Is Science a Religion?

Is not the same as:

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

You are trying to play with my wording but you are missing the point.
When I say rules I mean rules of conduct. Morals are rules of conduct.

But morales/rules of conduct are not owned only by religion, unless you think Robert's rules of order are establishing a religion. Simply having rules of conduct does not make science a religion.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Again, what does that have to do with anything?I certainly believe Scientists and most Religious Leaders over any Biblical Literalist or Biblical Creationist. We KNOW that the Biblical Creationists are wrong, wrong about Science, wrong about Theology and totally wrong about Christianity. No. Many of them. All? No.Enough to hold Evolution as FACT and the Theory of Evolution as the very best explanation to date for what was seen? Yes.By the way. Your tactic is what is known as the Gish Gallop. Basically it is one of the dishonest tactics of the Biblical Creationists. It is to not address responses and to keep throwing out more and more nonsense points in a hope that the opponents will be too busy to show how ALL of the points are just bullshit.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Morals are owned only by religion. If you have no religion then you have no reason to value a persons life over a virus's life.

Please point out where that precludes rules?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are confusing two different concepts.When I said science does not concern itself with matters of morality, I was not saying science itself is immoral, or that there are no rules of conduct as far as science is concerned.Science does not concern itself with matters of morality in that science does not study or try to discover rules of morality. There certainly are rules of conduct that scientists themselves try to follow. But those rules themselves are not the domain of science.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Bullshit Sure I do. I can appreacite human life without ever getting into some mystical garbage. So if you didn't have your religion you'd be out there kiling and raping? You're a sociopath held in check only by fear of an invisible sky bully?Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I did address your points. And I have many reasons to consider science to be a religion. On a side note, the main part of my post you seem to have missed. If you "BELIEVE" the scientists, then you have just subscribed to a "RELIGION".

This is utter nonsense.I have my own personal reasons for valuing human life, and other rights of humans. These do not come from religion, but are based on my reasoning for believing such things are right.This is where fundies are the most frightening in my opinion. For a fundy who values life only because their god tells them to, there's nothing to keep them from taking the life of another if they think that's what their god wants. To the extent that portions of the bible are accurate, this fear seems well-founded.However, to tie this back into the topic of the thread and to try to head off a follow up, my views on morality do not come from science, but from my moral reasoning. This capacity, and the processes I use in exercising my moral reasoning, are quite different from the processes I use in scientific reasoning.Nothing that you have said yet in this thread suggests you will understand this distinction, but since you've seen fit to quote me at this point, I feel it appropriate to respond.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It is interesting that this keeps coming up. If this is your actual understanding of your views and beliefs about yourself then we add to that the fact that at least some atheists are very moral (by whatever standard you want to pick) and come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of people in the world:those who are capable of behaving themselves without an external imposition of rulesandthose like yourself who are without a conscience and would, by your own claims, run amok if not controlled.

"Belief" in scientists comes down to believing that the evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence supports the conclusions that they have reached. It does not mean believing anything they say simply because they are scientists. If that was how science in fact proceeded, you'd have a much stronger argument. However, since it's not, all you have is a deep, deep misunderstanding.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Someone had already made the observation that a ball shot out of a cannon follows a curved trajectory; the shape of the earth is curved; and so it is possible that if a ball is shot out of a cannon with enough force it will "fall" in such a way that it will follow the curvature of the earth; in other words, it will orbit the earth.That may have clued Newton to try using a central force to model the orbits of the planets and to postulate that this was the same phenomena as apples simply dropping to the ground.At any rate, the subject is whether or not science is a religion. You are doing a pretty poor job at explaining why we should consider science to be a religion, undoubtably because you don't have a very clear idea of what religion is.It doesn't matter whether Newton had a prior idea of a unity of the forces; such an idea is not necessarily a religious idea.It doesn't matter if Newton did reach this conclusions due to his religious beliefs; that doesn't make the idea of some unifying principle a religious idea.Just what do you think a religion is? You seem to believe that a religion is just some set of beliefs that claims to provide answers to some sorts of questions, which is a pretty unsophisticated and uninteresting notion of a religion.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

um. dude. watch what you say. I'm an atheist. I don't belong to any religion (even if atheists conspired to create one church of atheism, i wouldn't join).so you're telling me that I don't value a person's life over that of a virus? you're wrong. not only are virus's not techinically alive (when using the trad. seven characteristics), but I value my family's life over that of some family I've never met. And I value their lives more, much more, than I do a dog's life. A dog over bacteria. bacteria over mosquitos.oh, and I do have "morals". I have the so-called "moral compass".next time, try not to insult as atheists when you speak.

LOLBullshit.You really can't read.My religion is Christian. In fact it is Episcopalian.What I said is "I certainly believe Scientists and most Religious Leaders over any Biblical Literalist or Biblical Creationist."I trust Science because Science, unlike Religion, has a Code of Ethics.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion