been understood.

I understood it pretty well. How does a method make claims?

You think it's offhand nitpicking and semantics, but you'd be wrong. We hardly ignore the semantics when it comes to other topics, why should we ignore it here? So much can be determined about people by the way they talk about things. People throughout this thread have been referring to science as some kind of entity or person. I think it points to a certain mindset. No one goes around saying that reason and logic make claims, but apparently science does. It also allows people to do things, builds destinies, ushers in utopian futures, etc.

Very ironic overall.

a reply to: Barcs

LOL... First off, I'm not a science denier... farthest from it in fact... Secondly, you stated that theories are proven and you say I DON'T know about science...LOL...

You used an appeal to authority argument on Lucy.."paleontologists KNOW what they're talking about, so I'll defer to them...."

TRY THINKING FOR YOURSELF... The conclusions they come to are ASININE when looking at what they're working with.

Same with Gigantopithecus... Please, show me where there is ANYTHING other than molars and a partial jaw bone found of him... I'm all ears...

Lucy has a partial skull and other fragments, yet they claim to know how how the entire skull and brain casing looked... That is FABRICATION... PERIOD...COME ON please start thinking for yourself.

HOW ON EARTH can you logically conclude what the brain casing looked like from the skull fragments that they have???

YOU CANNOT...

Jaden

BTW, I only brought up atheism because you guys claimed that those of us that are for REAL science and are calling out the establishment for what it is, are God believers... So I was NOT the one to bring God into the picture, or the absence there of. Oh, and PLEASE stop equating the scientific method to the scientific establishment. If science purely followed the scientific method, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

a reply to: UniFinity

What science is used for does not determine what science is.

I'm not sure how to make that any simpler or plainer.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No one here referred to the scientific method. They have been referring to the scientific establishment, or the scientific paradigms...It is only the adherents of the religion of science that have tried to connect the two...

Jaden

p.s. FYI, the scientific method and the scientific establishment aren't like space/time, they aren't inextricably linked...lol

originally posted by: Talorc


I understood it pretty well. How does a method make claims?

Cute. Don't let the semantic argument go. You're doing so well by it. While you're playing linguistic games, look up the word synecdoche.

originally posted by: Talorc

You think it's offhand nitpicking and semantics, but you'd be wrong.

I might be, but you've done nothing to prove that I am. While you're looking up words, look up specious.

originally posted by: Talorc

We hardly ignore the semantics when it comes to other topics, why should we ignore it here?

If you have something important to say about a topic based on semantics, I agree with you. You aren't.

originally posted by: Talorc

So much can be determined about people by the way they talk about things.

Indeed, including those who attempt to muddle the meaning of words for simplistic and fallacious reasons. Like this entire argument.

originally posted by: Talorc

People throughout this thread have been referring to science as an entity or person. I can pull up countless posts showing that. It points to a certain mindset. No one goes around saying that reason and logic make claims, but apparently science does. It also allows people to do things, builds destineys, ushers in utopian futures, etc.

Very ironic overall.

And you're speciously (hope you looked it up) pretending not to understand a simple concept like "a figure of speech."

You're critiquing your projections made onto other posters in order to sidestep the silliness of the primary argument here.

I'm sure you've never heard anything like "well, according to logic" or "reason tells us" ... right.

Another word for you: disingenuous.