Is Science a Religion?

Look what you wrote: science excludes all but the physically testable. Testing means asking questions - thats what science does. And when it finds an answer, it asks more questions about the answer.Religion doesn't do that.

So you've just agreed that science is neither metaphysics nor theology.

We can't test it physically and we can't test it repeatably.

Science doesn't deal in "proof" at all - never mind as "something very limited in scope".

Sorry but religion cannot lay claim or seek refuge within the realm of Quantum Mechanics.

The best way to look for answers is by asking questions, not by jumping to conclusions.

Can you show me where your God's law, or anything at all for that matter, is written on it?

Furthermore I have no problem admitting I don't know and cannot even know the full nature of reality. I accept the uncertainty and mystery.It takes humility to say, "I don’t know." On the other hand, "true believers" who paradoxically include humility as part of their religion, are reluctant to admit that they don’t know, and make aggressive proclamations of knowing the truth.Such self-serving certainty of knowing things you cannot know, opposes humility.

If you can not know for sure, then you can go on asking questions forever.

Good. You are finally getting it.

Ravi went on to remind him of the story where Abraham takes Issac up to the mountain, even though the Muslims believe it was Ishmael. The sheik understood. And as the blade was about to fall, God said, 'Stop! I will provide'.Ravi went on to tell the sheik that until we accept the Son that God provided, we will continue to offer our own sons as a sacrifice to save us.When the blade was raised to Christ, it did not stop. And he said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'

It is that little voice that tells you it is wrong to steal, lie, fornicate, and be otherwise uncivilized.

Lol! No, that little voice is me.

You've been talking to yourself for a very long time, Rob.

Obviously I was speaking about the spirit and the soul.

Which don't exist.

I can assure you that I don't. Souls and spirits don't exist. God doesn't exist. The only voice that speaks inside your head is your own, Rob.

hey rob, just so you know, there's a difference between killing innocent people and killing someone who's trying to destroy you.
no contradiction in his statement.

you need to quit jumping the gun and think a little before you post.

The "right to believe anything"? Why on God's green @#$%ing earth would I want the "right to believe anything"?This topic is not about the "right to believe". It's more like the responsibility to figure things out instead of believing.

"But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a real revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything, really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but also the doctrine by which he denounces it.Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity and then curses Mrs. Grundy when they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland and Ireland because they take away that bauble.The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."

I told you, it's not about belief. I welcome the responsibility.

why are verifiable answers competing with religion here?

I don't need to have someone tell me what is obvious.