Is science a religion?

[EdgarTheEdge]

Nope...

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho

[1714581591]

1714581591

[1714581591]

1714581591

[1714581591]

1714581591

[1714581591]

1714581591

[BADecker]

While many in main stream science claim to be atheist and believe in the Big Bang and the eventual Deep Freeze due to entropy. Is it not curious to consider that the very underpinnings of this belief is based on mathematics, was it too created in the big bang? if so how was it constructed? one digit at a time?

I think not it has always been there and will always remain its an eternal masterpiece that permeates every conceivable facet or reality yet in its self it is purely abstract. Without it nothing would exist, but it in itself it is nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is the language of the living universe. Its permutations are infinite, yet it did not grow, it has always been complete and eternal.          

I don't follow this. How does your statement suggest that science is a religion? How are you defining religion? A la BADecker ("Religion is anything you feel strongly about -- gods, war lawyers, that guy who cut in front of you in traffic on your way to work") or the usual way (requiring gods and belief in the supernatural etc).

Absolutely. Anything that you feel strongly enough about to make it part of your life theme, is part of your personal religion.

That's why so many atheists flock together in communications contact if not actual physical contact. Religious strength in numbers.

Ah, ok. I'm religious in the same way you're an atheist - as a matter of definition.

To quote my previous response to you:

Same logic as your definition of atheism as a religion:

If science is religion, you're an atheist. How can you tell? There are thousands of religions and many more gods that exist (with our without followers today), and we can realistically expect that in our prehistoric past that there have been many times this number. Yet you believe in only one.

One definition of an atheist is that it is someone who does not believe in gods. To believe in only one of thousands of gods means that you're 99.9% atheist.

Therefore you are approximately an atheist, and as the number of gods that have ever been claimed to exist approaches infinity, your atheism approaches 100%.

When a group of people get together to design a car, they all have to be on the same page. If they are not, the pistons won't fit the cylinders. The windows won't fit the holes made for them. The wiring will be all mixed up.

The point, and the fault of your thinking? The universe is so extremely complex that God must be One. If He weren't, it wouldn't have worked from the get-go.

Sometimes parts of a new car model don't fit together. The car has to go back to the drawing board until all the engineers and builders get on the same page. But there is one guy/gal who okays the new car. And it better be right this time, or heads will roll.

There is One God. The devil was the engineer who engineered imperfection in the universe. And he did it intentionally. He will be gone regarding the new universe... fired, so to speak.

People believe in many gods. Many people mistakenly believe wrong things about the only God. It looks like there are many gods. But there is only one real God.

No, you've totally missed the point. I don't care about how many gods you think there are, just that there have been many claimed to exist and you (and other monotheists) claim that only one is real, and if that's the case then my point stands.

The logical error --  the "fault of thinking", if you will --  that I demonstrate here is an example of what happens taking a very narrow definition of a word and then attempt to generalise it beyond what the acceptable definition of that word is -- much as you do for the word "religion".

Dictionary.com attempts to show the definitions without excluding any part of them. Dictionary.com is not the only place that has the definitions that they use. So, check them out - http://www.dictionary.com/.

Well, that *is* interesting. From that website, a definition of atheism is:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This is exactly the attitude of a monotheist to all other gods. Therefore -- if you take just that single definition of atheism --  monotheists are almost completely atheist.

I hope this clearly illustrates the illogic in attempting to stretch a definition from a particular case to any use at all.

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

[BADecker]

Nope...

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho

Science is based on logic. Science proves God exists... cause and effect, complex universe, universal complexity. Scientists who don't believe that God exists, are high priests of a religion when they express the idea that God doesn't exist. At the same time, they are far less scientist than they think that they are. However...

It is mostly the media and politics that stretch the questions of science into truths when they are not truths. Thus, the media and politics are way more religious leaders than people understand.

[keyscore44]

My interpretation:

Religion is mental disease, science is based on facts derived from experiments and observations.

[organofcorti]

While many in main stream science claim to be atheist and believe in the Big Bang and the eventual Deep Freeze due to entropy. Is it not curious to consider that the very underpinnings of this belief is based on mathematics, was it too created in the big bang? if so how was it constructed? one digit at a time?

I think not it has always been there and will always remain its an eternal masterpiece that permeates every conceivable facet or reality yet in its self it is purely abstract. Without it nothing would exist, but it in itself it is nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is the language of the living universe. Its permutations are infinite, yet it did not grow, it has always been complete and eternal.          

I don't follow this. How does your statement suggest that science is a religion? How are you defining religion? A la BADecker ("Religion is anything you feel strongly about -- gods, war lawyers, that guy who cut in front of you in traffic on your way to work") or the usual way (requiring gods and belief in the supernatural etc).

Absolutely. Anything that you feel strongly enough about to make it part of your life theme, is part of your personal religion.

That's why so many atheists flock together in communications contact if not actual physical contact. Religious strength in numbers.

Ah, ok. I'm religious in the same way you're an atheist - as a matter of definition.

To quote my previous response to you:

Same logic as your definition of atheism as a religion:

If science is religion, you're an atheist. How can you tell? There are thousands of religions and many more gods that exist (with our without followers today), and we can realistically expect that in our prehistoric past that there have been many times this number. Yet you believe in only one.

One definition of an atheist is that it is someone who does not believe in gods. To believe in only one of thousands of gods means that you're 99.9% atheist.

Therefore you are approximately an atheist, and as the number of gods that have ever been claimed to exist approaches infinity, your atheism approaches 100%.

When a group of people get together to design a car, they all have to be on the same page. If they are not, the pistons won't fit the cylinders. The windows won't fit the holes made for them. The wiring will be all mixed up.

The point, and the fault of your thinking? The universe is so extremely complex that God must be One. If He weren't, it wouldn't have worked from the get-go.

Sometimes parts of a new car model don't fit together. The car has to go back to the drawing board until all the engineers and builders get on the same page. But there is one guy/gal who okays the new car. And it better be right this time, or heads will roll.

There is One God. The devil was the engineer who engineered imperfection in the universe. And he did it intentionally. He will be gone regarding the new universe... fired, so to speak.

People believe in many gods. Many people mistakenly believe wrong things about the only God. It looks like there are many gods. But there is only one real God.

No, you've totally missed the point. I don't care about how many gods you think there are, just that there have been many claimed to exist and you (and other monotheists) claim that only one is real, and if that's the case then my point stands.

The logical error --  the "fault of thinking", if you will --  that I demonstrate here is an example of what happens taking a very narrow definition of a word and then attempt to generalise it beyond what the acceptable definition of that word is -- much as you do for the word "religion".

Dictionary.com attempts to show the definitions without excluding any part of them. Dictionary.com is not the only place that has the definitions that they use. So, check them out - http://www.dictionary.com/.

Well, that *is* interesting. From that website, a definition of atheism is:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This is exactly the attitude of a monotheist to all other gods. Therefore -- if you take just that single definition of atheism --  monotheists are almost completely atheist.

I hope this clearly illustrates the illogic in attempting to stretch a definition from a particular case to any use at all.

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".

Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.

Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?

[BADecker]

While many in main stream science claim to be atheist and believe in the Big Bang and the eventual Deep Freeze due to entropy. Is it not curious to consider that the very underpinnings of this belief is based on mathematics, was it too created in the big bang? if so how was it constructed? one digit at a time?

I think not it has always been there and will always remain its an eternal masterpiece that permeates every conceivable facet or reality yet in its self it is purely abstract. Without it nothing would exist, but it in itself it is nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is the language of the living universe. Its permutations are infinite, yet it did not grow, it has always been complete and eternal.          

I don't follow this. How does your statement suggest that science is a religion? How are you defining religion? A la BADecker ("Religion is anything you feel strongly about -- gods, war lawyers, that guy who cut in front of you in traffic on your way to work") or the usual way (requiring gods and belief in the supernatural etc).

Absolutely. Anything that you feel strongly enough about to make it part of your life theme, is part of your personal religion.

That's why so many atheists flock together in communications contact if not actual physical contact. Religious strength in numbers.

Ah, ok. I'm religious in the same way you're an atheist - as a matter of definition.

To quote my previous response to you:

Same logic as your definition of atheism as a religion:

If science is religion, you're an atheist. How can you tell? There are thousands of religions and many more gods that exist (with our without followers today), and we can realistically expect that in our prehistoric past that there have been many times this number. Yet you believe in only one.

One definition of an atheist is that it is someone who does not believe in gods. To believe in only one of thousands of gods means that you're 99.9% atheist.

Therefore you are approximately an atheist, and as the number of gods that have ever been claimed to exist approaches infinity, your atheism approaches 100%.

When a group of people get together to design a car, they all have to be on the same page. If they are not, the pistons won't fit the cylinders. The windows won't fit the holes made for them. The wiring will be all mixed up.

The point, and the fault of your thinking? The universe is so extremely complex that God must be One. If He weren't, it wouldn't have worked from the get-go.

Sometimes parts of a new car model don't fit together. The car has to go back to the drawing board until all the engineers and builders get on the same page. But there is one guy/gal who okays the new car. And it better be right this time, or heads will roll.

There is One God. The devil was the engineer who engineered imperfection in the universe. And he did it intentionally. He will be gone regarding the new universe... fired, so to speak.

People believe in many gods. Many people mistakenly believe wrong things about the only God. It looks like there are many gods. But there is only one real God.

No, you've totally missed the point. I don't care about how many gods you think there are, just that there have been many claimed to exist and you (and other monotheists) claim that only one is real, and if that's the case then my point stands.

The logical error --  the "fault of thinking", if you will --  that I demonstrate here is an example of what happens taking a very narrow definition of a word and then attempt to generalise it beyond what the acceptable definition of that word is -- much as you do for the word "religion".

Dictionary.com attempts to show the definitions without excluding any part of them. Dictionary.com is not the only place that has the definitions that they use. So, check them out - http://www.dictionary.com/.

Well, that *is* interesting. From that website, a definition of atheism is:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This is exactly the attitude of a monotheist to all other gods. Therefore -- if you take just that single definition of atheism --  monotheists are almost completely atheist.

I hope this clearly illustrates the illogic in attempting to stretch a definition from a particular case to any use at all.

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".

Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.

Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?

It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.

I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.

Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."

[organofcorti]

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".

Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.

Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?

It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.

I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.

Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."

You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.

I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.

Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".

You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?

[BADecker]

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".

Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.

Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?

It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.

I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.

Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."

You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.

I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.

Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".

You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?

Is all that what we were discussing? I didn't realize that we were discussing that. Since I didn't realize it then, maybe we still aren't discussing the same thing.

I think one of the things we are discussing is how you attribute thoughts and ideas to me that are not mine. You make them up and say that such is what I think. Since you do this on a regular basis, you have a religion of deception, and there is no real use even discussing things with you. This doesn't mean that I won't play the discussing game with you, by discussing some things, but you seem to intentionally distort the things that we are discussing.


Anyone who wants to see that atheism is religion need only look at how adamantly atheists express the things that they believe... or the things that they believe that they don't believe. Where does one look for all this adamant expressing? Google searches on "atheism."

The next thing to do is look up all the definitions of "religion" in all the dictionaries that are available. When one does this, it becomes very evident that atheism is a form of religion.


Okay. Now you have it, point blank. Is any more discussion necessary? No! All that is necessary is research. Have at it.

[tabas]

My interpretation:

Religion is mental disease, science is based on facts derived from experiments and observations.

Religion makes people follow the right track of life. That's for the true religion. And for science, it is religion of atheists, I think so?

[organofcorti]

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".

Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.

Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?

It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.

I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.

Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."

You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.

I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.

Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".

You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?

Is all that what we were discussing? I didn't realize that we were discussing that. Since I didn't realize it then, maybe we still aren't discussing the same thing.

I think one of the things we are discussing is how you attribute thoughts and ideas to me that are not mine. You make them up and say that such is what I think. Since you do this on a regular basis, you have a religion of deception, and there is no real use even discussing things with you. This doesn't mean that I won't play the discussing game with you, by discussing some things, but you seem to intentionally distort the things that we are discussing.


Anyone who wants to see that atheism is religion need only look at how adamantly atheists express the things that they believe... or the things that they believe that they don't believe. Where does one look for all this adamant expressing? Google searches on "atheism."

The next thing to do is look up all the definitions of "religion" in all the dictionaries that are available. When one does this, it becomes very evident that atheism is a form of religion.


Okay. Now you have it, point blank. Is any more discussion necessary? No! All that is necessary is research. Have at it.

And so, as I explained, by a similar use of "definition" you are almost completely atheist. Your use of word definitions makes that a possible conclusion.

So, no --- no more discussion required. I hope the atheists welcome you into their ranks with open arms and ignore the teeny one god you do believe in for the many many more you don't.

[romero121]

My interpretation:

Religion is mental disease, science is based on facts derived from experiments and observations.

If you think religion to be a mental disease, then only that mental illness paved path for the facts that you term as science.

[Wilikon]

Nope...

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho

Science is based sometime on happy (or horrible) random accidents, or on someone's intuition. Some go through a lifetime of mockery to be proved right, or long time after their passing.
Science is not pure or right. Science is alive. Things we took for granted for centuries disappear from our collective mind after each breakthrough, becoming the new truth, the new belief.

Although most scientists won't admit they believe in a superior being, they will be the first to admit they need to have an unshakeable faith in themselves. That faith is the engine that makes them push and push and push.
Before the first strike of chalk on a blackboard one needs that light in their brain and believe in its unfathomably deep wisdom.


Is the science settled?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

[BADecker]

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".

Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.

Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?

It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.

I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.

Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."

You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.

I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.

Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".

You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?

Is all that what we were discussing? I didn't realize that we were discussing that. Since I didn't realize it then, maybe we still aren't discussing the same thing.

I think one of the things we are discussing is how you attribute thoughts and ideas to me that are not mine. You make them up and say that such is what I think. Since you do this on a regular basis, you have a religion of deception, and there is no real use even discussing things with you. This doesn't mean that I won't play the discussing game with you, by discussing some things, but you seem to intentionally distort the things that we are discussing.


Anyone who wants to see that atheism is religion need only look at how adamantly atheists express the things that they believe... or the things that they believe that they don't believe. Where does one look for all this adamant expressing? Google searches on "atheism."

The next thing to do is look up all the definitions of "religion" in all the dictionaries that are available. When one does this, it becomes very evident that atheism is a form of religion.


Okay. Now you have it, point blank. Is any more discussion necessary? No! All that is necessary is research. Have at it.

And so, as I explained, by a similar use of "definition" you are almost completely atheist. Your use of word definitions makes that a possible conclusion.

So, no --- no more discussion required. I hope the atheists welcome you into their ranks with open arms and ignore the teeny one god you do believe in for the many many more you don't.

You forget one little strategic area in this kind of thinking. False gods are not God.

Nobody knows all the attributes of God. Nobody knows if God drives a Cadillac or a Mercedes or a Rolls. Nobody knows if He wears rings on His fingers or not. We don't know the kind of house He lives in... flat roof or gabled roof, or maybe no roof at all.

The point? Everybody who worships God has some mistaken ideas about Him. Everybody who doesn't worship God and yet worships, worships an idol that is not God. Nobody knows who is who for sure. All we know is that God exists, and one either worships Him or one doesn't.

Here's the big point for you. All atheists worship. They worship one or more idols. The idols they worship are themselves. Why? Because they are setting themselves up as being greater than the real God, Who has been scientifically proven to exist, by stating that He doesn't exist.

What this essentially means is, there are no atheists. Those who claim that the are atheists with an outwardly sincere heart, are really, simply ignoring the fact that they are setting themselves up as gods.

[BADecker]

Nope...

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho

Science is based sometime on happy (or horrible) random accidents, or on someone's intuition. Some go through a lifetime of mockery to be proved right, or long time after their passing.
Science is not pure or right. Science is alive. Things we took for granted for centuries disappear from our collective mind after each breakthrough, becoming the new truth, the new belief.

Although most scientists won't admit they believe in a superior being, they will be the first to admit they need to have an unshakeable faith in themselves. That faith is the engine that makes them push and push and push.
Before the first strike of chalk on a blackboard one needs that light in their brain and believe in its unfathomably deep wisdom.


Is the science settled?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

Anyone who wants to see what the field of science really is, sincerely, with a questioning mind, Youtube search on "Dr. Don Patton" and watch some of his videos. Yes, they can be long. But they are interesting, and Dr. Patton does a very good job of explaining things at a level that almost anyone can understand.

Essentially, the thing that Dr. Patton shows over and over is how great men of science - many of them atheists - in their honest moments, state or write, that much of the basics of science is simply, arbitrarily decided upon ideas, and not really science at all.

Scientists themselves know that the idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is completely guesswork. The people who don't know this are the average everyday common people who have been lied to by politics and the media, and who have naively accepted the lies because they don't suspect that anyone, especially scientists, would lie to them like this.

Dr. Patton shows the books and the quotes by scientists that express that some of the greatest foundations of modern science are "things" that scientist have arbitrarily decided were true, when in reality, there is no way that they could be true.

Now, let me say that politics and the media, including some of the scientists, are attacking Dr. Patton one way or another because he is revealing the truth about them. You can listen to them and their attacks, or you can listen to the points that Dr. Patton makes.

The points prove themselves out. They prove themselves to be true so that it wouldn't matter who brought up the points, Dr. Patton or anybody else. Listen to the points before you judge.

[organofcorti]

Nope...

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho

Science is based sometime on happy (or horrible) random accidents, or on someone's intuition. Some go through a lifetime of mockery to be proved right, or long time after their passing.
Science is not pure or right. Science is alive. Things we took for granted for centuries disappear from our collective mind after each breakthrough, becoming the new truth, the new belief.

Although most scientists won't admit they believe in a superior being, they will be the first to admit they need to have an unshakeable faith in themselves. That faith is the engine that makes them push and push and push.
Before the first strike of chalk on a blackboard one needs that light in their brain and believe in its unfathomably deep wisdom.


Is the science settled?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

Anyone who wants to see what the field of science really is, sincerely, with a questioning mind, Youtube search on "Dr. Don Patton" and watch some of his videos. Yes, they can be long. But they are interesting, and Dr. Patton does a very good job of explaining things at a level that almost anyone can understand.

Essentially, the thing that Dr. Patton shows over and over is how great men of science - many of them atheists - in their honest moments, state or write, that much of the basics of science is simply, arbitrarily decided upon ideas, and not really science at all.

Scientists themselves know that the idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is completely guesswork. The people who don't know this are the average everyday common people who have been lied to by politics and the media, and who have naively accepted the lies because they don't suspect that anyone, especially scientists, would lie to them like this.

Dr. Patton shows the books and the quotes by scientists that express that some of the greatest foundations of modern science are "things" that scientist have arbitrarily decided were true, when in reality, there is no way that they could be true.

Now, let me say that politics and the media, including some of the scientists, are attacking Dr. Patton one way or another because he is revealing the truth about them. You can listen to them and their attacks, or you can listen to the points that Dr. Patton makes.

The points prove themselves out. They prove themselves to be true so that it wouldn't matter who brought up the points, Dr. Patton or anybody else. Listen to the points before you judge.

And yet Dr. Patton's opinions are not science.

[BADecker]

Nope...

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Science is based on logic...religion isn't that logic imho

Science is based sometime on happy (or horrible) random accidents, or on someone's intuition. Some go through a lifetime of mockery to be proved right, or long time after their passing.
Science is not pure or right. Science is alive. Things we took for granted for centuries disappear from our collective mind after each breakthrough, becoming the new truth, the new belief.

Although most scientists won't admit they believe in a superior being, they will be the first to admit they need to have an unshakeable faith in themselves. That faith is the engine that makes them push and push and push.
Before the first strike of chalk on a blackboard one needs that light in their brain and believe in its unfathomably deep wisdom.


Is the science settled?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

Anyone who wants to see what the field of science really is, sincerely, with a questioning mind, Youtube search on "Dr. Don Patton" and watch some of his videos. Yes, they can be long. But they are interesting, and Dr. Patton does a very good job of explaining things at a level that almost anyone can understand.

Essentially, the thing that Dr. Patton shows over and over is how great men of science - many of them atheists - in their honest moments, state or write, that much of the basics of science is simply, arbitrarily decided upon ideas, and not really science at all.

Scientists themselves know that the idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is completely guesswork. The people who don't know this are the average everyday common people who have been lied to by politics and the media, and who have naively accepted the lies because they don't suspect that anyone, especially scientists, would lie to them like this.

Dr. Patton shows the books and the quotes by scientists that express that some of the greatest foundations of modern science are "things" that scientist have arbitrarily decided were true, when in reality, there is no way that they could be true.

Now, let me say that politics and the media, including some of the scientists, are attacking Dr. Patton one way or another because he is revealing the truth about them. You can listen to them and their attacks, or you can listen to the points that Dr. Patton makes.

The points prove themselves out. They prove themselves to be true so that it wouldn't matter who brought up the points, Dr. Patton or anybody else. Listen to the points before you judge.

And yet Dr. Patton's opinions are not science.

So what? Dr. Patton and others show that the opinions of scientists aren't science. Nobody was talking opinions until you brought it up.

[shintosai]

While many in main stream science claim to be atheist and believe in the Big Bang and the eventual Deep Freeze due to entropy. Is it not curious to consider that the very underpinnings of this belief is based on mathematics, was it too created in the big bang? if so how was it constructed? one digit at a time?

I think not it has always been there and will always remain its an eternal masterpiece that permeates every conceivable facet or reality yet in its self it is purely abstract. Without it nothing would exist, but it in itself it is nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is the language of the living universe. Its permutations are infinite, yet it did not grow, it has always been complete and eternal.         

I think science is not a religion because it is the way to discover the master piece of our Mighty Creator
science might be the way proving all God works for this world but eventually due to intelligence  of
human being instead of giving all the praise to God after discovering His creation Science itself build
another language to define what it is,.

[organofcorti]

Since science has proven that God exists, this make atheism possibly the greatest religion of all.

I hope this proves that the definition of "religion" fits atheism in almost all of its various ways.

Even ignoring how egregiously incorrect the first part of your statement is, the rest still makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying Zebras eat grass therefore religion is a goldfinch".

Either you have no argument to make, or you're being purposely disingenuous.

Now, how about a proper response. How is every interesting activity one does a 'religion'? How are you not essentially an atheist?

It's still very interesting how I can show that science proves the existence of God, but all you have been able to do for weeks and months, now, is to say that it doesn't... without refuting the things that I show regarding it.

I have no argument to make. I simply state the facts.

Any time that you want to see how every activity everyone does is part of their religion, all you need do is apply each and every activity to the definition of "religion."

You're changing the subject again. We were discussing your attempt to dilute the meaning of the word "religion" until it just means "something you feel strongly about", based on one definition of "religion", and ignoring all others. To you, "religion" has nothing to do with gods or supernatural.

I gave an example of how generalising definitions leads to ridiculous results by showing how you could (by one definitions of atheism) be considered to be essentially an atheist.

Then I asked you to explain how you could consider every interesting activity to be a "religion".

You addressed none of this in your reply, but instead attempted to change the subject. Would you like to try again?

Is all that what we were discussing? I didn't realize that we were discussing that. Since I didn't realize it then, maybe we still aren't discussing the same thing.

I think one of the things we are discussing is how you attribute thoughts and ideas to me that are not mine. You make them up and say that such is what I think. Since you do this on a regular basis, you have a religion of deception, and there is no real use even discussing things with you. This doesn't mean that I won't play the discussing game with you, by discussing some things, but you seem to intentionally distort the things that we are discussing.


Anyone who wants to see that atheism is religion need only look at how adamantly atheists express the things that they believe... or the things that they believe that they don't believe. Where does one look for all this adamant expressing? Google searches on "atheism."

The next thing to do is look up all the definitions of "religion" in all the dictionaries that are available. When one does this, it becomes very evident that atheism is a form of religion.


Okay. Now you have it, point blank. Is any more discussion necessary? No! All that is necessary is research. Have at it.

And so, as I explained, by a similar use of "definition" you are almost completely atheist. Your use of word definitions makes that a possible conclusion.

So, no --- no more discussion required. I hope the atheists welcome you into their ranks with open arms and ignore the teeny one god you do believe in for the many many more you don't.

You forget one little strategic area in this kind of thinking. False gods are not God.

No -- to an atheist all gods are equal, and I've shown that by your logic you are essentially atheist.

Try again!

[kryptqnick]

Science is not a religion. However, we may see something similar in them, because they both have their mythology. The Big Bang may have occured in the past. However, it doesn't mean that the way people talk about it is not mythologocal.

[nihilnegativum]

Science is not a religion. However, we may see something similar in them, because they both have their mythology. The Big Bang may have occured in the past. However, it doesn't mean that the way people talk about it is not mythologocal.

Science does not have a mythology, scientists do. Science is a set of methodologies that produce adequate knowledge, but there are no people that could encompass all the levels of knowledge adequately.