Is science a religion?

[BADecker]

Science doesn't have beliefs it has theories. Those are two different things.

Belief in God for Christians is a sure thing. In their hearts and minds the know that God exists no matter what evidence you provide to the contrary.

A Theory is an idea about how something works. Everyone in science knows its not fact but a possibility.

So you see, if a Christian or other deity worshiper believed in the big bang theory they would know its a fact and without a doubt in their mind its proof. While science knows its just a possibility of creation and probably the best idea there is thus far.

When scientists or anyone else believes that the things expressed by science theories are reality and factual, they have a religion going for themselves. You can find lots of people who have turned science into a religion for themselves by  reading through the links on this page: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html.

Of course, nobody knows for sure if these people believe the theories to be fact, or if they are simply liars when they treat the theories as though they were fact.

Science theories are not believed until proven SO ..So stop making things up BADLOGIC..

How many times am I going to have to show you this link https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html, where there are links to many pages where people talk like they believe big bang is fact, while it is just theory or less?

[1714596718]

1714596718

[1714596718]

1714596718

[1714596718]

1714596718

[1714596718]

1714596718

[1714596718]

1714596718

[Chikito]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

[gredisgold88]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

[Chikito]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

yes they argue without coachman, running without a driver, maybe some things will ruin this world, science and religion fight each other

[gredisgold88]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

yes they argue without coachman, running without a driver, maybe some things will ruin this world, science and religion fight each other

but many thinkers homage to religion and science, for example, al-Ghazali, he was also a philosopher, there also have contradictions in science and religion is Galileo Galilei.

[Chikito]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

yes they argue without coachman, running without a driver, maybe some things will ruin this world, science and religion fight each other

but many thinkers homage to religion and science, for example, al-Ghazali, he was also a philosopher, there also have contradictions in science and religion is Galileo Galilei.

of course ,I agree with your opinion. and I will add karl marx, he describes some class, and the class struggle, the book Das Kapital, and 7 the holy family, karl marx describes ne

[gredisgold88]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

yes they argue without coachman, running without a driver, maybe some things will ruin this world, science and religion fight each other

but many thinkers homage to religion and science, for example, al-Ghazali, he was also a philosopher, there also have contradictions in science and religion is Galileo Galilei.

of course ,I agree with your opinion. and I will add karl marx, he describes some class, and the class struggle, the book Das Kapital, and 7 the holy family, karl marx describes ne

it turns out you also know karl marx? , Was amazing, did you also read a book about the dialectic of nature works engels?

[Chikito]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

yes they argue without coachman, running without a driver, maybe some things will ruin this world, science and religion fight each other

but many thinkers homage to religion and science, for example, al-Ghazali, he was also a philosopher, there also have contradictions in science and religion is Galileo Galilei.

of course ,I agree with your opinion. and I will add karl marx, he describes some class, and the class struggle, the book Das Kapital, and 7 the holy family, karl marx describes ne

it turns out you also know karl marx? , Was amazing, did you also read a book about the dialectic of nature works engels?

yes, I know only a little, about the dialectic of nature, and some formulas of course, it was very exciting for me, and make my idea develops.

[gredisgold88]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

yes they argue without coachman, running without a driver, maybe some things will ruin this world, science and religion fight each other

but many thinkers homage to religion and science, for example, al-Ghazali, he was also a philosopher, there also have contradictions in science and religion is Galileo Galilei.

of course ,I agree with your opinion. and I will add karl marx, he describes some class, and the class struggle, the book Das Kapital, and 7 the holy family, karl marx describes ne

it turns out you also know karl marx? , Was amazing, did you also read a book about the dialectic of nature works engels?

yes, I know only a little, about the dialectic of nature, and some formulas of course, it was very exciting for me, and make my idea develops.

karl marx and engels are the clever ones in my opinion, they peel social events, the class contradictions, economy, religion and science

[Chikito]

hmmm , relegion And science is a continuity of thought, religion without science is meaningless, and vice versa. I hope these two guidelines will be running live in harmony, without which superior in one science think

you are right, but think with some things that have no meaning in science and religion, they argue without end, and do not have a heck discordant in science

yes they argue without coachman, running without a driver, maybe some things will ruin this world, science and religion fight each other

but many thinkers homage to religion and science, for example, al-Ghazali, he was also a philosopher, there also have contradictions in science and religion is Galileo Galilei.

of course ,I agree with your opinion. and I will add karl marx, he describes some class, and the class struggle, the book Das Kapital, and 7 the holy family, karl marx describes ne

it turns out you also know karl marx? , Was amazing, did you also read a book about the dialectic of nature works engels?

yes, I know only a little, about the dialectic of nature, and some formulas of course, it was very exciting for me, and make my idea develops.

karl marx and engels are the clever ones in my opinion, they peel social events, the class contradictions, economy, religion and science

of course , he's Have a goodie ideal , but will not and never happened concept of an ideal world, while state capitalism is not destroyed by its own

[BADecker]

Mmm, lets dig deeper here.

When scientists or anyone else believes that the things expressed by science theories are reality and factual, they have a religion going for themselves.

So here your saying religion is a belief or set of beliefs that cannot be proved to be factual, right? That's your definition of religion.

Of course, nobody knows for sure if these people believe the theories to be fact, or if they are simply liars when they treat the theories as though they were fact.

Now your saying that people that treat theories as fact are liars, so the same rule must apply to religious people that treat their beliefs as fact, right? Stand to reason.


Since you treat Christian mythology as factual, that means by your logic, you're a liar.
To make matters worse, as we both know, theories are superior to mythology as theories are based on observations and experiments and mythology is based on blind wishful thinking, blind guess work and not forgetting a dollop of pseudoscience to keep the scientifically illiterate happy.

Your words, not mine.
 
 

Since I don't really know of any Christian mythology, you are wrong in your assumptions again. Whether or not I am a liar isn't what is important. More important is the fact that either you can't think very well, or you are extremely deceptive, or both.

[rchstr]

Mmm, lets dig deeper here.

When scientists or anyone else believes that the things expressed by science theories are reality and factual, they have a religion going for themselves.

So here your saying religion is a belief or set of beliefs that cannot be proved to be factual, right? That's your definition of religion.

Of course, nobody knows for sure if these people believe the theories to be fact, or if they are simply liars when they treat the theories as though they were fact.

Now your saying that people that treat theories as fact are liars, so the same rule must apply to religious people that treat their beliefs as fact, right? Stand to reason.


Since you treat Christian mythology as factual, that means by your logic, you're a liar.
To make matters worse, as we both know, theories are superior to mythology as theories are based on observations and experiments and mythology is based on blind wishful thinking, blind guess work and not forgetting a dollop of pseudoscience to keep the scientifically illiterate happy.

Your words, not mine.
 
 

Since I don't really know of any Christian mythology, you are wrong in your assumptions again. Whether or not I am a liar isn't what is important. More important is the fact that either you can't think very well, or you are extremely deceptive, or both.

yes you are right. But science is believing on what is be judge as truth or it can be. As religion that time only believes even if it is impossible lets have an example like angels. Do you think that flying can be done that time. Maybe it is true if alien does exist. What iam saying is science is experimenting or conducting some beliefs base on ethical and truthful thinking

[C0RE]

Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

[BADecker]

Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

Some scientists work on a specific science project for more than 30 years. And they still haven't found out if their project is accurate the way they hypothesize. Sounds like a lot of faith to me.

[Buffer Overflow]

Mmm, lets dig deeper here.

When scientists or anyone else believes that the things expressed by science theories are reality and factual, they have a religion going for themselves.

So here your saying religion is a belief or set of beliefs that cannot be proved to be factual, right? That's your definition of religion.

Of course, nobody knows for sure if these people believe the theories to be fact, or if they are simply liars when they treat the theories as though they were fact.

Now your saying that people that treat theories as fact are liars, so the same rule must apply to religious people that treat their beliefs as fact, right? Stand to reason.


Since you treat Christian mythology as factual, that means by your logic, you're a liar.
To make matters worse, as we both know, theories are superior to mythology as theories are based on observations and experiments and mythology is based on blind wishful thinking, blind guess work and not forgetting a dollop of pseudoscience to keep the scientifically illiterate happy.

Your words, not mine.
 
 

Since I don't really know of any Christian mythology, you are wrong in your assumptions again. Whether or not I am a liar isn't what is important. More important is the fact that either you can't think very well, or you are extremely deceptive, or both.

Well if you walk about with your eyes shut and fingers in your ears going "la la la", you will miss lots of things seen and heard in life.

Whether or not I am a liar isn't what is important.

Well for someone that claims they're speaking "The Truth", I'd say it vitally important.
Seems to me there's "The Truth", and there's "BADlogics Truth".

Some scientists work on a specific science project for more than 30 years. And they still haven't found out if their project is accurate the way they hypothesize. Sounds like a lot of faith to me.

Christianity has been around for centuries and Christians still haven't figured out if it's the truth yet, let alone agree with each other. All they can do is just say it's the truth, but not actually put anything solid on the table. Sounds like a lot of faith to me. Blind faith.

[v1ryspro]

Some scientists work on a specific science project for more than 30 years. And they still haven't found out if their project is accurate the way they hypothesize. Sounds like a lot of faith to me.

Christianity has been around for centuries and Christians still haven't figured out if it's the truth yet, let alone agree with each other. All they can do is just say it's the truth, but not actually put anything solid on the table. Sounds like a lot of faith to me. Blind faith.

In my understanding, blind faith is fanaticism. It is human nature to question everything. This means that any statement must be proven to believe in him. All the rest is stupid fanatics.

[Buffer Overflow]

Some scientists work on a specific science project for more than 30 years. And they still haven't found out if their project is accurate the way they hypothesize. Sounds like a lot of faith to me.

Christianity has been around for centuries and Christians still haven't figured out if it's the truth yet, let alone agree with each other. All they can do is just say it's the truth, but not actually put anything solid on the table. Sounds like a lot of faith to me. Blind faith.

In my understanding, blind faith is fanaticism.

I wouldn't say fanaticism. I mean many people believe something will happen after they die (afterlife for example), I wouldn't claim this as fanaticism.
Nobody knows what happens after our death (if anything), because we haven't died yet to find out. It's all blind faith.

[v1ryspro]

Some scientists work on a specific science project for more than 30 years. And they still haven't found out if their project is accurate the way they hypothesize. Sounds like a lot of faith to me.

Christianity has been around for centuries and Christians still haven't figured out if it's the truth yet, let alone agree with each other. All they can do is just say it's the truth, but not actually put anything solid on the table. Sounds like a lot of faith to me. Blind faith.

In my understanding, blind faith is fanaticism.

I wouldn't say fanaticism. I mean many people believe something will happen after they die (afterlife for example), I wouldn't claim this as fanaticism.
Nobody knows what happens after our death (if anything), because we haven't died yet to find out. It's all blind faith.

The afterlife does not exist. You yourself say that the evidence of its existence is not. To believe this can only fanatics and children. How can you abandon the goods of this life in the name of non-existent life.

[Buffer Overflow]

The afterlife does not exist.

Really? Considering you haven't died yet to know this, how do you know? Your just guessing.

You yourself say that the evidence of its existence is not. To believe this can only fanatics and children.

Afterlife I assume your talking about here.
I never said this, I said nobody knows what happens after our death (if anything). Fanatics and children? What are you talking about?   

How can you abandon the goods of this life in the name of non-existent life.

Lost me on this one? 

[ekaterina77]

Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

Some scientists work on a specific science project for more than 30 years. And they still haven't found out if their project is accurate the way they hypothesize. Sounds like a lot of faith to me.

Right, you say. Scientists can 30 years to conduct experiments until they 100% prove it to be true. All this time they do not claim that it is. I would understand believers who say that God probably is, but they claim there is a God without evidence.