Is science a religion?

[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.

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

Try again!

Wrong! The thing that atheists do is to attempt to hide the truth that God exists in such a way that they can get around believing this simplest of truths.

Since there is only one God, and all the rest are idols, there are no gods that atheists can assume are the same.

The atheist, being his own god, has turned himself into an idol for himself. If he hadn't, he would look at the scientific proof that God exists, and simply accept the fact of it.

[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!

Wrong! The thing that atheists do is to attempt to hide the truth that God exists in such a way that they can get around believing this simplest of truths.

Since there is only one God, and all the rest are idols, there are no gods that atheists can assume are the same.

The atheist, being his own god, has turned himself into an idol for himself. If he hadn't, he would look at the scientific proof that God exists, and simply accept the fact of it.

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

[BADecker]

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.

[Tusk]

“Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes — I mean the universe — but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written”― Galileo Galile

[Buffer Overflow]

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.

Oh dear, oh dear. What an angry bitter little man. 

What's wrong, failed to meet your target quota this month for new members suckers for your cult? 

[organofcorti]

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.

So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.

[BADecker]

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.

So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.

Is something available for you to take?

If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.

If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.

If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.

Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.

Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?

[organofcorti]

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.

So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.

Is something available for you to take?

If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.

If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.

If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.

Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.

Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?

Again, you lend a phrase a meaning that no one else would give it. In English, the phrase "I take it" simply means "I understand that such and such is the case".

So, to paraphrase in simpler terms:

Is your response to my question ("do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?")  "Yes", then?

[BADecker]

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.

So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.

Is something available for you to take?

If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.

If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.

If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.

Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.

Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?

Again, you lend a phrase a meaning that no one else would give it. In English, the phrase "I take it" simply means "I understand that such and such is the case".

So, to paraphrase in simpler terms:

Is your response to my question ("do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?")  "Yes", then?

Since you can't seem to figure out the answer from the answer, there really is no way to answer.

[katestone]

Nobody can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Religion and science are changing through the centuries. As well as our attitude to them.

[organofcorti]

Your efforts at convoluted logic still haven't answered a simple question - do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?

Your puny attempts at trying to get me to answer my way into your convoluted thinking are laughable. But since there is and has to be a place even for you and your sniveling and slimy existence, go on blundering around in your darkness.

So, I'll take that as a "Yes", then? You accept that your use of the word "religion" in the context of atheists is inappropriate? Good. Then lets hear no more about it. Saying "Atheists are religious people" just makes you look silly.

Is something available for you to take?

If something is yours and you take it, you have that right, because it is your property.

If something is not yours, and doesn't belong to anyone, and you desire to take it, you can take it. God left the thing open for you or anyone else to take. Take it if you wish.

If something belongs to someone else and you take it without receiving permission from the owner of that property, you are a thief, even if you attempt to justify it.

Since the definition of religion includes the "way" atheists are, atheism is a religion.

Why is it that you don't want to hear this truth?

Again, you lend a phrase a meaning that no one else would give it. In English, the phrase "I take it" simply means "I understand that such and such is the case".

So, to paraphrase in simpler terms:

Is your response to my question ("do you accept that by using only preferred word definitions, you can twist words to mean anything?")  "Yes", then?

Since you can't seem to figure out the answer from the answer, there really is no way to answer.

I "can't seem to figure out the answer from the answer" because you made no answer. While you avoid the question, it makes everyone reading this understand how manipulative you are. For a change of pace, you could just try being honest.

[KennyR]

Science as a religion is considered by only few exceptions who are mentally not prepared to face anything rather than invention and research.

[benedictonathan]

I do think that Science is a way of thinking, search for answers using the senses and its tools to gather data, verify iits validity, falsifying it at the same time, and once established it becomes truth.

For me Science is not a religion since Science is simply facts and the search of new ideas that eventually will become fact. Organized religion does not have that quest for facts since it already claims to have established facts according to their books.

[Tusk]

Separate the idea that a "creator" has to be in our image or needs to be benevolent, there is no evidence of either of these two properties in the universe. Lets merely make the burden of proof intelligent design.

Maths is the abstract language of intelligent design it is the eternal language of the universe, it has and always will exist because 1+2 = 3 with our without the universe. The universe operates according to fundamental mathematically predictable principals that are provable, therefore there is intelligent design.

The dogma we must get past is the pollution of intelligent design by those who seek to corrupt it with morality or an outside identifiable source, it has neither it is neutral. Yet that intelligent design permeates the universe there can be no doubt or 1 + 2 would not always equal 3.

[criptix]

^

Well it is mathematically possible to show you 1+1=1.

How is that intelligent design? Did god just failed there?

[BADecker]

^

Well it is mathematically possible to show you 1+1=1.

How is that intelligent design? Did god just failed there?

If you don't have a link, it's politics.

God doesn't need math to hold the universe in place. Math is a virtual language man devised for his own understanding of things. It is man's understanding that is flawed, not God's.

[haseeb ahmed]

Science is not a religion and it is totally different from many religions of world.Science don't believe in the creator of world or GOD.According to science world is not made by any creator like in Big bang theory this planet earth is a part of sun which broken from sun billions of years ago.

[magnific61]

Science can't be a religion
Almost every scientist belongs to a religion if we don't count atheists. Anyway atheism is also a religion that against to religions

[bitcoinboy12]

Science can't be a religion
Almost every scientist belongs to a religion if we don't count atheists. Anyway atheism is also a religion that against to religions

Cool to note that more and more scientists now actually try to intertwine concepts of science and religion. This sounds very DaVinci Code, but yea, there are religious who are actually involved with scientific researches and discoveries.

[organofcorti]

Science can't be a religion
Almost every scientist belongs to a religion if we don't count atheists. Anyway atheism is also a religion that against to religions

No, it's not.