The difference between science and religion

[BADecker]

I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone

It's because they don't have any actual evidence or proof to support their position, and they know they can't even begin to argue against the mountains of evidence that proves they are wrong. Their only defense is to resort to petty semantics and try to claim that somehow facts aren't facts and that evidence isn't evidence.

Look up the word religion in the dictionary - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. You will see that religion is something that everybody has, by definition. So, everybody is religious, one way or another.

Let the religious atheists stop trying to change the meanings of words just so that they can try to strengthen their own faith that they are atheists, while trying to keep atheism outside of the religion that it is.

Let the religious scientists who are attempting to believe that certain scientific theories are fact, when such isn't known that these theories are fact, stop trying to change the meanings of words just so that they can try to strengthen their own faith that the theories are facts... thereby turning science into religion for themselves.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious, so that we can recognize that the differences between science and religion are academic, and not real.

[1713965503]

1713965503

[1713965503]

1713965503

[1713965503]

1713965503

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

[BADecker]

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.     

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.      

Since in your world "fact" means "belief", "evidence" means "faith", and "atheist" means "religious", I can only assume that "agree" means "disprove".

[Spendulus]

Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.

.....

Anecdotes are not facts... you are still wrong, just stop with your nonsense
.....

Not an anecdote. Saying "That man is a criminal" is stating a fact.

It's true, another party might say "I don't believe it. Prove it." Then it's incumbent upon the first to state the underlying details.

Just go attend a chemistry class. Nothing but exposition of facts without underlying support. All of science is this way.

[BADecker]

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.      

Since in your world "fact" means "belief", "evidence" means "faith", and "atheist" means "religious", I can only assume that "agree" means "disprove".

My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are. Since you want to ignore the dictionary meanings, which I even pointed out to you, how can anyone even begin to know what you are really talking about?, since you ignore the dictionary, and proceed to express stuff with your own meanings?

In fact, it is kinda useless for you when I even respond to what you say... because you don't use the dictionary definitions of words, and don't clarify what you even mean, or if you even understand what I am saying. You seem to be speaking in your own weird language that is similar to English in some ways. But for the benefit of the rest of the forum readers who read your posts, I am simply showing them from the dictionary that you don't use standard meanings.

[o_e_l_e_o]

My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious

Collins: Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping

Oxford: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Merriam Webster: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power. Therefore, you are wrong yet again.

[BADecker]

My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious

Collins: Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping

Oxford: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Merriam Webster: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power. Therefore, you are wrong yet again.

Okay. So you quote one entry from several dictionaries. Don't you even look below or above the one entry you found, to see that there are other entries that confirm what I said? Are you unwilling to check other dictionaries? Are you unwilling to check the in-depth meanings of words in encyclopedias?

All you are doing is showing yourself to be incompetent in these things that you say. But we kinda knew that, because a few posts up I showed a dictionary link that proves what I have been saying... - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. But you completely ignored it and went on your way with meanings that you made up.

But thank you. You encourage me to bring up my activity rating when you do this.

[Spendulus]

Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.

.....

Anecdotes are not facts... you are still wrong, just stop with your nonsense
.....

Not an anecdote. Saying "That man is a criminal" is stating a fact.

It's true, another party might say "I don't believe it. Prove it." Then it's incumbent upon the first to state the underlying details.

Just go attend a chemistry class. Nothing but exposition of facts without underlying support. All of science is this way.

However, the underlying facts exist.

Religion is in fact based on belief, not fact in any sense. It's silly and ignorant to argue otherwise.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Okay. So you quote one entry from several dictionaries. Don't you even look below or above the one entry you found, to see that there are other entries that confirm what I said? Are you unwilling to check other dictionaries? Are you unwilling to check the in-depth meanings of words in encyclopedias?

All you are doing is showing yourself to be incompetent in these things that you say. But we kinda knew that, because a few posts up I showed a dictionary link that proves what I have been saying... - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. But you completely ignored it and went on your way with meanings that you made up.

You gave a quote from an online search. I gave you quotes from the 3 most widely selling dictionaries in the world. You can cherry pick all you want, the fact is you lied yet again. Nowhere in the 3 most widely selling dictionaries in the world does the definition state, as you claimed, that "all people are religious".

Please continue to argue though. Every one of your nonsense posts, arguing about petty semantics and trying to argue that facts are based on faith just confirms my initial point:

It's because they don't have any actual evidence or proof to support their position, and they know they can't even begin to argue against the mountains of evidence that proves they are wrong. Their only defense is to resort to petty semantics and try to claim that somehow facts aren't facts and that evidence isn't evidence.

[guybrushthreepwood]

The difference between facts and fairy-tales.

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

I think religions would die off very quickly if it wasn't for parents brainwashing their children with their own beliefs. People should teach their children how to think, not what to think and I the world would be a better place for it. We'd probably then have a lot more free-thinkers and scientists as opposed to just brainwashed kids that pass on the same indoctrination to their own children and the cycle continues. If a child was educated in science without the mention of religions I doubt they'd ever pick up a religious text in the future and think it was a legitimate source of knowledge and decide to be a convert or follower of whatever book they picked up. Even if you gave them a copy of the bible, quran, torah etc and asked them to choose which one they believed was the one 'true' one I don't think they'd come to the conclusion that it had to be one of them.

[darklus123]

Collins: Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping

Oxford: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Merriam Webster: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power. Therefore, you are wrong yet again.

Thanks for giving this links, by that I can argue with your statement.

Collins: -  You missed to point this meaning from the link you've given .

b.
any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system

by the phrase " any system of beliefs" and based on your statement "I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power.". By simply saying that (you do not believe in god = You believe that God did not exist). Therefore atheism is still a belief system and based on the link you have given. One synonym of religion is "belief" and by that I have concluded (congrats) you are a very religious person cause you hardly believe that god never existed.


Oxford: -

A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’

Based on that link and based on your statement. You have a great devotion since you are committed by not believing in god right?


Thefore, you are wrong as well.

[Spendulus]

....

by the phrase " any system of beliefs" and based on your statement "I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power.". By simply saying that (you do not believe in god = You believe that God did not exist). Therefore atheism is still a belief system....

Maybe or maybe not, but you have not proved it with your illogic.

There is no equality where you placed it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

I don't understand this argument at all.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion in the same way that not playing football is not a sport.

Secondly, what a desperate argument. The best argument you have for your position isn't atheism is wrong, science is wrong, look at all the proof for god, or look at the evidence for creation, but instead "you are just as irrational/delusional as I am!"

How utterly confused you are. But please, continue with your silly word games and prove my point even further.

[BADecker]

-snip-

I don't understand this argument at all.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion in the same way that not playing football is not a sport.

Secondly, what a desperate argument. The best argument you have for your position isn't atheism is wrong, science is wrong, look at all the proof for god, or look at the evidence for creation, but instead "you are just as irrational/delusional as I am!"

How utterly confused you are. But please, continue with your silly word games and prove my point even further.

Atheism is a chunk of stupidity... barely a religion. After all, anybody who attempts to be an atheist, knows that he is a liar, because:
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

In a similar way, science is a religion when scientist and others try to believe that a science theory is a fact, because they know that being a theory, it can change. But facts don't change. Only things that are believed to be facts when they aren't, can change. These people even know science theory can be dropped from theory status if enough evidence against it is discovered. Because of this, believing it to be fact is like a religion for them.

[o_e_l_e_o]

1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;

And nobody knows that there isn't a china teapot in between the Earth and Mars revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. That's not how the burden of proof works.

2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

More nonsense wordplay. I'm bored pointing out yet again that you are simply proving yet again my point that you have zero proof for your claims. Present some actual evidence please.

[BADecker]

1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;

And nobody knows that there isn't a china teapot in between the Earth and Mars revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. That's not how the burden of proof works.

2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

More nonsense wordplay. I'm bored pointing out yet again that you are simply proving yet again my point that you have zero proof for your claims. Present some actual evidence please.

Well, thanks... for confirming that atheism is a religion for you. You are not bored pointing out. You are worn out dogged tired, because you know that you can't find anything to prove me wrong. The things I say are not proving things. They are thinking things, and you can't find anything wrong with them. If you could, you would say it rather than continually saying that I am wrong, without having anything to show as wrongness in me.

Again, science theory, when it is believed to be fact, is a religion for those who so believe. The dictionary definition I pointed out shows it by definition, that anything you believe in is a religion for you, or part of your personal religion.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Atheism is a chunk of stupidity... barely a religion. After all, anybody who attempts to be an atheist, knows that he is a liar, because:
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

In a similar way, science is a religion when scientist and others try to believe that a science theory is a fact, because they know that being a theory, it can change. but facts don't change. Only things that are believed to be facts when they aren't can change. These people even know science theory can be dropped from theory status if enough evidence against it is discovered. Because of this, believing it to be fact is like a religion for them.

Barely a religion? It isn't a religion, nor is it stupid, and saying things like this is pretty stupid in my opinion. Why don't you apply the same logic to believers? Going by your logic surely someone who says they know that there's a god is as equally as stupid as the atheist because it's something they can't possibly know for certain. Atheism is a lack of belief or faith if anything. As Richard Dawkins says (and I'm paraphrasing here): you're not an atheist or agnostic towards unicorns if you don't believe in them. There could be unicorns, but there's almost certainly not and there's at least no evidence for them (other than in books, which like religions are just myths containing supernatural beings).

Atheism isn't necessarily the belief that you know there's no god either. It's that you don't believe there is one, unlikely to believe there is one, or you don't see any evidence for there being one:

Atheism: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That doesn't mean you 100% know there's no god (though some people may certainly claim they believe 100% there isn't one but that doesn't mean all atheists believe that). I personally don't believe there's a god because there's no evidence for one. I'm not going to 100% say that's there's definitely no god because I can't prove of disprove that either way. There could actually be a god.... but there probably isn't. God could have created the big bang and evolution. But he probably didn't.

Well, thanks... for confirming that atheism is a religion for you. You are not bored pointing out. You are worn out dogged tired, because you know that you can't find anything to prove me wrong. The things I say are not proving things. They are thinking things, and you can't find anything wrong with them. If you could, you would say it rather than continually saying that I am wrong, without having anything to show as wrongness in me.

Again, science theory, when it is believed to be fact, is a religion for those who so believe. The dictionary definition I pointed out shows it by definition, that anything you believe in is a religion for you, or part of your personal religion.

You're being intellectually dishonest here and are trying to stretch definitions to suit your agenda. If something is a fact then it is a fact. It's not a religious belief if you believe that water is wet. You can't say the people who "believe" the earth is round are a religion. A theory is a proposed idea:

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking

A theory can be debunked or disproved if it's not true. The earth being flat used to be a theory. Then the earth being round was a theory. One was disproved and the other was proved by facts and science (though you still get idiots who think the earth is flat but hey, some people deny facts and logic). I think all scientific theories probably start out as abstract ideas or educated guesses or assumptions, but then you look for evidence to either support or disprove them.

[Moloch]

2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god

This is a logical contradiction... an atheist doesn't believe in gods

It sounds more like you are describing Hinduism, which is a recognized religion

I'd recommend spending a little time learning about other religions and their beliefs, before telling other people what their "religion" believes, lmfao


BADLogic: This topic is about the difference between science and religion.  None of your posts are on-topic, and simply atheist bashing.  You are simply trying to derail the conversation into the same nonsense you spout in every thread.  I will report all your off-topic posts and hopefully others will do the same.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a chunk of stupidity... barely a religion. After all, anybody who attempts to be an atheist, knows that he is a liar, because:
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

In a similar way, science is a religion when scientist and others try to believe that a science theory is a fact, because they know that being a theory, it can change. but facts don't change. Only things that are believed to be facts when they aren't can change. These people even know science theory can be dropped from theory status if enough evidence against it is discovered. Because of this, believing it to be fact is like a religion for them.

Barely a religion? It isn't a religion, nor is it stupid, and saying things like this is pretty stupid in my opinion. Why don't you apply the same logic to believers? Going by your logic surely someone who says they know that there's a god is as equally as stupid as the atheist because it's something they can't possibly know for certain. Atheism is a lack of belief or faith if anything. As Richard Dawkins says (and I'm paraphrasing here): you're not an atheist or agnostic towards unicorns if you don't believe in them. There could be unicorns, but there's almost certainly not and there's at least no evidence for them (other than in books, which like religions are just myths containing supernatural beings).

Atheism isn't necessarily the belief that you know there's no god either. It's that you don't believe there is one, unlikely to believe there is one, or you don't see any evidence for there being one:

Atheism: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That doesn't mean you 100% know there's no god (though some people may certainly claim they believe 100% there isn't one but that doesn't mean all atheists believe that). I personally don't believe there's a god because there's no evidence for one. I'm not going to 100% say that's there's definitely no god because I can't prove of disprove that either way. There could actually be a god.... but there probably isn't. God could have created the big bang and evolution. But he probably didn't.

Well, thanks... for confirming that atheism is a religion for you. You are not bored pointing out. You are worn out dogged tired, because you know that you can't find anything to prove me wrong. The things I say are not proving things. They are thinking things, and you can't find anything wrong with them. If you could, you would say it rather than continually saying that I am wrong, without having anything to show as wrongness in me.

Again, science theory, when it is believed to be fact, is a religion for those who so believe. The dictionary definition I pointed out shows it by definition, that anything you believe in is a religion for you, or part of your personal religion.

You're being intellectually dishonest here and are trying to stretch definitions to suit your agenda. If something is a fact then it is a fact. It's not a religious belief if you believe that water is wet. You can't say the people who "believe" the earth is round are a religion. A theory is a proposed idea:

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking

A theory can be debunked or disproved if it's not true. The earth being flat used to be a theory. Then the earth being round was a theory. One was disproved and the other was proved by facts and science (though you still get idiots who think the earth is flat but hey, some people deny facts and logic). I think all scientific theories probably start out as abstract ideas or educated guesses or assumptions, but then you look for evidence to either support or disprove them.

Aw, did I hurt your itty-bitty feelings?

There is lots of proof for the fact that God exists. Simply check out the "Scientific proof that God exists?" thread to see the proof. The simplest of the proofs is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

Everybody knows that God exists, way down in their heart. But if people don't know God that way, let me say it again:

Either you believe that God might exist, because you know that there are many place you haven't checked for Him yet, and He might be in one of those places...

Or you firmly believe that God doesn't exist, which makes you into a god, so God does exist in you simply believing that god doesn't exist. After all, it takes a god to make the faithful pronouncement that God doesn't exist, especially when it is possible that He might exist somewhere that you haven't checked out yet.

Either way, God/god exists. So, not atheist, really. But even if there could somehow be an atheist, atheism is a religion with a god... the atheist, himself.

Or can't you think clearly enough to understand all this?



The difference between atheists and the Dawkins unicorns is this. Atheism is like a unicorn trying to believe unicorns don't exist. Atheism is like a god trying to believe God/god doesn't exist.



In the God-proof thread I linked, above, there are proofs listed for God. I even mentioned one of them. This means that people who understand the proof, absolutely know that God exists. This means that they lack belief in the existence of God. Why would they lack belief in His existence? Because they know He exists by the proof found in nature and other places. It's very difficult believe something you know. If they didn't know, but only saw evidence, they might believe somewhat, based on the evidence. But since they know that God exists, they don't believe it.

The ironic thing here is that this makes people who know that God exists, more atheists than atheists themselves. Why? Because part of the definition of atheist is "lacks belief in the existence of God." People who know that God exists, lack belief both in His existence or His non-existence, because they are outside the realm of believing or not believing such a thing. They know God exists... no room for belief or unbelief or non-belief.

I mean, when you sit down at the table for supper, you don't believe the plate of food is there. Either it is there and you know it, or it is not there and you know it. No belief one way or the other involved at all. But look at the definition for "atheism:"
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It has to do with belief or disbelief. When you know, you don't believe or disbelieve.



Theories that can't be debunked are facts, not theories.