Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: firefromabove

You do know that the drawings in the old Central and south American Aztec, Mayan and Olmec temples were not ancient astronauts but drawings of the scientific priestly class of that day who were in reclined positions mapping the stars. the etching tools were in their hands as they etched the maps on clay tablets for recording purposes.

And we all know what happened to them?

They just mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth some 1,000 years before Christ after falling into human sacrifice and cannibalism.

That is a reasonable explanation and the glyphs/pictograms support your theory.

ETA

there are a few that DO look like rockets and helmets on the 'riders' . This appear to give the impression there were spacecraft from Earth back then, way way back.

Its funny someone brings up this photo of what the AA theorists believe is a man in space.

I tell you this; if a person went in space naked like him, science nor religion couldn’t stop him from freezing to death

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: firefromabove

You do know that the drawings in the old Central and south American Aztec, Mayan and Olmec temples were not ancient astronauts but drawings of the scientific priestly class of that day who were in reclined positions mapping the stars. the etching tools were in their hands as they etched the maps on clay tablets for recording purposes.

And we all know what happened to them?

They just mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth some 1,000 years before Christ after falling into human sacrifice and cannibalism.

That is a reasonable explanation and the glyphs/pictograms support your theory.

ETA

there are a few that DO look like rockets and helmets on the 'riders' . This appear to give the impression there were spacecraft from Earth back then, way way back.

Its funny someone brings up this photo of what the AA theorists believe is a man in space.

I tell you this; if a person went in space naked like him, science nor religion couldn’t stop him from freezing to death

Not naked I thought, but in a "space suit". At least that is as it appears to me anyway. NAKED inside the suit.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: firefromabove

You do know that the drawings in the old Central and south American Aztec, Mayan and Olmec temples were not ancient astronauts but drawings of the scientific priestly class of that day who were in reclined positions mapping the stars. the etching tools were in their hands as they etched the maps on clay tablets for recording purposes.

And we all know what happened to them?

They just mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth some 1,000 years before Christ after falling into human sacrifice and cannibalism.

That is a reasonable explanation and the glyphs/pictograms support your theory.

ETA

there are a few that DO look like rockets and helmets on the 'riders' . This appear to give the impression there were spacecraft from Earth back then, way way back.

in the glyph, I see someone in a space skirt, with space leggings, a space bra and a ridiculous space head dress.

Man in space without shoes?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: glend

If you want to know If science can be used to create a religion or even prove that God exists the answer is yes it could. Science deals with explaining reality and the universe as we observe it. Science doesn't care about anything other than searching for truths no matter where that would lead. If science proves there is a God I can see science being used in religion.

Thanks dragonridr for your input and I understand what you saying is true. But it might not be as easy as that. Take the Hindu's for example, they realized that the human senses were limited. So searched their inner minds using meditation for a greater truth.

If meditation is the only path to spiritual knowledge then it be near impossible for science to obtain empirical evidence. And without experical evidence, science would not be science, but another religion, would it not?

a reply to: Woodcarver

I'd have to disagree with you because they actually have it right question everything. All the greatest minds in human history were leaders who dared to challenge the status quo. You my friend have been brainwashed to loose your creativity by accepting everything your read in your textbook is fact. A one point in history EVERYONE thought the world was flat until one man had the balls to find out and that's only one example. Every fact you believe in was at one point the opinion of one man.

You sound threatened by science. You sound like like you have become out of touch.

You might want to get that looked at.

reply to: firefromabove

a reply to: glend

So as a man of honesty, you can define every belief you have attained through life, mathematically.

That was not the standard I set for either of us. But, in fact, I would never invoke a scientific or mathematical principle that I did not understand as evidence for any claim I was making. Never. The risks, as you have just found out, are too high.

The question I really wanted to see answered in this thread wasn't whether science was a religion, but if science was a road to religion

Then that is the question you really should have asked, and saved us opinionated twaddle like this:

It could be argued that science is just starting to realize concepts that religion has understood for thousands of years. That seemingly opposite or contrary forces might be complementary and interconnected to everything and nothing (aka Ying Yang symbol in Taoism).

It is, in fact, among the tasks of science to assess ancient ideas and determine their merit. Some of them, such as the concept of dynamic equilibrium (what you call — duh — ‘the Yin Yang symbol in Taoism’) have conceptual value. Others, not so much.

I have been wasting my time talking rubbish

Well then, stop.

Be gone, little man.

I am sure you wish reality would be gone too, and wishes could come true after all. But here I am, and here I shall stay.

a reply to: chr0naut

I shouldn't have called her little. I just wanted to put a pin in the ego, to let out a little air, is all! I have no problems with Astynax. Just couldn't work out what I was arguing about so become a bit too abrupt (sorry Astynax). Thanks for advising.

As for gray area, I remember reading perhaps a decade back, a non-mainstream hindu response to the same topic, which said science will eventually find GOD, but the path is an extremely long and windy. That perhaps drives my curiosity.

You have an impressive mind chr0naut

Many Thanks.

a reply to: chr0naut

If I may interject, I believe Astynax is a woman (and perhaps a little one?) and with Asbergers

Astyanax is male, over 6' 3" tall, a big-picture man and a bit of a party animal.

Astynax is suggesting a separation of the mathematical from the nature of the world, which I see as misplaced.

And this, too, is wrong.

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.

Ok, i can see your points. I want to know how you handle the anecdotal evidence of "miracles" in modern settings. I am not saying I believe in reincarnation, as the Hindu types do, but I do see some anecdotal proof of it with little kids and things like the we saw displayed such as the fictional "Shining" character portrayed by Jack Nicholson where he was a reincarnated evil person. Have you noticed the story's like that because, I am intrigued by the possibility if these are true story's.

Here are some you can peruse and see how you feel.

wallstreetinsanity.com...

Story #8 is awesome.. The kid leads the cops to the killer of his past self, supposedly!

a reply to: Astyanax

It is, in fact, among the tasks of science to assess ancient ideas and determine their merit. Some of them, such as the concept of dynamic equilibrium (what you call — duh — ‘the Yin Yang symbol in Taoism’) have conceptual value. Others, not so much.

Far more reaching than dynamic equilibrium. The symbol implies there is no truth, no falsehood, but a blend of both. Very much like a weight that triggers the synapses to communicate to the next neuron.

I am sure you wish reality would be gone too, and wishes could come true after all. But here I am, and here I shall stay.

I apoligize for that remark. Yes I want you to remain to keep me in check

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

So as a man of honesty, you can define every belief you have attained through life, mathematically. So who really is being dishonest here. Either you must have a greater intellect than Einstein or the ego the size of everest. Which is it?

The question I really wanted to see answered in this thread wasn't whether science was a religion, but if science was a road to religion. Or to put in bluntly, if mathematics can one day define GOD. Which is why I am personally interested in Gödel's theorems and its ramifications (which is still being digested by the science community). Instead, I have been wasting my time talking rubbish because you are upset because I quoted "Gödel's theorems". Oops I have done it again, are you angry with my second act of dishonesty.

Be gone, little man.

let us be honest here for a moment. it occurs to me that what you really wanted to see is an equation that allows someone to bottle the almighty, thereby mastering divinity to the extent that someone else can effectively anchor the cosmos to the human species the way you tie a parent to a needful child using a leash...the perfect autopilot. the logic being that a truly helpful higher power would do everything in its power to make our pithy little species happy, never realizing that what makes us happy is rarely what we actually need. in a word, caging god for the sake of our infantile ego. a scheme born of self conscious insecure little minds such as yours. it is ironic, humans trying to prove they are enlightened and spiritual by pandering to their ego and sense of existential panic. you might as well demonstrate your humanity by feeding puppies and kittens to the starving homeless.

Actually I am spiritual so its not my personal need or wish to cage GOD for myself. There are a great many scientist with outstanding morals that just seek the greater truth. I was hoping for them, that they could some how obtain it. If it were possible,

a reply to: Justoneman

I want to know how you handle the anecdotal evidence of "miracles" in modern settings.

Since the scientific method is not applicable to anecdotes, the question must remain open until physical evidence is produced. Got any?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

If I may interject, I believe Astynax is a woman (and perhaps a little one?) and with Asbergers

Astyanax is male, over 6' 3" tall, a big-picture man and a bit of a party animal.

Astynax is suggesting a separation of the mathematical from the nature of the world, which I see as misplaced.

And this, too, is wrong.

I stand corrected, true apologies.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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.

I was not referring to science, but to those individuals who cannot differentiate between the process of science and a system of invariant beliefs.

I can agree with that statement. The thing I am upset with is the whole IPP deal. Failed models and they keep posting tripe. The process says "test the theory, if it fails, pick another". Instead they keep saying the failed theory, models and all are right when they haven't made one prediction to my knowledge.

My apologies but I am not sure exactly what you are specifically referring to by "IPP deal". Would you please elucidate? Thanks in anticipation.

Mann, his hockey stick lie and so on.. Need I elaborate more?

Ah, I see, the method used to tease the apparently shocking climate change curve out of the data used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

Thank you.

a reply to: glend

Far more reaching than dynamic equilibrium. The symbol implies there is no truth, no falsehood, but a blend of both.

That is merely your interpretation of it. Anyway, science does not deal in moral issues.

originally posted by: Willtell
The problem with science is that it doesn’t admit it uses faith

No, it doesn't use faith in the way you are implying or trying to liken it to religious faith.

and the problem with religion is that it doesn’t understand the limits of faith

Arguably, no. Because religion is only that -- faith That's all it has. It has not facts or truths or evidence. Therefore, faith is its defining quality. If you're willing to believe in a God or someone walked on water, or an illiterate arab in the desert wrote down the Koran from God, or Jesus left behind gold plates in America -- then what 'limit' of faith are you implying? Sounds like there's NO limits.

Therefore, science is a religion (faith) that depends on knowledge

Again, categorically, no. Where is the 'faith' in science?

The Big Bang and evolution are not at odds with Creationism.

I don't believe man evolved from monkeys, but I do believe in adaptive evolution.

originally posted by: firefromabove
2. It has its own "prophets" and "saints": men like Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Eratosthenes, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrass Tyson, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins etc. (Science be upon them) Its blasphemous to even question their claims or disagree on even the tiniest aspect of their " science".

Pangenesis is a good example of something that Darwin got completely wrong.

Show me one person who agrees with this incorrect theory of his and you may have a point.