Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:

I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.

Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???

One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lol. Your sources claim that atheists don't believe in god because they are mad at god. Lolololololololol!!!!

Now this is interesting.
It raises a question in my mind of, do some people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?

Do you believe that properly performed science can yield a better understanding of the world around us?

Do you believe that science can account for the existence of the popular concepts of gods?

What I may or may not believe is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.

I will answer your question if you answer mine.

do some people believe in science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God?

I think people believe in science because it yields results. I think people give up on religion because it makes no sense when you apply scientific scrutiny to it. Also, there are no measurable results that any gods exist. If i were a religious person who wanted to prove the existence of gods, i would use science to do it as this is our best method of discerning facts from fantasies. When science yields no results in that quest, i would set aside my untenable beliefs. I would not continue to hold beliefs that are not supported by any observations.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

What distinction..are you implying science does not employ magical imagination to a whole host of topics?

Sure would be nice if science was a pure system free of BS and belief systems...but it is not.

a reply to: glend

So what's really your beef in my communication with chr0naut.

The dishonesty. You wouldn't know Gödel's theorems if they bit you in a soft place; you aren't even aware of their implications if you think they prove all knowledge false. But that doesn't stop you from parroting what you don't understand as if you're some big Mr Expert.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Spoken like a true zealot!
Do you realise you sound exactly like a Jihadist?

See. Atheists can be zealots too.

Some of them want to genocide theists because they think theists are "clinically inferior"

Atheist "raonality and logic" = kill all theists

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: firefromabove

You have been authoring the same post for years.

thanks, I thought it was just me. I too have seen this topic brought up many times. it is a false take on science and simply ignorant of the scientific method.

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Spoken like a true zealot!
Do you realise you sound exactly like a Jihadist?

See. Atheists can be zealots too.

Some of them want to genocide theists because they think theists are "clinically inferior"

Atheist "raonality and logic" = kill all theists

really???????.....genocide theists?????....what is wrong with you?....don't assign false blame, and then act like it's a fact....

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Now this is interesting.
It raises a question in my mind of, do some people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?

I speak for myself.

I am not atheist. I am agnostic in the sense that I am not sure, if God exist or not.

At some point of my life I do believe in Abrahamic God. But now I am not so sure.

I will continue searching tho. The scriptures and the history of religions have failed me. They left me completely devastated. My heart for faith is now empty. The only thing I still have with me is my mind. Science, Mathematic and logical thinking. It's the only thing that keep me from becoming mentally ill. The only thing that keep me alive. Religion would have kill me a long time ago.

If God exist I will thank Him for keeping me open to all religion but never embrace any of it.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:

I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.

Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???

One might also point out that, as such a small percentage of the total population, true atheists are definitely abnormal.

There are also many that suggest that an inability to comprehend the normal view (Theism) may be due to various unresolved emotional issues:

The New Psychology of Atheism | Psychology Today

The Psychology of Atheism Miguel Farias The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Paul Vitz From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lol. Your sources claim that atheists don't believe in god because they are mad at god. Lolololololololol!!!!

Now this is interesting.
It raises a question in my mind of, do some people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?

Do you believe that properly performed science can yield a better understanding of the world around us?

Do you believe that science can account for the existence of the popular concepts of gods?

What I may or may not believe is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.

I will answer your question if you answer mine.

do some people believe in science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God?

I think people believe in science because it yields results. I think people give up on religion because it makes no sense when you apply scientific scrutiny to it. Also, there are no measurable results that any gods exist. If i were a religious person who wanted to prove the existence of gods, i would use science to do it as this is our best method of discerning facts from fantasies. When science yields no results in that quest, i would set aside my untenable beliefs. I would not continue to hold beliefs that are not supported by any observations.

Again, what I may or may not believe is irrelevant.

The question was, do SOME people follow science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves?
You have answered with why YOU follow science with such ferocity, and applied that to every single atheist.
If your answer is no, nobody follows science with such ferocity because it gives them something to believe in other than a God or a higher power than themselves, it's the same reason I do, then I ask exactly how and why you make such a statement with such authority?

a r
eply to: jimmyx

An atheist on this thread did say that

He actually said

might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Your people think we are clinically inferior

My people think YOU are spiritually inferior

What's the problem?

a reply to: firefromabove

Lol he actually made threats to hurt US and OUR LIKES.

originally posted by: firefromabove
a r
eply to: jimmyx

An atheist on this thread did say that

He actually said

might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Your people think we are clinically inferior

My people think YOU are spiritually inferior

What's the problem?

did it ever occur to you that because 1 member said that, doesn't mean "YOU PEOPLE" think the same....I can find conservative nutjobs, too.....but there are so many of them, what would be the point (LOL)...couldn't help myself

Also, there are no measurable results that any gods exist. If i were a religious person who wanted to prove the existence of gods, i would use science to do it as this is our best method of discerning facts from fantasies.

? European people are so confused. Google 'Hunab Ku'. Now show me a painting of him sitting in a cloud.

You say God can't exist because your definition is held to strict standards of a giant human being riding a cloud.. This is your problem, not believers problem.

Even the faux gnostic book collectors on here. Imagining the D'urge being so human he must wear a specific brand of clothing, possibly Levis jeans! Hahahaha

a reply to: jimmyx

Atheists are quick to club in all people of religions whenever something bad happens

"Person from religion X did Y"

"Therefore all religious people from religion X are guilty of Y"

My argument is that the same logic applies to atheists

originally posted by: firefromabove
See. Atheists can be zealots too.

Some of them want to genocide theists because they think theists are "clinically inferior"

One observable Atheist in this thread does not equal to Some Atheist in general. Please stop exaggerating.

originally posted by: firefromabove
Atheist "raonality and logic" = kill all theists

A faulty generalization is a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that phenomenon. Faulty generalizations may lead to further incorrect conclusions.

Dont worry about atheist. We have secular law to protect all theists live. We are born equal as human.
We dont have such law to protect all atheist from Christian Law or Islamic Law in the past. Only theists have the right to live while all atheists are just cattles to be butchered and enslaved. The priests are divines who have the will of god to grant you heaven if you treat atheists inhumanly.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: glend

So what's really your beef in my communication with chr0naut.

The dishonesty. You wouldn't know Gödel's theories if they bit you in a soft place; you aren't even aware of their implications if you think they prove all knowledge false. But that doesn't stop you from parroting what you don't understand as if you're some big Mr Expert.

I've only just looked Godel's incompleteness theorem so don't profess to understand it yet but after five minutes looking at it am I along the right lines to state it refers only to natural numbers and even them axiomatic rule and lemma can be used. Also isn't it closer to hypothesis and theorem than csrdinal rule? (as painfully vague as that sentence is, feel ashamed for writing it.)

a reply to: bastion

More simply, scientific knowledge is not derived purely through deduction from axiomatic first principles; there is also knowledge acquired from empirical observation and experiment. We can know nothing for certain, but that doesn't mean we know nothing.

Science does not claim to be an infallible source of knowledge, merely a reliable one.

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: jimmyx

Atheists are quick to club in all people of religions whenever something bad happens

"Person from religion X did Y"

"Therefore all religious people from religion X are guilty of Y"

My argument is that the same logic applies to atheists

But history did prove religion cause masive human lives in millions worldwide. Not one pagan died by the hand of fanatic christians or muslims, but millions of them. The reason is simple, every christians and muslims were bound by the declaration of their divine leaders who acted in the name of God! It's the responsibilty of every Christians and Muslims to force convert Herectics and Kafir or die. So yes it is "all religious people from religion X are guilty of Y"

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: bastion

More simply, scientific knowledge is not derived purely through deduction from axiomatic first principles; there is also knowledge acquired from empirical observation and experiment. We can know nothing for certain, but that doesn't mean we know nothing.

Science does not claim to be an infallible source of knowledge, merely a reliable one.

Thanks Though now I'm more confused as to why people don't think that is the case (repeating experiments/using new conditions to test a variable and getting the same results increases probability of it benig true but only tends to 100% asymptote and the method itself cannot and does not pretend to prove anything to be true as tomorrows technology may provide new methods of experiment that disprove a theory (to steal a lecture from Feynmann).

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I always find it ironic and amusing to read the anti-science folks...on the internet.
Carry on. Every nation needs people to dig ditches.

Have you watched or read Gaiman's 'American Gods?' It's a great show involving all of mankind's gods fighting for our attention as they need to be relevant. Given a choice between the old Abrahamic God, the Hindu pantheon or the gods of 'scientism,' I'd favour the lab coated gods of the latter.

Infant mortality, plagues and candle-power are all the Old God offers and even candle-light was arguably a scientific discovery. No, let's put our lot in with scientism and enjoy freedom of travel, longevity and all the luxuries we take for granted.

What is with all the diseases and larger unhealthiness spreading through the lands...science has no answer and laughs at the plight of ALOT of suffering people...

originally posted by: Kryties
Science has never claimed to have all the answers, that's the whole point of science. A negative result is just as illuminating as a positive result.

Props for spending so much time coming up with a bunch of nonsense to justify believing in an invisible, non-existent being who can conjure rainbows on command though.

Science claims to be separate from greed and money..which is entirely hilarious and disgusting at the same time.

Face it alot of it is EXACTLY like every religious cult claiming they are "on the right path".

And endless journey never actually allowed to find what we all need to know.

In other words..as trapped and controlled as just about anything..while the believers spout that they are free.