Science IS religion

[viole]

Who cares? Of course to say that science is a religion is ridiculous. Even if it were a belief system, we do not knee and pray to Darwin or recite the periodic table of elements.

But according to what you claim, it is. So, either you do not believe that Biblical Scholarship (and things with the same acronym) yourself, or you just have to admit that you are blaspheming, too.

Ciao

- viole

Worship need not involve those things. People worship money for example and we do not see them bowing. The question is what we respect and put above other things.

Worship need not involve those things. People worship money for example and we do not see them bowing. The question is what we respect and put above other things.

Science does not always come out with naturalistic explanations because it has been hijacked by atheists. It does it, because methodological naturalism is one of its characterizing rules. So, to whine about that, is like whining that in chess you cannot move the pawn backwards. Whether this rule will always lead to truths is debatable. What is not debatable is that it must keep on using the naturalistic rule, because if it did not, it would not be science anymore.

Your problem is that science has become very popular, and more people start respecting that more than stories about talking donkeys, prophets living three days in a tuna and airborne Messiahs or horses. So, i understand why proponents of the latter would like to hijack the name. It is good PR for their weird beliefs.

Of course, you have no chance to change that. So, I suggest you create your own epistemology and paradigm to study the past, with its own name, and you make it compete in the market of free ideas. If that brings good fruits, then you might even be able to replace science.

Alternatively, you can pray that things change, since I assume you believe prayers are effective, and let scientists do their work.

Good luck.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you claiming that faith in something you cannot see or know to exist, since there is no evidence, is the same as faith in a family that you have evidence exists and experience existing with them?

Much of spiritual faith, is. No evidence to you. Do you have faith in your family? But I don't have that faith in your family...I've never experienced their actions in my life... just as you have no faith in my family.

Yes, much is personal, what I've experienced.

But not all. Earlier I quoted Romans 1:20.. To me (and coupled with my personal experiences), the complex information found in living things are "clearly seen" as the product of Mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Much of spiritual faith, is. No evidence to you. Do you have faith in your family? But I don't have that faith in your family...I've never experienced their actions in my life... just as you have no faith in my family.

Yes, much is personal, what I've experienced.

But not all. Earlier I quoted Romans 1:20.. To me (and coupled with my personal experiences), the complex information found in living things are "clearly seen" as the product of Mind.

You certainly can believe that there is a designer and this post is evidence that you believe. I do not have to take it on faith that you believe. But yours is faith without seeing. It is not science.

The differences in the meaning of faith you are applying are easy to discern. Religious faith is faith without evidence or only highly subjective evidence that would mean nothing to someone else. While you have faith in your family for reasons as well as feelings. It is something that I could share if I were to interact with your family. A faith in your family could grow in me as well in that context. But I cannot share what you claim is the evidence for your beliefs. Your interpretations of the Bible will be different and even the very basis on which those interpretations are made is different.

Personal experience. Well you can share it, but you cannot demonstrate it is what you claim it is. Neither can I.

None of this means that some or all of science is based on faith. It simply is not intended to nor is it practiced in a way that is based on faith. A scientist may have faith in things, but he or she does not come to conclusions using faith as supporting evidence or reason for the conclusions.

If a person professes to have had some personal experience with God or Christ, how do you know? What evidence is there to support their claim over alternative explanations? What if they were in a fugue state, dreaming, suffering from some mental illness, lying, or under the effect of a chemical? They could be telling the truth, but there is no way to know. Because you believe is not evidence that can be used to demonstrate a personal belief of your own or of anyone else. It is not a rare instance when some person has fooled millions with lies of their personal encounters with Christ and all to get those believers to turn over their will and the contents of the wallets.

 

[tas8831]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion.

Why lie? Is that the only way y our zany religionism can succeed?

Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Like evolutuon.

Cool (yet unwitting) admission.

 

[dad]

You have - and you're still alive!

I would likely not return rapidly to dust but leave remains.

 

[dad]

As I see it "Originscience" only has to do with gastrointestinal diseases. To say "they are religion" is not true IMO
Unless you call religion "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotiona pursuit or interest followed with great devotion"
But then at least it has nothing to do with Christianity or any other Religion
Origin Sciences - Home

Origin means something other than that dealing with stomachs actually. The origin of man and the world is not something one should easily conflate with diseases.

 

[dad]

How is that remotely relevant. You earlier posited that living populations are created spontaneously. Where is your evidence of this?

In looking at all the evidences such as the Cambrian explosion and etc etc..it fits. By the way deliberate creation is not spontaneous, as that word usually invokes something happening on it;s own.

This is just gibberish.

Breaking it down for you then, if the laws and nature on earth were different, we could not expect the current realities and reasons for fossilization over a given time to apply.

 

[dad]

If something is belief base and then say "so they are religion" is not true IMO
My belief has to do with my spiritual quest. And has nothing to do with religion.

We are not talking about your personal beliefs but the beliefs inherent in the science dealing with origins of life and the world.

Because there is a disciplined beliefs set and methodology adhering to this and practice..etc one can think of it as religious.

 

[dad]

It does not require my interpretation. I do not base it on my interpretation and now you are contradicting yourself again. You go caught in a lie. It happens far too often. It indicates that as much as you protest you really do not believe your creationism nonsense. A person that truly believed would not run away all of the time.

Saying nothing in ost after post is time wasting for readers. Work on that.

 

[dad]

Another example of running away. Now you are running away about running away. Don't run. Only those that know that they are wrong run. Please deal with issues as they arise.

Address the question. Get on point.

 

[Darkstorn]

Saying nothing in ost after post is time wasting for readers. Work on that.

Funny, i was going to say that you sure post a lot, but none of it is worth reading.

Or really even responding to. I'm just doing it for entertainment.

 

[dad]

You do NOT get to re-define words to suit your whim and delusions.
.

Meaning of belief in English
[ C or S or U ]
UK /bɪˈliːf/ US /bɪˈliːf/
feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:


something that you believe:


BELIEF | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Ha

 

[dad]

Wrong. And? Wrong. And? Wrong as well. And? Still wrong.

Wow. Such a short paragraph-- but you managed to put 4 wrong things in there, about 4 different subjects.

Congrats! Is that a record? Naaah... but it IS funny!

Please show us then how you have left the solar system and area to observe anything? Your saying it is wrong that light comes here to be observed from there is funny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Funny, i was going to say that you sure post a lot, but none of it is worth reading.

Or really even responding to. I'm just doing it for entertainment.

I enjoy reading highly repetitive and meaningless good old fashioned religious extremism. But the anachronism is so 19th Century.

 

[dad]

I could provide a link which would explain everything. But you are deathly afraid of links.

What is Scientific Evidence?

So you will, I have no doubt, Run Awaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!

The rabbit has Nasty Sharp Teeths!

So you take something addressed to someone else and still fail to answer it as requested in your own words. Nice.

 

[tas8831]

Funny, i was going to say that you sure post a lot, but none of it is worth reading.

Or really even responding to. I'm just doing it for entertainment.

No no, see, Dad's posts were different in the past.... can't compare what he wrote 10 minutes ago to what he just wrote. No way to compare them.
Or something...

 

[Darkstorn]

No no, see, Dad's posts were different in the past.... can't compare what he wrote 10 minutes ago to what he just wrote. No way to compare them.
Or something...

I already went with this assumption. I don't think he has an internal chronology or anything like that.

 

[dad]

Now you get it! You have an inkling of how we feel, when reading about how creationists tries to denigrate Science, by painting it as Religion.

Whereas it is true, that many non-believers feel that religion is worth ridicule? And we all find it quite funny that you would put "science" in the same category as your most Cherished Ideas, as a kind of Ridicule?

While belief in the One true God is grouped in with other beliefs, it is not done so by me. In the same way, other gods exist but are not THE God. There are two categories only as I see it, belief in God and belief in anything else! So when science is exposed as just another belief it does not get elevated to equal status with belief in God.

In the same way if I recognized a demon was being worshiped by some people that does not make it God. It just makes it another dime a dozen god people reverence.

But mostly, we are sad-- that a nominal adult, in 2019, still clings to Bronze Age ideas which are no more credible than...

... a flat earth, or the phlogiston theory of heat.

My beliefs have nothing to do with that. You seem to think that NOT worshiping at the altar of science means we are peasants who are insane and outdated. No. We are the future. We are right. We are on the winning side.

 

[dad]

But not you-- you are More Moral than "god"... right?

I have read some of His word, so I am not one of those making stuff up about creation. I use His stuff. Great material it is!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No no, see, Dad's posts were different in the past.... can't compare what he wrote 10 minutes ago to what he just wrote. No way to compare them.
Or something...

We cannot tell what they were because they were written in a fishbowl where the speed of light could be anything. It could be a boat. It could be little child on a pony. It could be the sound of a lonely wind flowing through the aspen leaves. We cannot know what he posted in the past, since that light will meander around, lollygag, and lay about before it bursts through the fishbowl. We cannot even be sure that those posts don't come from the future or another dimension. The fishbowl dimension where it takes an infinite number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop.