I don’t see how humanitys fallible senses were not involved in creating your book of “truth”.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What do we call some one that buys all they are sold ?
[/quote]
a sucker
To make science a religion one must have faith in science. I believe that having faith would involve believing in something not seen or proved but rather felt or interpreted(imagined). I do not serve or worship any faith in science however I will take the proof science puts forth as being the truth until/unless it is proved incorrect. The masses choose to believe in an omnipotent being but from day one there is not one shred of proof that this being exists(except in the conjured up soul).
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
To make science a religion one must have faith in science. I believe that having faith would involve believing in something not seen or proved but rather felt or interpreted(imagined). I do not serve or worship any faith in science however I will take the proof science puts forth as being the truth until/unless it is proved incorrect. The masses choose to believe in an omnipotent being but from day one there is not one shred of proof that this being exists(except in the conjured up soul).[/quote]
Science doesn’t offer proof, just varying degrees of certainty.
I get what you’re saying, but you need to word it better lest certain people on this board decide to ride the fallacy train.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think more important than what Religion has become look at what religion has done , it has been a thorn in the side of civilization since it’s inception
[/quote]
No civilization without religion[/quote]
There is no religion without civilization.
[/quote]
Doubt it, even nomadic tribes have some form of it.
[/quote]
Nomads are uncivilized? Civilization is a subjective term, then.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
To make science a religion one must have faith in science. I believe that having faith would involve believing in something not seen or proved but rather felt or interpreted(imagined). I do not serve or worship any faith in science however I will take the proof science puts forth as being the truth until/unless it is proved incorrect. The masses choose to believe in an omnipotent being but from day one there is not one shred of proof that this being exists(except in the conjured up soul).[/quote]
Science is incapable of putting forth proof. Such proof is the responsibility of men. Look no further than East Anglia University if you want proof that scientists can be as full of lies and deceit as any religion you so boisterously rail against.
Science is a religion to the extent that it’s where people look for answers. The people using it are terminally flawed, yet the followers of science will follow the findings of a scientist as blindly as they followers of your most hated religion.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
To make science a religion one must have faith in science. I believe that having faith would involve believing in something not seen or proved but rather felt or interpreted(imagined). I do not serve or worship any faith in science however I will take the proof science puts forth as being the truth until/unless it is proved incorrect. The masses choose to believe in an omnipotent being but from day one there is not one shred of proof that this being exists(except in the conjured up soul).[/quote]
Science doesn’t offer proof, just varying degrees of certainty.
I get what you’re saying, but you need to word it better lest certain people on this board decide to ride the fallacy train.[/quote]
Science offers nothing but a process by which questions can be answered. It is the scientists that offers the degrees of certainty.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think more important than what Religion has become look at what religion has done , it has been a thorn in the side of civilization since it’s inception
[/quote]
No civilization without religion[/quote]
There is no religion without civilization.
[/quote]
Doubt it, even nomadic tribes have some form of it.
[/quote]
Nomads are uncivilized? Civilization is a subjective term, then.
[/quote]
Civilization is not a synonym of culture, with more syllables.
Etymologically, “civilized” means “from the city”.
Nomads are the antithesis of civilization, by definition.
Science offers nothing but a method by which previous models can be disproved and new models can be built. to be disproven latter. etc.
It’s, by nature, an historical process.
Most religion are based on the idea of a complete and definitive revelation of truth. Which is an-historical by nature.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think more important than what Religion has become look at what religion has done , it has been a thorn in the side of civilization since it’s inception
[/quote]
No civilization without religion[/quote]
There is no religion without civilization.
[/quote]
Doubt it, even nomadic tribes have some form of it.
[/quote]
Nomads are uncivilized? Civilization is a subjective term, then.
[/quote]
Civilization is not a synonym of culture, with more syllables.
Etymologically, “civilized” means “from the city”.
Nomads are the antithesis of civilization, by definition. [/quote]
Given that the term is a little over 300 hundred years old, and the evils of religion considerably older - I would submit that your etymology may not be completely accurate.
Given the fact that Abraham, and most of his family were nomads, it kinda blows a whole in your “from the city” interpretation.
So which came first, the chicken or the egg?
[quote]kamui wrote:
Science offers nothing but a method by which previous models can be disproved and new models can be built. to be disproven latter. etc.
It’s, by nature, an historical process.
Most religion are based on the idea of a complete and definitive revelation of truth. Which is an-historical by nature. [/quote]
LOL. The harder the science-ologists try and prove their religion is not a religion, the more they sound like the religious people they hold in such contempt.
And they wonder why someone would have the audacity to call them hypocrites…
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think more important than what Religion has become look at what religion has done , it has been a thorn in the side of civilization since it’s inception
[/quote]
No civilization without religion[/quote]
There is no religion without civilization.
[/quote]
Doubt it, even nomadic tribes have some form of it.
[/quote]
Nomads are uncivilized? Civilization is a subjective term, then.
[/quote]
Civilization is not a synonym of culture, with more syllables.
Etymologically, “civilized” means “from the city”.
Nomads are the antithesis of civilization, by definition. [/quote]
Given that the term is a little over 300 hundred years old, and the evils of religion considerably older - I would submit that your etymology may not be completely accurate.
Given the fact that Abraham, and most of his family were nomads, it kinda blows a whole in your “from the city” interpretation.
So which came first, the chicken or the egg?
[/quote]
a few things :
*Simply put, civilization is the process of becoming civil.
Even if the word itself is relatively young (and initially had a quite specialized, juridic meaning). It’s root (the word “civil”) is far older and literally means from the city.
*my post said nothing about, for or against religion.
*Abraham became a nomad after he left Ur KaÃ???dim. Even if the location of this place (and its identification with the sumerian Ur) is disputed, it was certainly… a city.
*I’m pretty sure i’m not Orion.
*the only thing i have to say about chicken and eggs is : eat both.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Science offers nothing but a method by which previous models can be disproved and new models can be built. to be disproven latter. etc.
It’s, by nature, an historical process.
Most religion are based on the idea of a complete and definitive revelation of truth. Which is an-historical by nature. [/quote]
LOL. The harder the science-ologists try and prove their religion is not a religion, the more they sound like the religious people they hold in such contempt.
And they wonder why someone would have the audacity to call them hypocrites…
[/quote]
You’re reading what you want to read. And probably missing the slight irony in my “only to be disproven latter. etc”.
My post described the different “historicities” of science and religion.
Science and Religion doesn’t have the same relationships with their respective histories.
This difference is an objective fact.
There is no value judgment here.
Neither “for science” nor “against religion”.
I have no problem sounding like some religious people. I happen to do it quite often.
Stupid science with all that electricity, medicine and computers and shit.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Science offers nothing but a method by which previous models can be disproved and new models can be built. to be disproven latter. etc.
It’s, by nature, an historical process.
Most religion are based on the idea of a complete and definitive revelation of truth. Which is an-historical by nature. [/quote]
Even religions get interpreted and re-interpreted to adjust to their changing enviromnents.
Personally, I still think that the Mormons with their living prophets do it best.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
To make science a religion one must have faith in science. I believe that having faith would involve believing in something not seen or proved but rather felt or interpreted(imagined). I do not serve or worship any faith in science however I will take the proof science puts forth as being the truth until/unless it is proved incorrect. The masses choose to believe in an omnipotent being but from day one there is not one shred of proof that this being exists(except in the conjured up soul).[/quote]
First of all, science in and of itself rests on assumptions that cannot be proved.
Second, the methodology in most fields of study is so flawed that most studies are simply garbage, which can be proved scientifically, mwuah…
Third, science never proves anything, it mostly disproves.
I think them there biblethumpers know their holy book better than you do.
God created the atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and Hindu to test you right believing christians.
For the incredible wise people who rely on this forum to educate us what science is and cannot do I suggest you hook up a modem to your typewriter and telegraph us your next message or maybe use smoke signals.
I used to be a bible thumper, can read hebrew, was bar-mitzvah, explored Buddhism, done in-depth debates and dialogue with islamist, and studied some earth religions. I used to quote bible verses and read tons of Calvin, Luther, and many other religious greats.
Is any one saying that gravity cannot be proven? Are we a heliocentric universe? Hmm… seems that science can and has proven some things. Oh yeah, lightening is no longer the finger of god but science has proven it is an electrical discharge in the atmosphere. Oh gosh, golly science can’t prove anything.
Maybe we should all go back to candles instead of lights in our homes and everywhere else. Science undergirds every single contrivance and mechanical device we use as well as all engineering.
Religion however is the greatest home of guided imagination…but maybe now it’s Iron Man 3…oh no! that has a lot of science…