but crunchy the books would never get sold, too boring, however as childrens stories he may have better luck
Peter Pan was "the man" sinning with with Tinkerbelle. But he died in September when Tink bit off his member, And 'God' sent Peter to hell. You might be right Geeser.
Hey TheVisitor, since science is a sin, dont you feel abit weird about posting on the internet? i mean you do know the computer youre on and the system of data exchange was developed by scientists right Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I dare say, theres about 100 other gifts of modern science youre utilising everyday - doesnt that kind of nullify your entire argument?
Theists have been attempting to deride science in this manner for many years. David Menton even accused Carl Sagan of being a "prophet of Scientism," (and if anyone wants to read my criticism of this I've posted it elsewhere on the internet -you can find it through my profile). Menton was way off-mark. I think the reason that so many theists and theologians eventually try to argue that "science is a religion, too" is that they keep getting faced with the illogical premises that they've established when arguing why they believe without, and often in spite of, evidence. Eventually, it occurs to them that if those that argue that science is the best way to explain the world/universe around them find the religious explanations to be pejorative, then why not accuse science of being a religion. The problem of this argument is that it fails in light of any real definition of religion. Indeed, if we are to accept that science is a religion, then we must adapt the definition of religion to exclude faith and supernatural agency. Once you do this, anything can now be considered a religion -including shopping, getting a haircut, personal hygiene, work, etc. These things all lend themselves to tropic and analogous references to religion: "shopping for my wife is a religious event;" "his devotion to personal hygiene is ritualistic;" etc. But when applied in a literal manner, "his work is his religion" implies that the employee is a priest or pastor rather than simply devoted. Back to science. Scientists can likewise be "religious" in their devotion and "ritualistic" in their meticulous methodologies, but these are tropes, analogies and metaphors. There must remain a delineation between literal and analogous versions with genuine religions consisting of supernatural agency and, consequently, an extreme form of faith (blind belief without evidence). Otherwise, the tropes, analogies and metaphors lose their significance. Science is not a religion. There are no deities or supernatural agents that scientists seek to appease. Blind trust and belief without evidence is faith and the antithesis of scientific methods.
Very eloquent SkinWalker, and well done I must say. You have laid out a very thorough explanation of the issue at hand. I almost agree with you because much of what you say is true. Your just not telling the whole story. You see, you can miss the mark of truth in two ways....add too it or take away. Now lets talk about what you didn't say....again. Charles Fort nailed it when he said this in His "Book of the Damned"...... "Mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe." Notice He didn't say all scientists..........just "mainstream" ones. Those that live in and are sold out to the status quo. The ones whose works are printed in the textbooks taught to our children, even while still only an unproven theory........because it follows an accepted agenda. He also compares the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists. In this He has a valid point. And I said the very spirit inspiring both of these groups is one and the same. I compared the mainstream's reluctance to accept even the idea of certain truths until they have been proven in such a way with so many witnesses, they can no longer deny what is staring them in the face. At this point the controversial becomes the accepted and they hop on the bandwagon, after it is no longer a danger to stand alone against the pack. This is exactly like denominations do refusing to accept further revealed light and truth about God when it has been given.....because it contradicts what has formerly been accepted by the majority as the truth. That leaves them getting warm by a painted fire, preaching a God that lived thousands of years ago, or talking about the God that is to come someday, missing what is going on right now all around them in plain sight. This kind are the ones who don't see the God of the present, who He is working through now.....and being blinded by the spirit of God's enemy, they are the very ones that killed the prophets, then generations later when their teachings have been accepted by the masses.......after the true life has moved on, they dig up their bones, garnish their tombs, and cannonize them declaring them saints. I said...."You don't get your shingle....unless you do it their way. Stand against them and that makes you a single "quack" against all of their "certified" experts. Sounds like Elijah against the 400 schooled prophets of Ahab to me. Things haven't changed that much." In this respect...not in all respects that is true SkinWalker, but at least you must admit in this respect.......Science is just like a false religion. Therefor He had a valid point, and so did I. I just took it to the next logical step, and showed you why. Both these groups, religious fundamentalists, and mainstream science..... have this in common; They are motivated by a spirit of error. They are not championing Man's intelligence, but preying upon his ignorance. And mainstream science whether you can accept it or not...is not on a quest for uncovering the truth and the "mysteries of the universe". They are carefully skirting around it, like tip-toeing through a minefield....trying to satisfy their master's agenda while keeping their servants in the dark. You see......this much history can show us, technology is the source of the power of Kings in the days of old. When it was once wielded in such a way it appeared to be magic to the ignorant peasants, it was called... "Science hoary with age". This is caused by the gross dispairity between the knowledge held by a few, and what is known to exist by the masses. This is what I was aludeing too in my other thread "The Rabbit Hole" which was locked down...by the way, too controversial I guess. You can find it resting in the deep dark recesses of the Pseudoscience forum. Science is really not the newest religion......I should make a retraction on that. It is in fact one of the world's oldest religions.
I'm always naturally suspect of anyone who begins a critique of science and scientists with the words "mainstream scientists." This usually indicates some rejection by the methods of science for some pet "theory" or speculation. Many pseudoscientists and various woo-woo's like UFO nutters and conspiracy theorists include "mainstream scientists" in their criticisms, usually followed by some grandiose comparison to Galileo. And there's were you are wrong. If there is something "unproven" to the degree that it cannot be said to be the most likely and plausible explanation, then it simply isn't taught. If it is, then it deserves criticism and will not survive peer review. I'm assuming your leaning on the tired nonsense of creation arguments that claim science hasn't given plausible or reasonable explanations for evolution. Refusing to accept science and the scientific consensus and failing to demonstrate where science is wrong doesn't equate to being right about creationist mythology. But this is a biological topic and I'll not pursue it further here. If that's included in this point, then it isn't valid at all. Science doesn't rely on faith to provide explanations whereas religion does. They are drastically different entities. Moreover, religion requires a supernatural agent. Science does not. The alleged close-mindedness of science is true only if you allow that science cannot, necessarily, concern itself with that which cannot be at least potentially falsifiable. The supernatural for instance. In this regard, science is very close-minded and appropriately so: supernatural nonsense has no place in scientific explanations. But it is there that the comparisons end. This is a convoluted and vague statement. Science requires that certain methods of data acquisition be followed along with certain testing. If these "truths" you write about include your imagination or that of anyone else, then, yes, I'm afraid science is guilty of being reluctant to accept them. I must admit nor even entertain the idea of any such thing. All religions are, apparently, "false." Science is, apparently, the only viable method of obtaining information about the universe. Your logic fails just as surely as his. Sorry.
While sciences may appear to some as spontaneously practicing materialist dialectic, philosophically they (these sciences) oscillate between mechanical materialism and idealist obscurantism.
Athewolf Next time just stop right here: And save yourself the effort of reading any further then that! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, Darwin comes to mind. I won't really go into it. It was obviously more of an agenda by the scientific "elite" more than a scientific theory even in Fort's day. But unlike most you call "theist's" I don't stubbornly deny evolution exists to a certain extent as a "mechanism" God used in creation, nor do I hold to a 6-day or 6 thousand year creation belief. It was the immediate acceptance of this theory that showed a motive "mainstream" scientists had other than a revealing of truth, and it's being forced into our children's textbooks as fact that is suspect. You went on to say; "If that's included in this point, then it isn't valid at all." How convenient that you added this statement, as though it would make it true. It does not. I am not a religious "fundamentalist"......or one of your "theists" you can debate on theological principals. There is a difference between what they believe they know about their God of history, and what I'm saying about the One revealed alive right before me now. The only truth you have pointed out is "All religions are, apparently, "false." This statement is true if you are referring to "false" defined as "a lack of the complete truth" as compared to "true" defined as "a complete concept or work". I have tried to explain the difference between being spiritual walking by the leading of God's Spirit, and being religious walking by the accepted dogma and doctrines held by the majority...... But it seems to have fallen upon deaf ears. Most religions contain some truth....but are still false because they do not have the whole, complete, revelation of God. They are a compilation of man's traditions mixed with God's word making It of non-effect. You also said...."Science is, apparently, the only viable method of obtaining information about the universe. The thing these have in common is the word "apparently". That is an opinion, a personal observation vulnerable to being an illusion, which is the very thing you accuse theist's of doing. Again showing how science is like a religion, you just did it for me. Thank you.
Im sort of half with you visitor but when you bring in the antiquated old testament rhetoric (and religion in general) you kind of lose me to be honest.
Athelwulf Sorry for the misspelling bud, I didn't have your name near, so I spelled it as it sounded to me, when I wrote it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!... Don't worry this happens often when dealing with fairy tales and delusions! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes indeed. In order to be called a "religion," a belief system must include faith in the existence of something or someone supernatural and in that thing or person's ability to assume control of the natural world. Science does not have that. Science by definition cannot deal with the supernatural because all scientific theories must be disprovable and something whose truth hinges on its transcendence of the laws of nature cannot be disproved. Many scientists may be dogmatic but so are many economists, physicians and management consultants. No one calls economics, medicine, and management "religions," except as metaphor or hyperbole. Scientists may have "faith" in the scientific method, but the scientific method is not a theory, it is a abstraction of pure logic like the rules of arithmetic. To "believe" in the rules of arithmetic or the scientific method is not like "believing" in a supernatural being. The faith of a scientist is a faith based on reason, not hope. Even economic theories like communism that come from a faith based on hope are still not religions. They have no supernatural component and a good counterexample can disprove them. Communism has in fact (arguably) been disproven at the macro level; it only works for small tribes. Since a substantive supernatural element is perhaps the essence of religion, we have trouble figuring out whether to call belief systems on the fringe religions. Many Unitarians, Buddhists, Daoists, Confucians, etc. insist that the supernatural components of their faiths are merely ceremonial relics of a less enlightened era. Their "faith" is in the logical abstraction at the core of the belief system, not in the afterlife, reincarnation or flying dragons they trot out on holidays. Duh? Just exactly what kind of a scholar do you pass yourself off as? Just as the supernatural is the core of religion, the scientific method is the core of science. It is hardly 500 years old. The "sciences" practiced in medieval or ancient days were at best empirical engineering and at worst alchemy. Mathematics goes back a long way, but mathematics is not a science. Its "theories" are provable. You may call scientists by a lot of nasty names, but you have to include members of any profession that requires dedicated study and tends to result in contempt for laymen who argue against its core principles. But you can't call science a religion because its theories are disprovable without relying on the supernatural. When I read your first post it was obvious that you're not familiar with a standard definition of the word "religion." Now it appears that you have the same problem with "science." If you use words to mean only what you want them to mean, you can prove anything.
When Visitor showed his colors as a religious type, he exposed his agenda. He wants to make religious belief seem as credible as belief in science. He cannot make religion look like science, so he claims that science looks like religion. Somebody posted an analysis pointing out such an agenda. I am too lazy to go through all the posts to give him credit. I hope he recognizes himself: He was right on the money.
Agreed, i dont believe he was atempting to expose a 'greater truth' rather he was simply atempting to justify his pre-existing beliefs.
Yes, it can be a religion. I was part of it at one time, for 5-7 years. I listened to their preachers for a long time. But then I grew weary of their leaps of faith. So, like the prodigal son, I came back home to Jesus. He embraced me...
G. Owen: Wow! You discovered that our computers, lasers, CAT scan technology, and all the good stuff we use every day does not work. Modern science has been conning us into thinking it knows what it is doing, but you discovered the truth of religion. I suppose that you no longer use any of the modern technology based on the the foolish concepts developed by scientists. Now that you know the truth, you are not willing to fly in an airplane or trust your computer. Of course your TV works due to magic or perhaps we are hallucinating when we watch TV. When you get be by my age, you will not allow the use of any modern medical technology. You will trust in faith to heal your ills.
