Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is science a religion?
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 45 of 295 (294994)
03-13-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-11-2006 11:11 AM


For those believe there is a meaningful scientific explanation to everything, it is.
how do you mean? All things of the physical realm have a scientific explanation.
the fact is religions have to do with things that are pretty much untestable, non physical and only exist subjectivly
if you argue spirits,souls or gods are objective please take a picture of one for me please

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-11-2006 11:11 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-14-2006 4:35 AM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 49 of 295 (295297)
03-14-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-14-2006 4:35 AM


Show me gravity. I wanna see it. Show me a picture.
did i say "everything can be seen even gravity?", no i said that there is a scientific explanation for evenything of the world around us, why the hell did you bring up seeing gravity? what relevence does asking for a picture of gravity have?
and yes we can show you gravity you are experancing it right now, just drop something
Ah...yes...I have nothing to fear from Islamic jihadists
Funny how real those things can be.
wow that was the biggest non-answer i have ever read, did you even read what i wrote? i said have to with, the subjects of religious beliefs, not what people do in the name of them
you are commiting so many logical contortions i'm not even sure its worth answering this,but.
Let me just say that your acknowledgment of "me" here, is evidence of: The iron shaving pattern you might attemt to argue my "show me gravity" request with.
as for your "show me gravity" thing you are not even reading my post, or understanding what i said. anyway i would say the fact that we are standing on the earth not floating off into space shows gravity pretty well
How do you identify a muslim? Show me a muslim.
There is your evidence. You just identified the unidentifyable.
did i say you can't identify religious believers? no i said please show if spirits,gods or souls are objective
People who believe in science as a religion draw a line.
I say the line was never there.
when science deals with the spiritual, the non-testable, the nonphysical and the subjective, then yes it will be a religion, till then its science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-14-2006 4:35 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-16-2006 10:43 AM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 78 of 295 (296406)
03-17-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-16-2006 10:43 AM


a late reply
it seems the thread has moved quite aways but i wish to answer this anyway, my cable has been down so i wasn't able to post.
G{r}avity? Because you believe in something you say exists exclusively upon the "evidence" it leaves behind. The evidence is based on observations of a phenomenon "us" we cannot explain. One unexplained phenomenon defining another....ummm.......there you have science.
no, you have a strange strawman of science, now if you want a less distorted version, we could go from there. I love this, "evidence" eh? i guess a person falling from the top of a building isn't evidence of gravity then?
No, you seem to not beable to explain it but science has an explaination, the mass of the earth produces the force of gravity. just like any large mass out in space
The question is....do you believe science has all the answers?
it can't answer why we do stupid things,so no it doesn't have all the answers
If that is the case....then It is your religion.
you have a distorted view of religion, sorry but your definition is so broad that anything can fall under it
he fact that you are comunicating to me abstractly not only through your body but twice removed is clear evidence to me of the force of you.
that doesn't make any sense! are you redefining what a force is? through my body? what does that even mean?
t is called a different perspective or point of view.
that isn't a different perspective, that is moving the goal posts, so that you answer a question i wasn't even asking
I am very familiar with a scientific point of view.
what are you talking about? i was talking about logic
Tell me....is gravity objective or subjective?.... and why
that depends on if you are using the definitions that everyone else uses or are making up your own, i would consider it objective because i can test it myself. i can stand near a window and drop two objects out the window and see them drop.
The problem is that science originates from the "non physical" or definable" acording to science.
What you "are" is non testable in your box that is science.Yet the entire basis for "science" comes from the non testable or definable.
If you are saying that science can define "us" and everything around us then you might as well go the next step and have science define god or have science decide no god exists.
what do you consider "non-physical"? I consider anything that can effect the physical to be physical.
I really don't understand where you get the idea that science orginates from the non-physical, do you have any evidence that it does?
what do you mean what i "am"? what does that even mean? if you mean some form of councussness then no we do not know enough about the brain at this time, but we do know you damage the brain a person will lose memories and the gaining of memories.
i'm confused by your word useage.
when i speak of science explaining everything physical i mean this, the physical world, mechianics of how the world works, i'm not talking about spiritual or things that can not be tested in some way, i do not mean what people do or how they react i mean trying to verify ghosts and spirits, which no one has been able to do.
science doesn't involve things that are not verifible so god is out of the realm of science so if someone is using it that way then they are distorting science
The idea of science now becomes the definer of all things.
no it can't be used to define things that can not be tested
That my friend is a religion
no that is a distortion of science, and religion
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-17-2006 10:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-16-2006 10:43 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-06-2006 2:01 AM ReverendDG has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 161 of 295 (311208)
05-11-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by brianforbes
05-11-2006 7:27 PM


Re: Emotional Gratification
Another thing to note is that if evolution was my belief, I would gratify myself as much as is possible. Physical elation would be more important to me than anything else... even more important to procreation. I can't blame an evolutionist for doing drugs or using women. I probably would.
nice demonizing of people you have no clue about. eather you really believe that accepting evolution means you have no ethics or you are a troll,
i am leaning to the latter, because the former scares me in how short sighted and ignorent you are
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 05-11-2006 09:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 7:27 PM brianforbes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 9:36 PM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 164 of 295 (311216)
05-11-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by brianforbes
05-11-2006 9:08 PM


Re: More Clarity
It's obvious to me that you're not internalizing what I'm saying. I said that the categorizing of subjects is too convenient to let it slide. You categorize because you CAN'T answer emotional concerns such as the ones I've addressed if you believe in Evolution.
its a bloody theory for gods sake! it has nothing to do with emotion. look somewhere else for theories that directly relate to emotions, they are basicly irrelevent when talking about a biological theory
"Evolutionism" is a religion for those who believe in the idea that nature evolved from common ancestors. It does not address emotional concerns because it's inept.
Evolutionism is a made up word to make science look bad. It doesn't address emotions because the concerns are irrelevent to the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 9:08 PM brianforbes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 9:46 PM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 165 of 295 (311218)
05-11-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by brianforbes
05-11-2006 9:36 PM


Re: Emotional Gratification
I'm not saying you're living consistently with how I would.
ok you need to put the pipe down and stay away from the brown acid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 9:36 PM brianforbes has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 169 of 295 (311225)
05-11-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by brianforbes
05-11-2006 9:46 PM


Re: More Clarity
They are relivant if you expect me believe it. I live my life according to my beliefs. If I thought my wife didn't care about me, I'd move on. Beliefs always result in actions.
what are you talking about? emotion shouldn't even come into play with science. you should accept it because it answers the questions, not because it makes you feel better. i'm not even bothering with the rest of this post it is OT and irrelevent to the topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 9:46 PM brianforbes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 9:58 PM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 177 of 295 (311237)
05-11-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by brianforbes
05-11-2006 9:58 PM


Re: More Clarity
Topic: Is science a religion?
My answer: Yes, an inept one because it doesn't address valid emotional concerns.
Your answer: It's not supposed to because it's science. Science deals in facts..
my answer is: your answer is so off base it has nothing to do with the topic, you don't have a grasp of science much less religion, if you knew what religions intail you wouldn't claim science is religion - where does science deal with spiritual things? or gods or demons or souls?
it doesn't deal with the non-materal reality - so it is not a religion, unless you are using some off the wall nonsensical definition of what religion is
...just not the fact that we have emotions... which is, in itself a proof of God's existence. You can't program a computer to act spontaneously. The world can't do it logically either. It takes faith to believe it has.
emotions arn't a proof of god if anything its a proof of nature. Heres the thing a computer is not alive! your reasoning is faulty, you are making the same recycled junk arguments creos make. objects made by man do not validate god or invaldate a non-intelligent designed world
An intellectually honest and unbiased person would agree with me... Which would make them either stop believing in Evolutionism or give me better answers for my questions.
an intellecually honest person and unbiased person would tell you to grow up and try to act like an adult instead of making veiled emotional jabs at people who disagree with you. But it seems i'm not so i'll just call you a jerk, and tell you your questions are terrible and you lack the understanding of science to ask your questions in the right field - which biological fields that study evolution are not

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by brianforbes, posted 05-11-2006 9:58 PM brianforbes has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 229 of 295 (311780)
05-14-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Dinosaurs in History - Spontaneity
AS i said before, your understanding of science is pure nonsense. this example is a pure strawman of evolution, ToE doesn't say that animals just sudenly change like you are claiming. nor does your example even trouble evolution since the theory doesnt' calim this nonsense
how about you go read a book on evolution?
you must not be working the right place to learn about AI then, they have created some very intelligent AI over the years

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:20 PM brianforbes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by CK, posted 05-14-2006 5:12 PM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 232 of 295 (311786)
05-14-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Misunderstandings
It was a general complaint about the thread. Others here have.
i called you a jerk, in refrence to the fact that you used the petty tactic of saying that if people don't agree with you they are stupid and biased - if i agreed with you, i would say you shouldn't use tatics like that, but since i don't i called you a jerk, which you are for using that tactic
The problem with this is that it utterly rejects anything that cannot be tested. It's a failure of a system. Science would do well to say more often, "We don't know." You cannot test how life came to be. You can only test how it MIGHT have come to be. Testing those theories starts with the assumption that there was no intelligence or supernatural involvement. That's bias. I don't think I can make it any clearer for you.
I'm sorry do you even understand what science DOES??
science can only test things that leave evidence, if something doesn't leave some form of evidence its pointless to add it to the mix. Science has said "I don't know" forever, you just are seeing the things they feel they do know - saying they should say "I don't know" shows you don't know
Testing those theories starts with the assumption that there was no intelligence or supernatural involvement.
when you find some evidence that shows that there was an intelligence involved or even that the supernatural exists then you can win a nobel prize, till then science will just forget things they have no evidence for.
That's bias. I don't think I can make it any clearer for you.
ok your usage of bias is just wrong, why should scientists suddenly take things at face value that has no evidence? you consider not allowing just anything to be counted as science bias?
whats the point of bothering with studing the world if we can't even define how we study it?
By the way, "...that's what creos do..." You can call that "a degree of confidence," but I'm going to call it bias.
i call your bias a buzzword used to insult thousands of peoples work over the last 150 years to make yourself feel better
Thus the reason that forums such as this always show you who believe in evolution as the victors. You want me to take evidence that was gathered by those who largely believe in Evolutionism, reiterate it, and show how it works with ID. Give us about 20 years more of ID folks finding the evidence, and I'll have more for you then. Right now, all I have to go on is that Evolutionism is amoral, pointless, and very speculative. Even if it was true that we evolved, it wouldn't do much for our society to believe that it was true.
the problem is ID doesn't want to find evidence the same bloody way every other theory has, through the scientific method, hell it doesn't have any structure or framework or anything to back it up, why even call it a theory? the fact that evidence from scientists is viewed as somehow tained just shows that, you have no understanding of how evidence is gathered or how people go about reviewing it
Right now, all I have to go on is that Evolutionism is amoral, pointless, and very speculative.
the first two objections are purely human constructs and have nothing to do with science itself, as for your assumption that its speculative, that just just baseless willfull ignorance
Even if it was true that we evolved, it wouldn't do much for our society to believe that it was true.
what does evolution have to do with a social order? why is this relevent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:53 PM brianforbes has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 234 of 295 (311789)
05-14-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by CK
05-14-2006 5:12 PM


Re: Forgot dinosaurs what about Werewolves?
I was thinking vampire myself
followed by werewolf!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by CK, posted 05-14-2006 5:12 PM CK has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 259 of 295 (312980)
05-17-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by brianforbes
05-17-2006 3:13 PM


Re: My conclusion
I read this really good paper by someone who appeared to me to be an educated man. That document is at my office, so I can’t give you his credentials (not that credentials matter all that much when observing truth). It said that things like viruses and thorns were introduced as obstacles to what the plant or virus was created to do. The virus could have been created to do any number of things, but it was corrupted by man’s sin. It sounds good to me . and it is verifiable, just not here on earth . yet .
uh, what?
thats not true at all, wheres the evidence of this? this sounds like notihng more than ad hoc reasoning to prop up the author and your's beliefs
so far your arguements come down to "i don't agree with it so its wrong" - you can be stubbern as much as you like, but that doesn't make evolution with its evidence go away or be wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by brianforbes, posted 05-17-2006 3:13 PM brianforbes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024