Is Science the new Religion ?

  • 347 Replies
  • 39485 Views
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #270 on: June 01, 2017, 12:19:21 PM »

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!

if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.

what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.

I know, as well as you know, that science is not a religion! But, in the rat-penis-vagina concept, some might consider science as the same!
And, what the hell is so magical about a rat, and what powers could one gain from worshiping it?
what is so magical about a non existing being?
Quote
To me; religion is following the right path that will lead you to the creator, who sooner or later we shall join in His kingdom after this physical life.
how do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.
there is an equal chance that the world is made by Odin, it was also one time a religion.
Quote
They can choose to join the rat in the sewage if they wish, maybe there where they really belong, but certainly I don't wish to spend my afterlife in a shit hole!
how do you know there is an afterlife?
Quote
Religion is a goal you set in your life and aim for reaching - you live a descent life; being honest with yourself and with others > certainly you shall reach high after death.
And if you aim for a shit hole > you certainly shall be dumped there!
i can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are.
look at statistics about crimes and religion
according to your idea, atheists must be all criminal and dishonest.
Quote
You see; there are no complications in religion > science can confirm that, as well!
It's an easy equation - in fact, the easiest I was confronted with!
no complications in religions????
if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?
even all the different christian religions.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #271 on: June 01, 2017, 12:24:48 PM »
^^^With intikam banned, you win the award for the most off topic useless post today.

You also prove my point of how the very first thing people like you do is throw insults to anyone that questions your religion.

Sad.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #272 on: June 01, 2017, 12:51:19 PM »

Quote
what is so magical about a non existing being?

Compare the shit hole with the universe around you!


Quote
how do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.

I chose to be a good person - is there a better way to live your life? Worshiping a penis or vagina, maybe!  ::)

Quote
how do you know there is an afterlife?

If there is one; I'd rather go high and not into a shit hole!

Quote
i can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are. look at statistics about crimes and religion

And I can tell you they claim to be religious, but they're not - they worship their ego!
If some one blows himself up in the name of "Allah" - does that make Allah a terrorist and a murderer, or should we call the terrorist who killed those innocent people an impostor who uses the name of God to justify his Satanic actions?

Quote
no complications in religions???? if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?

They call what they follow religions but they're not!
I've heard of someone who invented a new religion and gained some followers in time - then, he put them all in a hall and all set fire with their bodies! > That must've been a quick come and go religion, and there are examples of many others.

You can complicate things and you can make things as easy as running water!
And, you can worship the creator (be connected to him), or you can choose the rat, penis and vagina - it's certainly a personal choice.

I have made mine - did you make yours?
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #273 on: June 01, 2017, 01:37:28 PM »

Quote
what is so magical about a non existing being?

Compare the shit hole with the universe around you!


Quote
how do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.

I chose to be a good person - is there a better way to live your life? Worshiping a penis or vagina, maybe!  ::)

Quote
how do you know there is an afterlife?

If there is one; I'd rather go high and not into a shit hole!

Quote
i can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are. look at statistics about crimes and religion

And I can tell you they claim to be religious, but they're not - they worship their ego!
If some one blows himself up in the name of "Allah" - does that make Allah a terrorist and a murderer, or should we call the terrorist who killed those innocent people an impostor who uses the name of God to justify his Satanic actions?

Quote
no complications in religions???? if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?

They call what they follow religions but they're not!
I've heard of someone who invented a new religion and gained some followers in time - then, he put them all in a hall and all set fire with their bodies! > That must've been a quick come and go religion, and there are examples of many others.

You can complicate things and you can make things as easy as running water!
And, you can worship the creator (be connected to him), or you can choose the rat, penis and vagina - it's certainly a personal choice.

I have made mine - did you make yours?
i do not worship anybody or anything.
i have not seen one religion that makes any logical sense.

i would almost say the old believes of people in nature make more sense than to believe in a imaginary being.

as you know, especially the bible make for me not a little bit logic sense, i did not read the jewish and islamic version therfore i am not sure about these stories, but as you mention that they have almost the same stories than the bible i think they are also not very logical.



« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 01:52:20 PM by Canadabear »

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #274 on: June 01, 2017, 01:45:50 PM »
The answer to the original forgotten question is still and always has been no.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #275 on: June 01, 2017, 02:14:14 PM »
The answer to the original forgotten question is still and always has been no.

And this is still incorrect
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #276 on: June 01, 2017, 06:06:00 PM »
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #277 on: June 01, 2017, 08:29:48 PM »

if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.

what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.

That is what most hypothetical science is...a belief in a magic power.

No.

No magic involved. An hypothesis will not be accepted as more than a possibility until it can be tested and passes the test. Making accurate predictions of previously unknown effects is the strongest evidence that a hypothesis is correct, but explaining, with a plausible cause, several mystifying but not obviously related phenomena also works.

Late 19th century:

The orbit of Mercury had been found to be precessing about the sun in a way that cannot be fully explained by classical mechanics (Newtonian physics and Keplerian orbits) unless a hitherto unknown, and, so far, undetected mass exists. All efforts to locate said mass failed.

Early 20th century:

General relativity, an hypothesis that relates gravity and space in a previously unexpected way is proposed. It explained the precession of Mercury's orbit but also predicted some other, rather bizarre, effects, like light being bent by gravity. After it was validated by seeing starlight being affected by the sun as predicted, as observed in the May 29, 1919 eclipse, it became the theory to beat. It has passed every other test in the century that followed its development.

Similarly, also late 19th century:

Geologists and biologists could explain a lot of what's observed, but their hypotheses required a vast amount of time to be plausible.

Physicists and chemists cannot provide a plausible mechanism for the sun to produce the energy it is producing, or to explain the heat flow from the interior of the earth, for more than a few thousand years at most; not even a tiny fraction of the time needed.

Radioactivity and nuclear energy, a previously unknown and vastly more powerful energy source is discovered.

After that, enough energy for billions of years of sunlight and a heat source within the earth are not only plausible, but likely.

In the vernacular of this forum, those 18th century geologists needed a "magical energy source" to justify their hypotheses. Until an adequate energy source was discovered to be not so magical after all, their ideas remained in the realm of "interesting", but hypothetical.

Quote
We can't prove it, observe it, or replicate it as even the most basic scientific method will require. However, don't mind that, it happened as we said, it is FACT...anyone who calls us out for our hypocrisy or doesn't accept our false conclusion of the group think bubble, we will call ignorant/brain dead/barbarians etc etc.

You don't get any more "religion like" than that.

Nice strawman. Hypothetical ideas like dark matter, strings, and the like will be treated as just ideas until they have better support, and if new data disproves them or a better idea comes along that displaces them, they will be mostly forgotten or the subject of posts by the likes of sandokhan. There's nothing wrong with postulating explanations for unexpected observations; no serious scientists will recognize them as more than hypothetical until there's actual support for them.

Quote
At least I admit my beliefs are just that...a belief.

Cool. And scientists' beliefs are, or have been, tested with experiments. Most will change their belief if new evidence shows they were wrong.

Quote
I consider them a fact, however, I don't shit my pants and start belittling someone who does not agree with me.

Some scientific principles are so strongly supported by evidence that they are considered facts. Often, even those are shown to be "useful approximations" as more precise data comes in, such as: the earth is a sphere; no, it's actually an oblate spheroid with about 0.3% flattening; no, it's a slightly irregular geoid varying from an ellipsoid by up to a few dozen meters. If you don't need the extreme precision of the geoid model, the ellipsoid can be considered correct. If you don't need the improved precision of the ellipsoid, a sphere is a good-enough approximation (and much easier to work with).

Heck, if you're dealing with a limited enough area, you can even presume sea level datum is a flat plane and get away with it, knowing full well that the datum is actually something very close to a very large sphere; for the area of a square mile or so, the difference is inconsequential for most purposes, and the calculations involved are vastly simplified.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #278 on: June 01, 2017, 10:35:32 PM »
As a vegan of 8 years, I'd just thought I would chime in.

There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.

Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.

Simply not true. B12 is a bacteria found in soil and waterways and would have actually been far easier to obtain naturally before than it is today with everything being sanitised.

On top of this, even the animals you consume are fed B12 supplements because even they lack the ability to obtain in naturally in certain situations. So no, this isn't really a vegan-only problem.

Do you even have a source for your claim that "a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation" that doesn't come from a junk, evidence-free opinion piece?

Eating meat, eggs and dairy in effort to get a single vitamin is asinine, especially considering everything else that naturally comes with such food such as saturated fat, cholesterol and trans-fatty acids. B12 can be easily obtained either through fortified foods or supplementation, so why filter nutrients/vitamins through someone else's body?

@Rabinoz
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal products
Quote
Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
Sure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.

What are you basing this on? It's been shown time and again that the diet of our ancestors was largely plant/starched based and that eating meat was something that couldn't be relied on and was thus only a small part of their diet.

The vegetarians I know are almost like religious zealots.    I don't know a single one who doesn't take vitamin supplements.

Thanks for your worthless anecdote. If you'd like to me to destroy the idea that veganism/vegetarianism is somehow analogous to religious dogmatism, let me know because I'd be happy to clear up your misconception.

Vegans can shove their tofu.

You remind me of this guy. It's about as good as your 'argument' (for lack of a better word) gets.

sounds like your (you're*)are vegan.
and with that comment you just proved that you get not enough nutrition to have a fully functional brain.

Satire? Sarcasm? Joke? Really hard to tell on this forum.

If not, could you tell me of the nutrient found only in meat, eggs or dairy that also isn't found from a plant-based source that relates to brain function?

Cheers  :)

And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...

I think before attempting to refute something which you clearly know little about, I would do just a tad bit of research. Veganism ≠ perfectionism; it's about minimising harm to other animals insofar as practicable and possible. All you've done is built up a strawman and knocked it down. Congratulations, it's already been done and refuted countless times before!

Now, speaking of researching/looking things up, I would check out what the Tu Quoque fallacy is because it actually seems applicable to your post.

Sorry for any derail; feel free to start a new thread elsewhere/PM me if you have any Q's.

Cheers  8)

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #279 on: June 01, 2017, 10:42:24 PM »

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #280 on: June 01, 2017, 11:21:55 PM »
B12 is a bacteria

 :D  :D  :D

I think it's rather obvious what he meant

"B12 is produced in nature only by prokaryotes in the form of certain bacteria and archaea; it is not made by any multicellular or single-celled eukaryotes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Bacteria

But yeah, most likely noone in this forum even know the difference between pro- and eukaryotes.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #281 on: June 01, 2017, 11:27:26 PM »
B12 is a bacteria

 :D  :D  :D

I think it's rather obvious what he meant

"B12 is produced in nature only by prokaryotes in the form of certain bacteria and archaea; it is not made by any multicellular or single-celled eukaryotes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Bacteria

But yeah, most likely noone in this forum even know the difference between pro- and eukaryotes.

How lucky we are that you are here to tell us things.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #282 on: June 01, 2017, 11:30:26 PM »
How lucky we are that you are here to tell us things.
Yeah, I hope you're at least grateful.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25284
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #283 on: June 01, 2017, 11:40:42 PM »
As a vegan of 8 years, I'd just thought I would chime in.

There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.

Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.

Simply not true. B12 is a bacteria found in soil and waterways and would have actually been far easier to obtain naturally before than it is today with everything being sanitised.

B12 is a byproduct from bacteria fermentation. It is NOT bacteria!

Animals like cows, goats and sheep are ruminants. They have 4 chambers in their stomach and a rich supply of bacteria in their rumen

Herbivores like horses, rabbits etc have large cecums in their digestive tracts which is located between the small and large intestine. This is where bacterial fermentation takes place. Ours is not so large. Many of these animals also ingest the soil from which they eat and they also eat their own or others faeces which could be a source of B12 due to the bacteria that had time to ferment in there. I don't know, maybe primitive humans relied on eating their own poo and the soil? Maybe modern day vegans who want a 'pure' diet do the same??? But then wouldn't poo be classified as an 'animal product'? lol

On top of this, even the animals you consume are fed B12 supplements because even they lack the ability to obtain in naturally in certain situations. So no, this isn't really a vegan-only problem.

This may be the case if the soil we have moved animals onto does not contain sufficient amounts of cobalt, which is required for B12 production. This does not in any way support your argument that humans evolved as vegans. B12 is also incredibly cheap to synthesise. I guess the answer if you want a healthy herd is 'why not give it to them?' Soil sample and blood testing is probably far more expensive and time consuming than just incorporating it into a feed lot.

Do you even have a source for your claim that "a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation" that doesn't come from a junk, evidence-free opinion piece?
So, you personally don't take any supplements at all? or any B12 fortified foods? Almost every vegan site or forum I have read has insisted users drink/eat B12 fortified foods or take supplements.

Perhaps you can point me to the direction of a vegan community which abstains from any food/drink that is fortified with the vitamin

Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion piece
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061

Here is what it says about B12

Vitamin B12 is produced by bacteria, not plants or animals. Individuals who follow a plant-based diet that includes no animal products may be vulnerable to B12 deficiency and need to supplement their diet with vitamin B12 or foods fortified with vitamin B12


Eating meat, eggs and dairy in effort to get a single vitamin is asinine, especially considering everything else that naturally comes with such food such as saturated fat, cholesterol and trans-fatty acids. B12 can be easily obtained either through fortified foods or supplementation, so why filter nutrients/vitamins through someone else's body?

Nobody eats eggs or dairy to obtain only a single vitamin. Eating eggs for example gives you a broad spectrum of vitamins, minerals and proteins and can be incorporated into a healthy diet. When I get home I plan to have a 2 egg omelette with some cheese!! :)

And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable. Nothing wrong with healthy saturated fats in moderation. Nothing right with highly unstable and toxic processing of cheap polyunsaturated seed oils.

B12 fortification and supplements was not available to us hundreds to thousands of years ago. We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.

@Rabinoz
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal products
Quote
Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
Sure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.

What are you basing this on? It's been shown time and again that the diet of our ancestors was largely plant/starched based and that eating meat was something that couldn't be relied on and was thus only a small part of their diet.

Our ancestors never travelled far and wide to incorporate such varied diets. And we only really learned agriculture about 12,000 odd years ago. What say you to the humans 100,000 years ago? I bet that Woolly Mammoth looked pretty appetising in the winter time or times of hardship. Also, we were probably indiscriminate eaters and ate anything that moved. Grubs, insects etc. All fair game (but not for a vegan)

« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 11:42:42 PM by Shifter »

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25284
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #284 on: June 01, 2017, 11:44:31 PM »
How lucky we are that you are here to tell wiki us things.
Yeah, I hope you're at least grateful.

Fixed it for you  ;)

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #285 on: June 01, 2017, 11:52:42 PM »
Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion piece
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
I was using pubmed, not him.

And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable.
So you think saturated = transfatty acid. Interesting. Actually it's not; saturated refers to the amount of double bindings between the fa's c atoms, whereas transfatty acid refers to the conformation of the molecule.


We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.
I don't think anyone pretended or said that.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25284
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #286 on: June 02, 2017, 12:15:04 AM »
Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion piece
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
I was using pubmed, not him.


Apologies, sometimes it looks confusing with numerous users and quotes in quotes and editing in your replies. Must make more use of the preview button. However I find pubmed to be a valuable resource that isn't junk or 'evidence-free'

And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable.
So you think saturated = transfatty acid. Interesting. Actually it's not; saturated refers to the amount of double bindings between the fa's c atoms, whereas transfatty acid refers to the conformation of the molecule.

No, I am saying I find saturated fats to be the least likely to contain transfats (especially 'raw' ones like virgin coconut oil and extra virgin olive oil). His argument suggested that animal based diets are responsible for transfats in our diets. But the culprit I have found is the refining and processing of unstable seed oils

It is the seed oils that undergo heavy toxic processing (and are mostly polyunsaturated and unstable when exposed to light, heat and oxygen) that are the worst offenders. These oils were introduced in the big 'saturated fat scare campaign'

Most oils used in the food industry are 'vegan' anyway. I would have to deliberately find an innocent looking product that uses butter or lard as a base. And if so, where is the evidence they are transfatty?

We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.
I don't think anyone pretended or said that.

That's certainly the feel I have gotten from some. That humans 'did not need' animal meat/products to get to where we are and that even without fortification and supplementation (an impossible ask not so long ago) that a vegan could have a healthier diet than one that uses a moderate intake of animal products (such as some meat, eggs and dairy)

I notice that when vegans like to compare diets, they take the best example of a vegan diet (many vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, grains etc) then compare it to the worst SAD (Standard American Diet) which involves copious amounts of burnt meat, soda and heavily processed junk and sugar foods and insufficient or absences of fruits and vegetables. My own diet looks nothing like that.

I see nothing wrong with a balanced diet that can incorporate all the food groups myself.

One vitamin that neither western or vegan diets get much of, but is very important for your health is Vitamin K2. Vegans can get it through natto, but how many people outside of Asia do you know like to eat it regularly? If not through natto, you can get through aged cheeses, butter, meat and eggs however the amount in anything but aged cheeses and natto is pretty low. Most multivitamins do not have K2 either but you can buy it on its own
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 12:19:34 AM by Shifter »

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #287 on: June 02, 2017, 12:26:50 AM »
No, I am saying I find saturated fats to be the least likely to contain transfats
Yeah, I'm pretty sure saturated fats can't be transfats because saturated fats do not contain any double bonds between two C atoms, which would obviously be required to get a trans fat.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #288 on: June 02, 2017, 01:29:58 AM »
To answer the OP "Is science the new religion?" then no it's not. Faith and trust are two very different things.
Turkish joke. A prisoner goes to the jail's library to borrow a book. The librarian says: "We don't have this book, but we have its author"

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #289 on: June 02, 2017, 03:22:30 AM »
Science and religion need to be clarified, because there's a few parts to what religion is and only one exactness to what science is.

If we are talking about religion being the belief/faith/worship of a super being/entity, then we can all agree that it is, for all intents and purposes, exactly based on faith, unless a person can directly prove otherwise, which has never been done to my knowledge.

People can argue that answered prayers are definitive proof of their religious belief's. I could argue that praying to a ham sandwich gets some of my prayers answered.
It's all about the odds.

Science is the Earth. It is everything we are and are part of in the physical knowing terms.
Science is how we explore and use all resources from studying a leaf to seeing what makes up a grain of sand, etc.

Basically science is natural. It's a reality of everything that we can verify physically.
Anything other than that would be classed as guesswork.
It's fine to see an old house with a home sweet home knitted love heart on the door and guess that a little old lady lives there; maybe with a little old husband and possibly a small pet.

Until you physically prove this, then all you're going on is guesswork.
How true that becomes is solely down to how the story can be told about the occupiers of that little old house.
Mass opinion can take a foothold and can render any other person who questions that guesswork, as irrelevant.

If you cannot physically verify something then it's not natural science.
If you have faith in something that cannot be physically verified, then it's a religion.

Real natural science is something that is indisputable.


Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #290 on: June 02, 2017, 04:48:25 AM »
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #291 on: June 03, 2017, 01:22:48 AM »
Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.


*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #292 on: June 03, 2017, 01:32:58 AM »
Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
Funny thing is, you write your bullshit on a computer/smartphone, probably visit a doc every once in a while, probably use airplanes/trains/cars now and then.

What a hypocrite you are!
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #293 on: June 03, 2017, 02:08:02 AM »
Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
Funny thing is, you write your bullshit on a computer/smartphone, probably visit a doc every once in a while, probably use airplanes/trains/cars now and then.

What a hypocrite you are!

You talk nonsense my owning of automobiles building engines building computers has nothing at all to do with me believing in your religion you must be confused.

You will never see the globe.

Fact......

You fundermentalists don't do yourself any favours  :)

Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #294 on: June 03, 2017, 02:12:24 AM »
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?

That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!

Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?

You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.

Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!

You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?

There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!

Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?

Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.

Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.

There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #295 on: June 03, 2017, 02:30:00 AM »
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #296 on: June 03, 2017, 02:51:58 AM »
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.

Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #297 on: June 03, 2017, 02:57:42 AM »
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.

Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
The only real rules are the rules of nature (interaction between matter). If you think they have been made by god, that's okay and I don't mind.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #298 on: June 03, 2017, 03:47:56 AM »
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.

Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
The only real rules are the rules of nature (interaction between matter). If you think they have been made by god, that's okay and I don't mind.

Gooooooooooooooood then - nature has rules, but God doesn't!

Thank you - I'm satisfied so far with your ignorance and case is closed to me!

But, please tell me, just out of curiosity, before I go; is "nature" a thing, an intelligent being, or does it just act on its own?
Does it have its own brain, maybe?
Is nature a god of its own?

I mean; it has rules, and rules must be followed and obeyed - so, can we say since nature rules are above everything and everybody > could we call nature god and us its followers?
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
« Reply #299 on: June 03, 2017, 05:11:14 AM »
Gooooooooooooooood then - nature has rules, but God doesn't!

Thank you - I'm satisfied so far with your ignorance and case is closed to me!

But, please tell me, just out of curiosity, before I go; is "nature" a thing, an intelligent being, or does it just act on its own?
Does it have its own brain, maybe?
Is nature a god of its own?

I mean; it has rules, and rules must be followed and obeyed - so, can we say since nature rules are above everything and everybody > could we call nature god and us its followers?
You are overthinking things.
I recommend learning some maths and physics for better understanding.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.