Transgender

[Beliathon]

It has come to my attention, thanks to him, that there is a certain group of people who believe science to be their religion. I don't know when it got turned into a religion.

In many ways, science seems like a 21st Century religion. It's a belief system that many wholeheartedly defend and evolve their lives around, sometimes as much as the devoutest of religious folk.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Of course because scientific exploration is a human endeavor it comes with all the flaws of humanity: ego, short-sightedness, corruption and greed. But unlike a "belief system" such as religion untethered to an objective truth, science is over time self-policing; competing scientists have a strong incentive to corroborate and build on the findings of others; but equally, to prove other scientists wrong by means that can be duplicated by others. Nobody is doing experiments to demonstrate how Noah could live to 600 years old, because those who believe that story are not confined to reproducible evidence to support their belief. But experiments were done to show the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.

Here is the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the two: science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist. The two worldviews could not more incompatible.

Unlike scientific claims, beliefs cannot be arbitrated to determine which is valid because there is no objective basis on which to compare one set of beliefs to another. Those two world views are not closer than we think; they are as far apart as could possibly be imagined.

Religion and science are incompatible at every level. The two seek different answers to separate questions using fundamentally and inherently incompatible methods. Nothing can truly bring the two together without sacrificing intellectual honesty.

We are told that since science and faith are both fallible, both are equally valid approaches to understanding the world and ourselves. Here is what Jeffrey Small says about this:
"Bias, preconceived ideas, academic politics, ego and resistance to change are ever-present in scientific and academic communities and often result in institutional opposition to new theories, especially ground-breaking ones. Many scientists initially resisted Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo because they presented a new paradigm of the universe."

Well, exactly! What this proves is that over time, science is indeed self-correcting while faith is not. While we all know now, due to science, that the earth orbits the sun, the Church is still fighting the battle with Galileo. Even today in the 21st century, the Church claims that Galileo shares blame because he made unproven assertions. Unproven assertions! The best the Pope could muster was that he regretted the "tragic mutual incomprehension" that had caused Galileo to suffer. As the new millennium settles in, the Church still claims that Galileo was wrong. The dissonance between Scripture and fact is not a problem relegated to earlier centuries, but remains relevant today.

Science is indeed fallible, and scientists suffer from all the usual human foibles. But reproducibility, scrutiny from other scientists, the drive for new knowledge, the glory of overturning orthodoxy, all drive science to a better understanding of an objective truth or our best approximation of it; this method of understanding the world is inherently incompatible with faith. Faith cannot be contested: I believe, therefore it is true. All scientific claims are by nature contestable. Those differences cannot be reconciled. Ever.

In reality we need to turn this argument about fallibility on its head. Science never claims to be infallible. There would be no need for more research if scientists believed they had all the answers, and all of them right. But god by definition is infallible. And yet. The Bible's clear statement about age of the earth, off by more than 4 billion years, is one example of an important factual error. Sure, maybe this is a mistake of human interpretation of divine will. But with each new discovery proving a Biblical assertion wrong, the Church retreats to the safety of errors in interpretation or dismissing the discrepancy as unimportant. Yet the ever-accumulating factual mistakes must call into question the certainty with which the Church claims that god, or the Bible, is infallible, since their previous insistence has proven unsubstantiated with glaring factual mistakes. These doubts about infallibility apply, too, to the Church's teachings on morality.

If the bible is the literal word of god, then god has clearly blown it. If the bible is a flawed interpretation of god's will, then the conclusions about morality can be equally flawed. The issue of fallibility is a problem for the faithful, not for science and reason. Never confuse the two.

[1714895253]

1714895253

[1714895253]

1714895253

[MakingMoneyHoney]

It has come to my attention, thanks to him, that there is a certain group of people who believe science to be their religion. I don't know when it got turned into a religion.

In many ways, science seems like a 21st Century religion. It's a belief system that many wholeheartedly defend and evolve their lives around, sometimes as much as the devoutest of religious folk.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality.

Yes, I read all you wrote, but you somehow missed my point.

Science is not a religion, and I never said it was. I was saying that you (and some other people too) have faith in it like one. Some scientists are just scientists. Some athesists believe in science like a religion. Scientists don't know if there is a God or not. You believe there isn't and have disdain for those who do. Yet, if a scientist doesn't know why there is more matter than anit-matter after the big bang, they should, by definition, have an open mind that something else caused it, and that that something else could be God.

[Beliathon]

Claim:

you (and some other people too) have faith in it like one.

Evidence to support claim?

"Have faith in science" is an oxymoron. Faith (superstition) and science (reason) exist as a zero-sum game with one another. They cannot occupy the same space. When one wanes, the other waxes.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Claim:

you (and some other people too) have faith in it like one.

Evidence to support claim?

You are taking the scientific world's data that seems to have concluded that there is no God, and believed it, hook, line and sinker. But as I've said the scientists at CERN, may right now know that there is something more, such as an Intelligent Designer or God, as they cannot explain why the Big Bang happened the way they think it should have. A real scientist should have an open mind to believing that the Big Bang did not occur the way it's written in science books, and that there could be something else at play. So a real scientist should at least be agnostic.

"Have faith in science" is an oxymoron. Faith (superstition) and science (reason) exist as a zero-sum game with one another. They cannot occupy the same space. As one wanes, the other waxes.

And yet, the majority of people have faith in their science books as the be-all end-all word on things, and have never actually ever tested anything. Remember The Truman Show? He was told that the world was big, but he had never been able to get out of his town and actually test it. When he did, he found out that some of what he was told was not true. For example. the moon rose and night and the sun shined in the morning, but when he went missing, the sun suddenly rose at night, so they could have the light to find him, etc.

I'm not saying everything science has ever said is false. I'm simply saying most people will continue to live their lives without ever testing if everything science has told them was true, and they are placing faith in science that what they've been told is true, in that case.

"Faith is variously defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view."

It certainly is a confidence in science to trust it, without ever testing it.

[Beliathon]

You are taking the scientific world's data that seems to have concluded that there is no God, and believed it, hook, line and sinker.

Incorrect. The "scientific world" (lol) has not come to any such conclusion! Science only asserts that there is no evidence to support any deity claims. Personally, I gave up faith in god at a young age, long before I was very much interested in science or any particular scientific endeavour.

Back then, it was just a gut feeling, and I went with it. Later in life my thirst for knowledge drove me to understanding the evidence, which is all around us*, and inside us**, and the source of that vague feeling I had as a boy.

*comets and asteroids slamming indifferently into Earth

**hundreds of millions of micobes that would kill you within 48 hours if your immune system ever failed

I'm not saying everything science has ever said is false. I'm simply saying most people will continue to live their lives without ever testing if everything science has told them was true, and they are placing faith in science that what they've been told is true, in that case.

Here's the thing: Everyone using a smartphone is testing the claims of science all the time. Everyone using a computer is testing those claims.

Everyone who sits down inside a 1.5+ ton explosion-powered metal box vehicle is staking their life on the claims of physics that when they push the brake pedal, the brakes will be applied, and the vehicle will come to a stop. The fact that this computer is operating and the internet is working right now are evidence that the claims of science are true.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

You are taking the scientific world's data that seems to have concluded that there is no God, and believed it, hook, line and sinker.

Incorrect. The "scientific world" (lol) has not come to any such conclusion! Science only asserts that there is no evidence to support any deity claims. Personally, I gave up faith in god at a young age, long before I was very much interested in science or any particular scientific endeavour.

Back then, it was just a gut feeling, and I went with it. Later in life my thirst for knowledge drove me to understanding the evidence, which is all around us*, and inside us**, and the source of that vague feeling I had as a boy.

*comets and asteroids slamming indifferently into Earth

**hundreds of millions of micobes that would kill you within 48 hours if your immune system ever failed

Funny, those things you think of as proof He doesn't exist, are proof to me that He does, lol. I've always been amazed at how many things could easily go wrong at any moment, and we'd have chaos. Yet, instead we seem to be protected more than we ever should be if there was no God watching over us.

[Beliathon]

I've always been amazed at how many things could easily go wrong at any moment, and we'd have chaos. Yet, instead we seem to be protected more than we ever should be  if there was no God watching over us.

We are the only gods watching over us. Let's hope we're wise and compassionate Watchers. Otherwise...

[jaysabi]

I've always been amazed at how many things could easily go wrong at any moment, and we'd have chaos. Yet, instead we seem to be protected more than we ever should be  if there was no God watching over us.

We are the only gods watching over us. Let's hope we're wise and compassionate Watchers. Otherwise...

[snip for size]

^^^ Completely off topic, but this photo is a phenomenal piece of visual commentary!

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I've always been amazed at how many things could easily go wrong at any moment, and we'd have chaos. Yet, instead we seem to be protected more than we ever should be  if there was no God watching over us.

We are the only gods watching over us. Let's hope we're wise and compassionate Watchers. Otherwise...

We are not gods and never will be. The world has already been ravaged by people.

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

[TeamButtcoin]

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Tell me how you reconcile a creator god and the fact that genetic mutations exist

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Tell me how you reconcile a creator god and the fact that genetic mutations exist

Seriously?

[Beliathon]

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Tell me how you reconcile a creator god and the fact that genetic mutations exist

Seriously?

Yes, if things were designed perfectly for a perfect world, why are some babies stillborn with their hearts outside their bodies? What kind of God plays such a cruel, physically-painful, nine month long joke on a mother?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Tell me how you reconcile a creator god and the fact that genetic mutations exist

Seriously?

Yes, if things were designed perfectly for a perfect world, why are some babies stillborn with their hearts outside their bodies? What kind of God plays such a cruel, physically-painful, nine month long joke on a mother?

I've already discussed this with you.

In the beginning everything was fine. Then Eve sinned and we as a human race got kicked out of the Garden of Eden. In the bible it talks about fallen angels mating with female humans and having offspring (Nephilim). In the book of Enoch it talks about how the fallen angels/Nephilim corrupted mankind even more. They also cross bred animals (which is where the dinasours may have come in to being). This was an attempt to make it so that mankind's bloodline would be mixed so that Jesus could not be born of a pure bloodline to stop evil. Because it was predicted when Eve was kicked out that her offspring (further down the line) would defeat satan (of course that offspring was Jesus Christ and he did save us).

We also have all these GMOs being introduced into our food by the governments, and drugs in the water.  

Why is it that we as a race have not had our lifetimes lengthened more that they have been after all the new tech? Why are there more food allergies today too?

It is predicted in the bible that when the end times come they will be like the days of Noah. The reason the flood happened was to save His pure blood line from evil crossbreeding (with fallen angels). Also some people, believing that they are part Nephilim are known to inbreed, could be they are trying to strengthen their angelic bloodlines.

Of course to everyone reading this, who doesn't believe in the bible this will sound ludicrous. But it's clear in the bible and the book of Encoh, that that this mix-breeding and incestual lines could happen. With that being the case they could easily lead to things like you described.

Edit: We were never supposed to "play god" and mess with our blood lines like some have.

[BLKBITZ]

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Tell me how you reconcile a creator god and the fact that genetic mutations exist

Seriously?

Yes, if things were designed perfectly for a perfect world, why are some babies stillborn with their hearts outside their bodies? What kind of God plays such a cruel, physically-painful, nine month long joke on a mother?

When adam and eve ate the apple sin came into the world and anything bad could happen from then on.

[Wilikon]

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Tell me how you reconcile a creator god and the fact that genetic mutations exist

[Spendulus]

....
It is predicted in the bible that when the end times come they will be like the days of Noah. The reason the flood happened was to save His pure blood line from evil crossbreeding (with fallen angels). ....

Wait, so there are really hot angels?

And we're missing out on them today?

[TECSHARE]

It has come to my attention, thanks to him, that there is a certain group of people who believe science to be their religion. I don't know when it got turned into a religion.

In many ways, science seems like a 21st Century religion. It's a belief system that many wholeheartedly defend and evolve their lives around, sometimes as much as the devoutest of religious folk.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Of course because scientific exploration is a human endeavor it comes with all the flaws of humanity: ego, short-sightedness, corruption and greed. But unlike a "belief system" such as religion untethered to an objective truth, science is over time self-policing; competing scientists have a strong incentive to corroborate and build on the findings of others; but equally, to prove other scientists wrong by means that can be duplicated by others. Nobody is doing experiments to demonstrate how Noah could live to 600 years old, because those who believe that story are not confined to reproducible evidence to support their belief. But experiments were done to show the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.

Here is the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the two: science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist. The two worldviews could not more incompatible.

Unlike scientific claims, beliefs cannot be arbitrated to determine which is valid because there is no objective basis on which to compare one set of beliefs to another. Those two world views are not closer than we think; they are as far apart as could possibly be imagined.

Religion and science are incompatible at every level. The two seek different answers to separate questions using fundamentally and inherently incompatible methods. Nothing can truly bring the two together without sacrificing intellectual honesty.

We are told that since science and faith are both fallible, both are equally valid approaches to understanding the world and ourselves. Here is what Jeffrey Small says about this:
"Bias, preconceived ideas, academic politics, ego and resistance to change are ever-present in scientific and academic communities and often result in institutional opposition to new theories, especially ground-breaking ones. Many scientists initially resisted Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo because they presented a new paradigm of the universe."

Well, exactly! What this proves is that over time, science is indeed self-correcting while faith is not. While we all know now, due to science, that the earth orbits the sun, the Church is still fighting the battle with Galileo. Even today in the 21st century, the Church claims that Galileo shares blame because he made unproven assertions. Unproven assertions! The best the Pope could muster was that he regretted the "tragic mutual incomprehension" that had caused Galileo to suffer. As the new millennium settles in, the Church still claims that Galileo was wrong. The dissonance between Scripture and fact is not a problem relegated to earlier centuries, but remains relevant today.

Science is indeed fallible, and scientists suffer from all the usual human foibles. But reproducibility, scrutiny from other scientists, the drive for new knowledge, the glory of overturning orthodoxy, all drive science to a better understanding of an objective truth or our best approximation of it; this method of understanding the world is inherently incompatible with faith. Faith cannot be contested: I believe, therefore it is true. All scientific claims are by nature contestable. Those differences cannot be reconciled. Ever.

In reality we need to turn this argument about fallibility on its head. Science never claims to be infallible. There would be no need for more research if scientists believed they had all the answers, and all of them right. But god by definition is infallible. And yet. The Bible's clear statement about age of the earth, off by more than 4 billion years, is one example of an important factual error. Sure, maybe this is a mistake of human interpretation of divine will. But with each new discovery proving a Biblical assertion wrong, the Church retreats to the safety of errors in interpretation or dismissing the discrepancy as unimportant. Yet the ever-accumulating factual mistakes must call into question the certainty with which the Church claims that god, or the Bible, is infallible, since their previous insistence has proven unsubstantiated with glaring factual mistakes. These doubts about infallibility apply, too, to the Church's teachings on morality.

If the bible is the literal word of god, then god has clearly blown it. If the bible is a flawed interpretation of god's will, then the conclusions about morality can be equally flawed. The issue of fallibility is a problem for the faithful, not for science and reason. Never confuse the two.

Science is a belief system. When this belief system is executed in a technically correct way, it is based upon personal observation of empirical data which can be quantified and reproduced. The problem is most people do not personally observe or practice scientific method, let alone understand it. Therefore in effect even properly executed, actual science, is still based on ones BELIEF that those that conducted the tests acted without bias and in a technically correct manner. Furthermore even if one did examine every detail of the experiment and its results, most people do not have the expertise or resources to conduct those experiments for themselves. In effect, science is also a belief system.

As for the rest of your antireligious rant, I think these two quotes sum up the problem with your ideology...

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~ Aristotle

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. ~ F. Scott Fitzgerald

He won't be satisfied until all religion is destroyed and replaced by the religion of the state (marxism)

Jesus Christ, how does a person even get to be this retarded? I can't even...

Marxism is a political worldview and has nothing to do with religion one way or the other.

"Like creationists, strong believers of Marxism reject all scholarly criticism of Marxism. In former Communist countries, Marx was given a personality cult and was viewed as immune to criticism. Critics of Marxism were labelled as "counter-revolutionary criminals" and were jailed or even executed, which is analogous to execution of critics of state religion on charges of blasphemy in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. This tradition is held by Marxist parties all over the world. According to "Empire" by Richard Kapuściński, in the Soviet Union the idea of creating a religion without a god was considered. However, during Stalin's rule his cult of personality effectively led to a religion in which Stalin played the role of a god. In God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens speaks of his loss of belief in Marxism as closely analogous to loss of religious belief. However, while it displays similarities in such practices, Marxism lacks the supernatural beliefs (although the "force of history" is close) rituals and other common aspects of religions. However, in the North Korean offshoot of Marxism, according to official ideology there are miraculous beliefs related to the ruling family. For example the birth of Kim Jong-il was accompanied by winter changing into spring, a star illuminating the sky and a double rainbow spontaneously appearing.

Marxism as a memeplex adheres quite strictly to the model of a religion, even including something of the transcendent (in its eventual goal of "class consciousness") and a mantra by which to dismiss or insult any doubter or unbeliever ("false consciousness"). "

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions#Marxism_as_a_religion

You are taking the scientific world's data that seems to have concluded that there is no God, and believed it, hook, line and sinker.

Incorrect. The "scientific world" (lol) has not come to any such conclusion! Science only asserts that there is no evidence to support any deity claims. Personally, I gave up faith in god at a young age, long before I was very much interested in science or any particular scientific endeavour.

Back then, it was just a gut feeling, and I went with it. Later in life my thirst for knowledge drove me to understanding the evidence, which is all around us*, and inside us**, and the source of that vague feeling I had as a boy.

*comets and asteroids slamming indifferently into Earth

**hundreds of millions of micobes that would kill you within 48 hours if your immune system ever failed

I'm not saying everything science has ever said is false. I'm simply saying most people will continue to live their lives without ever testing if everything science has told them was true, and they are placing faith in science that what they've been told is true, in that case.

Here's the thing: Everyone using a smartphone is testing the claims of science all the time. Everyone using a computer is testing those claims.

Everyone who sits down inside a 1.5+ ton explosion-powered metal box vehicle is staking their life on the claims of physics that when they push the brake pedal, the brakes will be applied, and the vehicle will come to a stop. The fact that this computer is operating and the internet is working right now are evidence that the claims of science are true.

The fact is that the existence of God can currently neither be proved nor disproved, therefore your BELIEF that there is no God is based on faith alone. At least agnostics have the honesty to admit no one really knows.

[Beliathon]

Some of the results of Fukushima are only now being brought to light:

Mutant Flowers From Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Go Viral Online

But someday God will create a new world. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Tell me how you reconcile a creator god and the fact that genetic mutations exist

Seriously?

Yes, if things were designed perfectly for a perfect world, why are some babies stillborn with their hearts outside their bodies? What kind of God plays such a cruel, physically-painful, nine month long joke on a mother?

Of course to everyone reading this, who doesn't believe in the bible this will sound ludicrous. But it's clear in the bible and the book of Encoh, that that this mix-breeding and incestual lines could happen. With that being the case they could easily lead to things like you described.

Edit: We were never supposed to "play god" and mess with our blood lines like some have.

I think I follow you so far, but when you say "play god with blood lines", do you mean interracial breeding,  advanced medicine (raising the dead with shocks of electricity to heart), both, or something else entirely?  Please explain.

Thanks in advance

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I think I follow you so far, but when you say "play god with blood lines", do you mean interracial breeding,  advanced medicine (raising the dead with shocks of electricity to heart), both, or something else entirely?  Please explain.

Thanks in advance

Not with interracial breeding. You can't consider angels a race of humanity, so I don't even know where you got that from. We, as humans, all come from the same bloodline, Adam and Eve, funneled through Noah's family, since the rest were wiped out.

I am also discussing mixing the genetics of the foods we eat. (GMOs)

I thought it was pretty plain, that angels mixed with humans and cross bred animals. Now humans are doing the same and crossbreeding plants with other plant species and animals with other animal species, or just playing around, genetically modifying them in other ways. Then, we as humans eat them. The GMO food ends up cross-pollinating other foods. There was a link I put up one time, where it is estimated that there is no wheat left that has not been modified in some way. There are studies where the growth hormones in cows, make their way into the people eating them, which is why some children are going through puberty sooner than they used to. Also there are drugs in the water (that's documented). That is playing around like god and has unintended consequences. These things are not what God intended and to blame Him for humanities sin is silly.

The Alarming Reason Why More Girls are Starting Puberty Early

"The study published in Pediatrics at the beginning of this month compared results from two previous studies that used breast development to gauge the beginning of puberty. One was conducted in the early 1990s and the other about five years ago.. In that time span, the rate of white 7-year-old girls entering puberty doubled, from five percent to more than 10 percent."

These changes are recent, and obviously not God-made.

[TECSHARE]

Of course Liathon has no response to my arguments so he argues about God some more because it is an argument that can never be won or lost therefore he can entertain his biases in perpetuity.