SFOSOK

Science is a religion and can be considered fanatacism. Tell me, would you have believed in the scientific principles if someone had not told you what they were or had given them a name? I think not, though you could have believed in the idea science required to give it a name in order to progress and breach barriers of language (aka converting).

Science is imposed on pretty much every human being on the planet without question though it constantly disproves itself. It requires faith (just like any other religion) in something unknown to become truth or fact to the person when it is not a proven truth, just an idea.



Also you have people who believe their religion (Science) is greater than others are also fanatics.

The thing is humans need to believe in something. Even atheists, non-confromist, and nihilists believe in something.




To say you are a more wise individual for taking "your truth" as absolute truth is ignorent and hinders spiritual as well as mental growth.



Edit: I would also like to add how rediculous some ideas are in the way of science. Everything must be accepted as absolute fact in order for science to exist but when it is disproved its ok because its science.

This is why I trust no more in science than I do any other institution.



People do need to come together to share their ideas and I admit I go to church enough and love to study the bible as much as I love to study any other book. But I will not say this is greater than that and my way is better because more people believe in it.



What I propose is to follow your institution of religion but to do so with an open mind and understanding for other institutions constantly reshaping and modeling your thoughts, reality, and understanding of the world. As soon as you close your mind to everything that goes against your personal views you close your mind to progress and knowledge. To say there is nothing to learn from Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. is the same as saying you can not learn from Science.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Vikingod

Science is not a religion. Science is a "system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method". On a broader sense, it is an organised body of knowledge gained through research.

Science is based hypothesis which is then verified by empirical observation (social and natural). Science is something that can be tested. It's not conjured out of thin air and interpreted for generations. It doesn;t require faith, as you can observe it happening, and it is recurring. I honestly don't know what you are addressing as science (philosophy maybe?).

I could go on for days, but I can tell it would do no good. I do request you try to understand what science actually is before defacing it.

SFOSOK

In order for science to work and be applied everything within the institution of Science must be accepted as absolute fact thereby qualifying it as a religion for the belief in something unknown as fact.



Edit: You cannot observe "Science". You can observe a ball fall, a coin roll downhill, an animal grow from birth, etc but you cannot observe science. Science is the term given to how things work and why they. Gravity and, Physics are an ideas that were created by one person and widely accepted as absolute fact.


I am in no way defacing it, just offering that it is not absolute fact as has been offered about other institutions of religion.




What I believe is physical and mental growth can be attributed to the institution of Science where Mental and Spiritual growth can be attributed to other religious institutions.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Sandok

Dude how bored are you these days? Honestly?

And the simple answer is yes and no.

Yes if you are some typical bloke who understands nothing about cellular activity and doesn't even know the composition of DNA or that phosphates keep your body going yet you believe every word.

No if you actually are a man of science and have a degree or something in it and only accept notions by understanding them, not believeing in blind faith.

Anyways, this thread is as pointless as all the threads in this forum since nobody really cares what the other writes and just wants his opinion to be heard. Religious people will say, "Yes, science is a religion, they are like us!!!!" And athiests will say, "Hell no, there isn't a single shred of rational evidence to support that".

Just watch South Park, episodes Go God Go I and Go God Go II.

SFOSOK

A "greater man of Science" is the equivilant of a Cardinal, Pastor, or Pope in other institutions of religion.

In answer to your first question, attacking the person instead of the idea just shows how little you can support your claims that follow. I am not bored but I enjoy writing, I am not trying to enforce my opinion on you but instead I am stating mine.

Dumbing down what I have said with things like "This thread is pointless" and generalizing my overall idea into "Yep, science is a religion, they are like us!!!!" is not an effective means of defending your point or opinion.

Its not that I don't want to believe your point or consider it but it becomes hard to think about your position when you don't bring up any relevant points towards the topic and cite a TV show as proof of your belief.


There is only one thing I am offering in this thread and that is to keep an open mind towards religion and pretty much everything else in the world, if not just to further your knowledge but to understand Science requires as much faith if not more than other institutions of religion.


But let me get this right, this is your arguement or your opinion on the matter:

Science is right and absolutely right because it is worldly accepted as a fact and institutionalized where as religion is wrong and absolutely wrong because it requires a blind faith in nothing.

If that is what you believe then I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Even rational judgement or fact is not truth.


If you close you mind to other religion it would be the same as not listening to someone who is black because they are black, not listening to someone just because you disagree with their opinion, or anything else of that nature.








The Main Idea:

To accept your belief as absolute fact hinders mental and spiritual growth and understanding

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Sandok

I know mate But again, what I mean is that you've stated this many times before... Many many many times And twas not a personal attack... Just a statement.

Again, no need to dumb it down since we've already fought this out...

A TV show because images > words. And you know me man, as I said, we've done this before so ya... No need to bring anything I've already brought in the previous threads.


An open mind to religion why? I mean, I'm not actively hunting down believers and forcing them to be atheist or anything? I don't throw jesus juice or burn their churches? I accept them for who they are but voilą.

As for the part that science requires faith, ONLY and I repeat ONLY religious people say this. Why try and compare both? My dad is a biochemist and he doesn't have "faith" in his job and I don't have "faith" in his job. I try and understand what he does and rationally and factually study it. Tis not "I take your word for it" so it must be true. All science is based on the proof of a theory and on fact.

Another example, H20. I've never seen hydrogen at an atomic level, neither have I seen oxygen at that level. Yet, I don't believe in it because somebody says it's like that. I believe it because I studied the subject and I understand the proof behind it. It's conclusive.


Well wait, what does reilgion require? A christian told me faith? What else? You don't need to know how to read... No need to understand biology or anything... You listen to somebody read and preach the bible and that's it....

As f or science being right, that's bull... It's not always right, it's just the more probable explanation for many things. Evolution, space, life, etc among other more typical things like what water is, oxygen, ozone and all.


I don't close my mind... I've lived in a religous country and people have told me I should step into the light and blablabla. I just don't find it convincing. I don't blatently say, "No I don't wanna hear what you have to say". I've hearda million times and I don't understand how in the name of all that is HOLY a hell exists somewhere, a soul exists, heaven, jesus juice, moses, resurrection etc. Nobody can proove it to me except by saying, It's in the bible. That's not proof.

That's religion in it's best description... Muslims nowadays or christians in america (morgans for example) would be perfect with that description.

SFOSOK

Can you tell the difference between a fanatical Christian and one who is open minded to others beliefs and culture?

Though you commonly use the extremists as an example for all Christians you show no proof or any indication that all who "believe in a higher power" are extremists.

To judge something different as wrong with out proving it is like saying its wrong because its different.


I would like to go back and quote what you wrote and analyze it but I don't have time right now. All this is turning into is bickering.


Maybe you should read through and study the bible and I should study all of the laws and theories of science and then a meaningfull discussion can occur in a few months or years but until then I stand by what I said.

Science is a religion.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Zelig

Here is a list of religions. "Science" is not in the list, if you feel this is in error, feel free to add it.

"science." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 04 Feb. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science>

"religion." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 04 Feb. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion>

__________________
--

SFOSOK

I am kind of inclined to do so actually. Perhaps in the future after I have further studied Science and its principles.


Also keep in mind Wikipedia is the foremost authority on nothing.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Zelig

Niether is any other encyclopedia, and linking to technical pdfs about everything can get tiresome. Wiki is good for general or common knowledge stuff; it's good for providing background information and leading to further credible sources of information.

And...

__________________
--

SFOSOK

heh

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Sandok

Yeah I could tell the diff, though I see no need in this particular discussion. As for okay, do moderates have a different belief on proof of a higher power? No. The only difference is that they might not go to Church fervently every Sunday.

Seems to me this is what you're doing...


Well, till you do that, what's the point? I'm always showing you exactly what parts of your arguments I'm attacking / discussing and well, you don't.

Dude I've been through religious classes and all the stuff. The difference is, you live in the US where you guys have a very different idea on science and religion. You guys are mostly religious overthere and believe in intelligent design to be taught in schools. That sorta ends discussions for me, you guys are just way too much into it (other words, sorta extreme). And thus, to make it seem as if you are no different than others who won't go into the same ideology as you, religion is a science argument pops up . Honestly, the world ain't like that If you wanna beleive it, fine but as long as my country doesn't dive into such blatant generalization, I don't mind.

You've made up your mind, can we move on then? This is stupid and hell, if major websites and goverments disagree with you, I think it's safe to bet they're right and you're wrong. That's my opinion

SFOSOK

I'm not saying science is wrong man, I'm just saying its not the absolute truth.

You are not disproving or even making a valid arguement. Your use of smilies is the equivilant of point and saying "Haha your stupid so I don't have to listen to what you say" though they do not effectively prove your point and only displays your inability to express productive and creative thought through writing.

"You guys are mostly religious over there". So how long have you lived here? Visited?

And before you pose the same question to me I can validate a response. I am not the one making broad generalizations like "you people" nor attacking the generalizations made towards your country in any way.


You have not successfully defended your point, only stated that what I have said (being open minded towards religion) is dumb and should be ignored. I do not wished to be mocked for my beliefs because of your closed minded and self-righteousness so this discussion is over.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Sandok

And I've been saying the same for religion.

I like smilys... Alot... I just don't have the time or patience to discuss this for very long If you find smilies automatically make posts immature and discredible, my oh my are we going to have trouble communicating.

I have lived their for the majority of my child hood and visit every year for a good month or two... East coast preferbly

And I'm sorry, say what you want you are generalizing a crapload.


I never said being open minded is dumb? Where are you reading this? QUOTE ME!

All I've said is that saying religion = science is stupid beyond belief because nobody cept a rare few will testify to it. Honestly, you're the one making fun and trying to be the most self-righteousness in blaming my manner of writing and my use of smilies. Cheap shots to try and win an argument---

SFOSOK

I am merely stating they are not an effective means or representation in proving you point. I have been fair though I view smilies as a cheap shot to dumb down things I say.

Again, this is done.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

[hobo]eclipse

nice religious artifact u type on and game on and go online with there SFOSOK...........

Dowaco

This really sounds like a trolling session. You cannot pick opposites and say they are the same and have anyone agree with you. The only thing Science and Religion have in common is that they are a subset of Human thought.

Science is the study of the universe through empirical observation. No belief in unprovable phenomena is required. Nothing is taken as an assumption, everything is open to questioning and critical analysis. You do not need to "believe" in science for it to be. Most things in science are stated as theories or hypotheses and probabilities. It is a way for people to control the world around them.

Religion is belief in a supernatural power taken on faith alone. The entire foundation of religion is an assumption. Religion has no room for heretics or unbelievers and everything the religion says is dogma. It is a way for people to control other people or to feel better about themselves.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Judas

don't mix science, and applied theory with each other...

Alot of theories and applied theoretical mathamatics require blind faith into the cacluations and math being correct..... imo i think this is shouldn't be taught so in depth....

__________________

Zelig

I don't really understand... care to provide an example?

__________________
--

Maddogg6

This is obviously written by one with little knowledge in science.
Theories are treated as such - as in, open for new discovery.

Also, don't confuse real science with 'junk science' - as in, false reports designed for deceptive marketing by big corps. That, big corp owned media refuses to cover such stroies in the main stream news.

Ok - So... lets go back to having your local preist determine guilt in a court of law - cuz that worked sooo well before. Think maybe theres a reason SCIENCE is used and NOT faith there?

Don't bother answering SFO - I wont convince you, and you wont convince me - as you pointed out over and over before. And because so, I would tend to agree that this thread is meant to troll...

I must say Im a bit suprised by this thread considering your position on matters of faith vs science. - like its even the same category - Comparing religion with science is like comparing a ghost with an airplane.
Or, find me a priest who can fly, I would like to see that one - *without* an airplane that is. You cant really compare the 2 concepts can you? - One is proven 100000+ times a day - the other ... well - is stuff only found in video special effects.

Hmm... maybe learn science THEN debate the science vs religion?.... If youve done your study, you'll likely see that they dont compare.

Falstaff

Science cannot be a religion, these two distinctly different things, give me a paradigm for each?
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/...s/dawkins.html

__________________

Judas

When something is taught in class to be fact, when all that has been done is theorised and then mathamatically "saposedly" proven to be completely fact when in fact they haven't actually been able to put the idea to practive let alone know of any way to get around what they think is impossible. The same goes for anything orginally thought up over a hundred years ago, every few dozen years, something is rewriten because we've been able to figure it out and break the theorized rules.

An example of something today is that Matter cannot be destoyed, it can be changed. While we are sure this is true, we haven't found anything thus far that contradicts, course there are theories that do, but majority says otherwise. Matter cannot be destroyed, it's stated as fact by majority vote. (imo i think this is wrong)

Another is that no one can break the speed of light barrier, it's impossible, therefore it is fact, i beleive this is wrong as well, but yet again this is the widely accepted theory and therefore is written as fact.

There are thousands of examples out there that we follow today, or in the passed had followed but have changed.


While science isn't a religion, i can see where the line is blurred when some people have to have faith in a previous persons, or thier own theorised/widely accepted ideas/math.

__________________

Dowaco

The conservation of matter, energy, spin, angular momentum, etc, are not taken on faith. These things have been subjected to experiment and while they have never been disproved, are still theories. There are no absolutes. Even the speed of light is open to interpretation (special relativity).

Where there is a disconnect between Human thought and real world phenomena is in the area of theoretical mathematics. Imaginary numbers and nth dimensional spaces cannot be comprehended, but they are viewed as artificial constructs, not a real tangible thing to be believed in.

Once you comprehend the Scientific Method, you do tend to take many principles for granted without testing them yourself, but all the work done up to that point is documented and you can read about it if you wish.
In religion, no past history is required. Belief in the religion is the starting point and ending point and there is no building of faith born of previous devotees.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Zelig

This isn't simply determined by a majority vote. Matter and energy are essentially interchangable. We have models explaining how matter and energy behave that are supported by all experiments we perform. We are unable to find, or create any situation where matter/energy are created or destroyed, and our models, including more complex ones where energy is defined as the time derivative of the wave function fail to predict any possibility where energy/matter can be destroyed or created.

It is impossible. The universe has a certain maximum speed in a vacuum through space-time, and light, among other things (massless particles, fields) travels at this speed. This is also supported by models which are in turn supported by every observation we are able to make.

If you'd like, I can sketch some math out for either the conservation of energy or the maximum speed in a vacuum. Believing something is wrong, without understanding the mechanisms behind the theory, and while having no valid competing evidence doesn't lend itself to being correct very often.

__________________
--

Judas

But those are only a few issues, when the math is all sketched down and models are used, without having any idea to even remotely obtain any form of speed near that of light, how can we even think that it's impossible to serpass it. While i'll agree, it looks damn dim atm, the possibility that this could change is still there. Anyone that can think should realize that the simpliest things could have a exceptional low, but possible chance of being wrong, even when the evidence is stareing you right in the face.


Matter can't be destroyed, but changed, now where does antimatter excist? Some theories related to the initial start of the universe figure that majority of it all was matter, and anti-matter, combined, and created the vacumm of space. Wouldn't this signify that matter could be destroyed?

While my examples are steller at all, there is some, just a little merit to the idea.

__________________

Dowaco

Matter can be destroyed to where it is no longer matter but the equivalent amount of energy. (E=MC^2)

If matter and antimatter collide, pure energy is produced and all the matter is destroyed.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Judas

That's where the line blurs, EXACTLY dowaco,

i've used quite often the E=MC^2 to potentially show that in some way, matter CAN be destoyed and produce pure energy.

Since energy isn't actually Matter, isn't that proof enough. Course yet again we are dealing with theory sorta....

__________________

Falstaff

belief in a theory is not the same as a belief in an immortal god, spirit or soul and cannot be proven with mere science, and yet it is and remains intangible.

__________________

Dowaco

Right, Belief (with a capital B) and belief are two different things.

I can think (believe) that something is true or false, but the actual fact may be something different from my view. If this difference can be proven using logic and experiment, then my belief can change and science progresses.

Faith based Belief is required to be unyeilding. Once you no longer believe, you are not part of the religion.

To be pretty sure that something is correct based on verifiable evidence is different from a spiritual certainty based on nothing more than "this is what I was told to think".

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Zelig

We can accelerate particles with mass to significant fractions of the speed of light, and they behave exactly as they should, with an asymptote of required energy going to infinity as speed approaches that of light.

No, that's exactly it. When dealing with modern physics, there is no distinction between matter and energy. Matter is simply a state of energy. Matter is often not conserved when dealing with cases of special relativity, hence why the terms "conservation of mass", "conservation of mass-energy", "conservation of invariant mass" and the like have largely been replaced with simply "conservation of energy".

__________________
--