Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science a Religion?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 46 of 313 (381569)
01-31-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 3:25 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
Open Mind writes:
You don’t think gravity is made up. Did you ever see "the force" between to objects with your own eyes? Scientists have made up quite a few things.
Right on, brother! I'm with you!
You know those electron things that supposedly flow through wires? Yep, that's right, made up!
The NASA moon landing? Yep, made up!
Magnetism? Yep, that too!
Light refracting when passing through glass? Yep, more nonsense! Throw those glasses away!
Distant galaxies billions of light years away? Yep, more lies!
Penicillin, schenicillin. More useless rubbish!
I mean, it just goes on and on and on. We did the right thing with Giordano Bruno, just not on a big enough scale and not recently enough. Lead on brother!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 3:25 PM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Omnivorous, posted 01-31-2007 5:53 PM Percy has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 47 of 313 (381578)
01-31-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Percy
01-31-2007 5:12 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
Penicillin, schenicillin. More useless rubbish!
I believe that should be "schmenicillin."

Free Dr. Adequate!
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 01-31-2007 5:12 PM Percy has not replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 48 of 313 (381595)
01-31-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Chiroptera
01-31-2007 3:32 PM


Re: Defining religion
Religious people can drastically redefine gravity. Try my theory of little spirits keeping people on the floor. You can clearly see that the scientist have used there imagination to describe why people stick to the floor. If they were religious they might have attributed this phenomenon to spirits. For some reason spirits are not scientific but an unknown "force" is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 01-31-2007 3:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by kuresu, posted 01-31-2007 7:39 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 01-31-2007 9:01 PM Open MInd has replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 49 of 313 (381597)
01-31-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
01-31-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
Now you claim to see things that don't even reflect light. How can you claim to have seen the "FORCE".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2007 4:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2007 11:28 AM Open MInd has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 50 of 313 (381601)
01-31-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Defining religion
just so you know, the person who formulated the concept of gravity also believed that the order present in the solar system was such that only God could have made it.
So, a religious person came up with the first concept of gravity.
the first major shift in our understanding of gravity came from a dude who said "god doesn't play dice with the universe".
here's a quick question for you--can you test for the existence of those "spirits" holding people down?
better yet, can you explain why, in your hypothesis (it ain't a theory yet) gravity is the result of pushing, when the current accepted understanding of gravity is that masses pull on each other?
in other words, can you explain why something is pushed toward something else, instead of pulled?
the force is very real (and no, not the one in star wars). just like the magnetic force is. do you see anything pulling your compass needle in alignment with the magnetic poles? and yet, you probably accept magnetism.

Question. Always Question.
" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:23 PM Open MInd has not replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 51 of 313 (381602)
01-31-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
01-31-2007 4:28 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
The question you have to ask yourself is how much do you involve yourself in science and how religious are you? Many people on this board claim to be religious and scientific. I challenge you people who claim to be religious and scientific. How much do you really believe in your religion? Did you contact your religious leader before you decided to study science? If you do study religion and you are a firm believer in your religion, how much do you really believe in your science? It is obvious that one can not truly believe in his religion and firmly believe in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2007 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 01-31-2007 7:53 PM Open MInd has replied
 Message 53 by jar, posted 01-31-2007 8:00 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 01-31-2007 8:02 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2007 9:27 PM Open MInd has replied
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2007 1:49 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 59 by subbie, posted 02-01-2007 8:10 PM Open MInd has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 52 of 313 (381603)
01-31-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
does your religion require God to exist in the holes not explained by science yet?
can God not be behind all the mechanisms we see?
can God not use said mechanisms?
if not, why not?
your idea of God might need some maturing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:45 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 8:37 PM kuresu has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 313 (381604)
01-31-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:45 PM


Typical Christian reading problem?
The question you have to ask yourself is how much do you involve yourself in science and how religious are you? Many people on this board claim to be religious and scientific. I challenge you people who claim to be religious and scientific. How much do you really believe in your religion? Did you contact your religious leader before you decided to study science? If you do study religion and you are a firm believer in your religion, how much do you really believe in your science? It is obvious that one can not truly believe in his religion and firmly believe in science.
You know you are showing all the signs of being a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Big time member. Likely you are right up there in ignorance with so many of todays Christian Pastors.
You have already been told that folk do not "believe" in Science.
You have also been told that Science, including the Theory of Evolution is not a problem for Christianity, only for the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
In the words of the Clergy Letter, one signed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy:
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
Please understand Open MInd, if you think there is a problem accepting Science along with Christianity you are just plain ignorant.
But worry not. Ignorance is easily cured by learning. It is even fun to actually exercise your mind for the first time.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:45 PM Open MInd has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 54 of 313 (381605)
01-31-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
Open Mind writes:
It is obvious that one can not truly believe in his religion and firmly believe in science.
Amen, brother! Those whose minds are shackled by the bonds of science must free themselves and let their minds soar with the holy spirit. They must cast off their worship of false idols like gravity, electromagnetism, wave/particle duality and slinkies and worship the one, true God. There can be no room in one's soul for both science and religion. Shout it out, brother! Hallelujah!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:45 PM Open MInd has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 313 (381607)
01-31-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:23 PM


A force is not a cause.
quote:
For some reason spirits are not scientific but an unknown "force" is.
These are not the same thing. The "force of gravity" is not the "cause" of two objects coming close to one another. "Force of gravity" is the description that two things are approaching one another.
When something is moving off of a straight-line path, we say that there is a force. This is not saying, "the force is causing the object to move off of its straight-line path." Rather, saying, "there is a force" is just another way of saying, "the object is moving off of a straight-line path."
"Gravity" is not the "cause" of the "force", either. Rather, saying, "the force of gravity" is just another way of saying that the object is not moving along a straight-line path, that this phenomenon is occurring under a certain set of circumstances, and that we should be able to do a certain type of calculation to determine just how it is going to move.
Now, one can wonder what "causes" the "force of gravity". You could, if you want, say that it is due to little spirits. Or you could say that it is a manifestation of curved geodesics in a Lorentzian space-time. Or you could, like Newton, just say that as far as we know that is just the way things are, that we don't know what causes the force of gravity.
So, saying, "People are sticking to the floor because of gravity" is not telling you what is causing people to stick to the floor. Rather, someone is just pointing out that people are, in fact, sticking to the floor and that they know how to do some calculations that will tell you how much they are sticking.
By the way, I wouldn't label a theory of little spirits necessarily religious.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed subtitle.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:23 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 9:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 313 (381608)
01-31-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:45 PM


Religious Leader?
Did you contact your religious leader before you decided to study science?
Do you need permission from a religious leader to think? Brush your teeth? Tie your shoes?
Sounds like a cult viewpoint to me.
Can you tell me who a "religious leader" for a Deist would be? Can you tell me who tells the "religious leader" what to think?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:45 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 313 (381628)
02-01-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
Now you claim to see things that don't even reflect light.
What? No, spoons definitely reflect light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:28 PM Open MInd has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 313 (381648)
02-01-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:45 PM


The question you have to ask yourself is how much do you involve yourself in science and how religious are you?
I involve myself in science at my job and I'm this -->| - - - - | But seriously, how do I tell you how religious I am? On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most religious, I would put myself at a 5.
How much do you really believe in your religion?
Even if my faith is weak, I'm not avoiding religion like you claimed. I do believe in my religion. I don't see why how much faith I have is important to this discussion.
Did you contact your religious leader before you decided to study science?
No. Why should I? Do you think a Catholic priest would advise against me getting a Bachelor's of Science? Or were you talking about the pope?
If you do study religion and you are a firm believer in your religion, how much do you really believe in your science?
What do you mean by "believe in" when refering to science?
When I go into the lab this afternoon and find that this new product has a corrosion rate on aluminum of 100 mils/year, how do I "believe in" the science that I used? Is it because I accept the results as accurate? Or is it that I believe the scientific explanation for the cause of the corrosion? And what does that have to do with me believing that Jesus is God and trying to follow his teachings?
It is obvious that one can not truly believe in his religion and firmly believe in science.
It is not obvious to me, please explain.
And now you've thrown the words "truley" and "firmly" in there. You are changing your statement into something that cannot be false because I don't think that anyone firmly believes in science. Scientfic results are tentatively accepted. And now you can say to anyone who does believe "well, you don't truly believe." You are being dishonest. You should repent.
But anyways, the reason I replied was this statement:
quote:
Obviously, the people who involve themselves with science are trying to avoid religion.
Like I said, I involve myself in science and I am not avoiding religion. I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong, and the statement is far from obvious.
When you named yourself "Open MInd", were you being sarcastic?
You're making it very hard for me to have any respect for you. Please explain why you believe the way you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:45 PM Open MInd has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 59 of 313 (381724)
02-01-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
The question you have to ask yourself is how much do you involve yourself in science and how religious are you? Many people on this board claim to be religious and scientific. I challenge you people who claim to be religious and scientific. How much do you really believe in your religion? Did you contact your religious leader before you decided to study science? If you do study religion and you are a firm believer in your religion, how much do you really believe in your science? It is obvious that one can not truly believe in his religion and firmly believe in science.
Going out on a limb here, I know, but I assume you consider yourself very religious. In that case, by your reasoning (such as it is), you must place little or no weight in science. Therefore, it only seems logical, you place little or no weight in the discoveries of science. I therefore challege you, sir.
Stop driving or riding in automobiles, they are a result of the scientific method.
Stop flying in airplanes, they are a result of the scientific method.
Stop using medicine, it is a result of the scientific method.
Stop watching television or listening to the radio, they are results of the scientific method.
Stop using computers, they are a result of the scientific method.
Stop eating and drinking pasteurized foods, they are a result of the scientific method. In fact, stop eating and drinking most everything. Very little of what we consume has not been improved through science.
Stop using electricity, it is a result of the scientific method.
Stop heating your home with natural gas or fuel oil, the availability of these is a result of the scientific method.
If you truly believe in your religion, my friend, then you must not believe in any of these things, by your own reasoning.
Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:45 PM Open MInd has not replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 60 of 313 (381729)
02-01-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by kuresu
01-31-2007 7:53 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
You can look at my first post in this thread to answer your question.
If I have not already explained my point, most religions don't believe in a creator that disappeared. Probably all religions believe that the creator is also the one who controls. People who believe in a supernatural creator believe that this being can do whatever he wants to this world. With the scientific "Law" of gravity, there exists a blatant question. How does this supernatural being control the world which is completely governed by natural laws? What if you threw your pen to the floor and this supernatural being did not wish it to fall? Using scientific principles, how can this task be accomplished. However, if one believes that there is no such force, and everything is held to the floor solely on the will of the creator, it is obvious how he could accomplish this task. Scientific principles would never allow for any supernatural being to ever take control of the natural course of events. Therefore, science does not fit in with any religion and it must be its own religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 01-31-2007 7:53 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2007 8:57 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 02-01-2007 9:01 PM Open MInd has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024