Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Science will continue to work (thanks to diligent practicitioners)

Actually, the Laws of science continue to work regardless of the diligent prayers of the scientism priesthood.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Science will continue to work (thanks to diligent practicitioners)

Actually, the Laws of science continue to work regardless of the diligent prayers of the scientism priesthood.

Regardless of any and all prayer, yes.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Regardless of any and all prayer, yes.

But you just said science will continue to work thanks to its diligent practitioners.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Science will continue to work (thanks to diligent practicitioners)

Actually, the Laws of science continue to work regardless of the diligent prayers of the scientism priesthood.

Actually, the Game of Tennis continues to be played regardless of the diligent prayers of the Tennisism priesthood.

originally posted by: GetHyped

Actually, the Game of Tennis continues to be played regardless of the diligent prayers of the Tennisism priesthood.

No, the game of tennis is only played when people are playing it.

This thread may have run its course - you either get the message of OP or you don't.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Regardless of any and all prayer, yes.

But you just said science will continue to work thanks to its diligent practitioners.

Prayer is not a part of the scientific method, silly goose.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

Actually, the Game of Tennis continues to be played regardless of the diligent prayers of the Tennisism priesthood.

No, the game of tennis is only played when people are playing it.

It's really not that complicated. We are discussing only the ways in which tennis is like a religion. All this talk of "wet birds fly at night" misses the point.

Text

Text

Science do many different subjects, and all of them are objective and serve a common comersial purpose to ur system.

But not all of the Scientific subjects are objective, and are mearly based om sciensfiction ans whichfull thinking and a future dream.

What caused the Big Bang/singularity is based on science that is not actually disconvered yet. Basically all we know about Our universe is how far we can observe With the Technology we posess.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

REALLY? How do you measure the earth going around the sun in sedimentary layers... I'm starting to understand.. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand...

That's not meant to be an attack on you either... I just literally think that you are incapable of visualizing and understanding the implications of what I described...

LOL

Jaden

So when in doubt, ignore everything I said and just personally insult me. I'd recommend you read a little bit about the ice core data samples. Your best argument here is "What if time hasn't always been the same?" and it's not even an argument, it's a what if. Occam's razor says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Claiming that the flow of time has changed or that the earth's revolution around the sun has changed is pure assumption. What evidence do you have that suggests this?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Said he . . . with a grand flourish of a blanket generalization OPINION that is thoroughly inadequate to stand on it's straw man of a pole.

Laughable.

9. Science does not cast out people that go against the norm. . . .

HOGWASH. I'd have thought you might be aware of some examples. Some have surfaced even in the MSM.

I don't follow the mainstream media. Do you have a modern example of somebody being cast out of science for showing valid legitimate scientific evidence (rather than a fabrication/opinion) for something that went against the norm? People reject ID papers because they aren't actual science that follows the scientific method. Not because it goes against the norm or the status quo. That is the exact opposite of how science works. Science is all about going against the norm, provided you have real evidence.

HOGWASH yet again. I've gagged dozens of times at folks who've exalted rapturously at the purported lofty magnificence of Carl Sagan, Darwin, Dawkins et al.

HOGWASH. They contributed to science and society as a result of their work. They should be recognized. However, there is a big difference between recognizing important people in our history and worshiping them like deities. Either way, this has zero to do with science. America loves its celebrities.

LOLOLOL . . . . WHAT UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH! Science is rife with made-up stories. Then they are couched as theories. Then they are spoken of in lofty terms as though the theories have been unquestionably affirmed. LOLOL.

Wrong. Capitalized catch phrases don't prove your point. OMG BALDERDASH LOLLERCOASTER!!!!! What you call "stories" are really just dumbed down versions of the research papers. Calling them made up stories is pure horsecrap. Name a single scientific theory that isn't based on evidence and facts. GO.

I far from hate any honest science. I rather love and enjoy it.

Typical science denier mantra. I love REAL science. But yeah, that stuff that conflicts with my religion is just ALL MADE UP!

Anything that uncovers a bit more of Yehovah's majestic creation is wonderful, to me. The fact that you have failed to notice such a solid and obvious fact about me is very telling about your powers of observation. I don't think I'd trust much of your science given such faulty observational skills.

More condescending rhetoric. LMAO at "obvious fact". Maybe you outta learn what the word fact means.

The Religion of Scientism acolytes and high priests DO NOT FOLLOW the authentic scientific method with much integrity in every discipline . . . sometimes seemingly on every hand.

Please give examples of this. I don't care about what you call scientism. I care about science.

Its embarrassing. Except that one can understand that they MUST lie to themselves and the public in order to sleep nights about their grand frauds, fraudulent data, fraudulent reporting and fraudulent interpretations.

Can you please list the scientific research papers that are fraudulent?

Just because you are evidently blind to their prissy prancing around the halls of academia, professional journals and at professional conferences is NO SIGN AT ALL that they have ceased to exist or ceased to behave thusly.

Again, please show me a peer reviewed published research paper that is false. Stop acting like it's just guesswork. It's not.

That's amazing that you could write that with presumably a straight face. It's more shocking that you evidently even believe it to be true.

You don't know what science even is, so you really have no horse in this race. Show me scientific research that is actually made up dogma that isn't based on evidence. Go ahead. I'll wait (although I know you won't comply with my requests).

I'm beginning to think that not only are we NOT on the same planet--I don't think we're in the same galactic cluster. You obviously have little awareness of the massive evidence to the contrary across virtually every discipline of science. Scientific high priests have not only bent the data; they've bent the reporting and the interpretations to satisfy their own egos; their lust for tenure; their lust for power; their lust for corporate monies.

Prove it. Give me some scientific research papers that show data being bent (whatever that even means).

Evidently you are thoroughly ignorant--of the numbers of cases where fraudulent peer reviewed papers went unchallenged for a decade or several decades. No surprise there. Denial is a powerful force.0

LMAO! The reason they were figured out to be wrong was BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND PEER REVIEW! What you just described is the process doing its job. It doesn't always happen over night. You are blaming science because a few people didn't follow the scientific method. That has nothing to do with science. 99.9% of science is legit.

What a shocking level of ignorance of science in any truly objective way. Amazing. Sometimes the amount of faith required is many times that the average Pentecostal musters up.

When you demonstrate a better and more fair-minded grasp of the true facts about science and the demonstrated corruptions of it in our culture, perhaps THEN we MIGHT have a slightly useful dialogue. I won't be holding my breath.

LMAO. You just said a bunch of opinions as fact and posted nothing but catch phrases. Just stop it. You aren't convincing anybody. This is nothing more than a witch hunt.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Why don't you apply the scientific method to those mysteries and get back to us? Science doesn't apply itself you know. Be sure to submit your results to a committee for approval so it gets the publicity it deserves.

But journals refuse to publish anything that even mentions the impossibility of various mechanisms of evolution. It is taboo to even consider that evolution might be wrong - which is the main example of why scientism has gotten out of hand.

Here is a good article if you can keep your cool and understand other perspectives:
blog.drwile.com...

There are over 100,000 peer reviewed papers on evolution. It is laughable to suggest that it's false at this point. That type of conspiracy would be so ridiculously massive, it would be impossible to keep secret. The reason they don't publish ID papers or ignorant people denying evolution is because they NEVER use objective evidence to do it! That's a requirement in science. You aren't allowed to guess blindly or deny all evidence presented blindly. You need evidence that directly contradicts the evolutionary mechanisms or you need evidence of an alternate theory. Nobody has ever done this.

If you think evolution is false, then show us verifiable testable evidence of a different theory for the diversity of life.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: chr0naut

There ya go being sensible, again.

LOL.

Thanks.

Usually folks don't play cheerleader in their own thread. No surprise here, however. You crave validation for your narrow minded view of science. Everything you are saying negative that science does, you are guilty of doing in this thread.

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Far be it for me to point out the destructive follies of science there are some science specific lives that it is solely responsible for thought it's application of science that number in the hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fukushima, 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, the people of the bikini atol ,all the lives destroyed by; bombs, tanks, guns, UAVs, rockets, missiles, cancer research, small pox vaccines research, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nerve agents, weaponized diseases, creation of vector and deliver devices, serin glass, and the list co times.

Despite you attempt at demonizing religion for all the Ills in the world without science none of those atrocities could be possible In the scale at which they were accomplished.

Horrible argument. Funny how you didn't list anything positive, even though that list will be far larger, plus you pretend that science is a conscious entity and did all those things. It's like blaming the gun alone for gun crime. Science gives us the knowledge, then we CHOOSE to use that knowledge for good or bad. It's obvious that you are very biased here.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Far be it for me to point out the destructive follies of science there are some science specific lives that it is solely responsible for thought it's application of science that number in the hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fukushima, 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, the people of the bikini atol ,all the lives destroyed by; bombs, tanks, guns, UAVs, rockets, missiles, cancer research, small pox vaccines research, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nerve agents, weaponized diseases, creation of vector and deliver devices, serin glass, and the list co times.

Despite you attempt at demonizing religion for all the Ills in the world without science none of those atrocities could be possible In the scale at which they were accomplished.

Horrible argument. Funny how you didn't list anything positive, even though that list will be far larger, plus you pretend that science is a conscious entity and did all those things. It's like blaming the gun alone for gun crime. Science gives us the knowledge, then we CHOOSE to use that knowledge for good or bad. It's obvious that you are very biased here.

No no no... not a terrible argument when confronted with "religion is the cause for all those deaths"...in contrast ideology is responsible for the Bloody rise of the Ottoman empire (the second caliphate of Islam) and of the rebuttal to that which is the crusades....I was simply stating in contrast that without science none of those atrocities would have been possible in such numbers... so as religion is responsible for all those horrible deaths you love so much to blame it on, so is science responsible for the machines of death that caused as many deaths in a shorter time.....

My point (on the brighter side if you will) in the right hands both religion and science have a place for peach and good will, and in the wrong hands death and destruction...... all ideology aside one does so in the name of God and one in the name of Progress.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Far more deaths have been caused by greedy politicians, emperors, kings and queens than any religion, but those same politicians (etc) will be quick to utilize religious fervour to maximize their war efforts.

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Far more deaths have been caused by greedy politicians, emperors, kings and queens than any religion, but those same politicians (etc) will be quick to utilize religious fervour to maximize their war efforts.

and new science to defeat their enemies.....its a circular argument with no real winner....for every point there is an equally subjective counterpoint.....both have their faults both have their strengths....neither is more or less right or valid or important...if you only believe in science then great...if you only believe in religion then great....if you find both intriguing and important then great....opinions and conjecture only serve to make fools of us all.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Here's a thought...

All the improved weapons of war and all wars themselves are the result of human intentions only.

No gods ever had their hands in any of it.

If any entity is to blame, it is entirely ourselves we need to look at... not any deities. If They had any effect in bringing the tools of warfare into battle, it was through inspiration and the desire to get an upper hand on a perceived enemy. This is why machine guns, tanks and nuclear weapons came to be and had the same effect as steel against bronze in primitive times.

The circular argument that really matters is the one which calls for war. It's staying power with humanity outstrips all religions. Getting better at killing comes with eternal practice and innovation.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Science will continue to work (thanks to diligent practicitioners)

Actually, the Laws of science continue to work regardless of the diligent prayers of the scientism priesthood.

Yes, but why?

No science seems to answer that beyond, that's the way it is.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Science will continue to work (thanks to diligent practicitioners)

Actually, the Laws of science continue to work regardless of the diligent prayers of the scientism priesthood.

Yes, but why?

No science seems to answer that beyond, that's the way it is.

Science is very good at answering WHY, if why can be traced to a physical cause. In cases where it cannot, science must yield to philosophy.

Of course, even for questions with physical answers, if one keeps asking why long enough (imagine a young child asking WHY after every answer he is given), eventually one will run out of physical answers.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I actually don't blame religion for most those things, but to deny that religion has influenced man to commit atrocities is silly. That's the big difference. Religion has influenced man to do both good and bad things (more bad, the further back you go in time). Science has not influenced man to do anything good or bad, it's just a tool of discovery. Like science, religion is also not a conscious entity and can't be held fully responsible for the way man has abused it for power. However, there are plenty of scriptures that don't exactly condone peace and equality. Science has no scriptures and doesn't tell man how to use it's inventions and technology. Religion DOES tell you what to do, so they are night and day.