Science is Religion

[Engimo]

Yes their is...Charles Darwin worshiped, but not supernatural.

You're wrong. There is no Pope in science. You could make the argument that Physicists "worshipped" Isaac Newton for hundreds of years, but did that stop Einstein from revolutionizing the way that we think about the universe? No. And was there anyone that contested it? No. That's the difference between science and religion - science is looking for the truth, while religion supposes to have had it in the first place.

Also Atheism is a religion without a supernatural being or worship.

A nonsensical statement. You cannot have a religion without worship of a supernatural being - what else would define a religion?

 

[UtahBill]

A nonsensical statement. You cannot have a religion without worship of a supernatural being - what else would define a religion?

I think some of the eastern religions exist without a supernatural being involved. Religion is a belief system, and doesn't really require worship of an entity. Science is more of a knowledge system, and requires proofs that can be duplicated by others to show validity.
The fact that many scientists still believe in at least some aspects of religion is an indication that there is room for both in the educated mind. You take the parts of each that make sense to you and disregard the rest.
I believe that the concept of a supreme being is feasible, but I do not believe that he created the world as stated in Genesis. That is a story made up thousands of years ago to explain the unexplainable to those among us who were so uneducated as to be afraid of the unknown. There will always be religionists who make up answers for unanswerable questions. Those questions that we can get verifiable answers for will be answered by scientists.

 

[Mickyjaystoned]

In response to the Mengele question,
Run a websearch on Arizona Wilder, although her credibility is shaky at best, i have various MP3 files where she talks about her mental programmer Joseph Mengele.

She is a Multiple Personality Disorder and talks about how Mengele was her mind controller, as you know MPD's are the best candidates for mind control as their brain is already compartmentalised and needs little input from the controller in order for the subject to not know what actions she has done.

A google search on Arizona Wilder may be sufficient, but i remember in the Interview she mentioned that she was not mengele's only patient so you may find other people blowing the whistle on him.

If you got Limewire run a search on David Icke and download the file with Arizona Wilder Mind control interview, there is your spoken confirmation that Joseph Mengele was active in America

 

[Engimo]

I think some of the eastern religions exist without a supernatural being involved. Religion is a belief system, and doesn't really require worship of an entity.

Perhaps I have a restrictive definition of religion, but I wouldn't make "belief system" the sole criteria for calling something in religion. If it were, political or philosophical ideologies could be considered religions, which I don't believe they are. I wouldn't say that certain sects of Buddhism that do not worship Buddha as a God are to be considered religions, but rather philosophies. Your definition seems too broad and dilutes the fundamental nature of religion is - a belief system involving the supernatural.

The fact that many scientists still believe in at least some aspects of religion is an indication that there is room for both in the educated mind. You take the parts of each that make sense to you and disregard the rest.

I disagree. While many intelligent people manage to hold religious beliefs, that does not mean that the beliefs themselves are intelligent. Religious belief is fundamentally at odds with empirical thought, making it virtuous to believe in something without proof.

I believe that the concept of a supreme being is feasible, but I do not believe that he created the world as stated in Genesis. That is a story made up thousands of years ago to explain the unexplainable to those among us who were so uneducated as to be afraid of the unknown. There will always be religionists who make up answers for unanswerable questions. Those questions that we can get verifiable answers for will be answered by scientists.

I don't think the "God of the Gaps" that you are referring to is really necessary. Why can't we just say that we do not understand certain things instead of insisting on placing a supernatural entity wherever we lack knowledge?

 

[stsburns]

Please, can you define for me the principles of "belief" or principles Atheism involves?

You believe in yourself and that you don't need any help in life ever. You are a completely self seficient being, and believe that everyone else is wrong, and that you know the difference between right and wrong. THUS YOU ARE GOD>

I seem to have a problem grasping this concept, as I personally only hear what it is not, not too often what it is exactly that Atheists truly think of this world.

KMS

So you admit I was right about Charles Darwin. Because you didn't argue against it? Yet you gripping about Atheism and their really isn't much difference because "Science" pushes Atheism? With says that "only the fittest survive", "Evolutionary Thoery", and the news worthly headlines "We are always right."

Just kidding on the last one. :mrgreen: OR AM I? :mrgreen:

 

[Engimo]

You believe in yourself and that you don't need any help in life ever. You are a completely self seficient being, and believe that everyone else is wrong, and that you know the difference between right and wrong. THUS YOU ARE GOD>

That is simply untrue. I am an atheist and I do not believe any of those things.

So you admit I was right about Charles Darwin. Because you didn't argue against it? Yet you gripping about Atheism and their really isn't much difference because "Science" pushes Atheism? With says that "only the fittest survive", "Evolutionary Thoery", and the news worthly headlines "We are always right."

Just kidding on the last one. :mrgreen: OR AM I? :mrgreen:

What?

 

[stsburns]

That is simply untrue. I am an atheist and I do not believe any of those things.

So you don't think there is difference between "Right" and "Wrong?"

 

[Engimo]

So you don't think there is difference between "Right" and "Wrong?"

Did I say that? I do not believe that everyone else is wrong nor do I believe that I can claim to absolutely know the difference between right and wrong in all circumstances. Morality is a very grey area.

 

[stsburns]

Did I say that? I do not believe that everyone else is wrong nor do I believe that I can claim to absolutely know the difference between right and wrong in all circumstances. Morality is a very grey area.

So "Anything Goes?"

 

[Engimo]

So "Anything Goes?"

Certainly not, but my personal morality really has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

 

[stsburns]

Certainly not, but my personal morality really has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

So in "Atheism", "Morality" varies from individual to individual?

Sorry for offending you but hey, you knew I would probably when you read my signature.

 

[Engimo]

So in "Atheism", "Morality" varies from individual to individual?

Sorry for offending you but hey, you knew I would probably when you read my signature.

I'm not offended. Atheism is not a moral code, it is simply a statement of the disbelief in a deity. You can be an atheist that feels that all people should be killed or an atheist that feels that life is previous. There is no inherent philosopy or morality with atheism, just as there is no philosophy associated with your disbelief in Zeus.

 

[stsburns]

I'm not offended. Atheism is not a moral code, it is simply a statement of the disbelief in a deity. You can be an atheist that feels that all people should be killed or an atheist that feels that life is previous. There is no inherent philosopy or morality with atheism, just as there is no philosophy associated with your disbelief in Zeus.

So what does "Popular Belief" count as in Atheism? I'm just curious?

 

[Engimo]

So what does "Popular Belief" count as in Atheism? I'm just curious?

I don't understand the question.

 

[stsburns]

I don't understand the question.

In a society, their is a uniform "Popular Belief" that is widely excepted accross all fields and backrounds. I was just wondering how Atheism is affected by a general society accepted idea?

 

[Engimo]

In a society, their is a uniform "Popular Belief" that is widely excepted accross all fields and backrounds. I was just wondering how Atheism is affected by a general society accepted idea?

It's not. While many atheists follow secular humanism as a philosopy, there is no standardized philosophy that atheists subscribe to.

 

[stsburns]

It's not. While many atheists follow secular humanism as a philosopy, there is no standardized philosophy that atheists subscribe to.

So their is not a standard, but secularism is popular in Atheism?

 

[Engimo]

So their is not a standard, but secularism is popular in Atheism?

I believe so, yes.

 

[CaliNORML]

As I look at this definition that is forming, I see bits of Buddahism and also hints of Objectivism. (Ayn Rand)

Maybe I should ask, are the Athiests "sects"? Different approachs to "morals" and "principle" and standards as to how far "evidence" must go in order to dispell a disbelief?

KMS

 

[nkgupta80]

science is not religion because it is not dogma. It is allowed to be reevaluated. I am always allowed to go back and reevaluate Newton's theories, using logic and reasoning. This is exactly what einstein did.

Of course the study of science is a philosophy. Scientists presribe to the ideas of inductive and deductive reasoning/logic to arrive to a singular truth. But that doesn't make it a religion.