Science Is/As A Religion

[sangha]

I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse? well you're probably right.

nonetheless, none of it is religion.

I think most people are saying that science is a religion because so many are deferring to science to give them the answers to things they dont understand rather than organized religion. they would rather just believe than think or be unsure.

It must be those dreaded "sciencers"

 

[IanC]

I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse? well you're probably right.

nonetheless, none of it is religion.

I think most people are saying that science is a religion because so many are deferring to science to give them the answers to things they dont understand rather than organized religion. they would rather just believe than think or be unsure.

It must be those dreaded "sciencers"

yup. everyone wants to be in a group that they can believe in. it used to be 'God is on my side' but now it is 'the scientists say...'

 

[sangha]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not quite how it works. You don't get to call global warming a religion just because I call scientology a religion. You're wrong, regardless of what correct points I make. This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of English. I just gave you a Wikipedia article to read which you clearly didn't. If you don't like that source, you can select any standard dictionary in the country. It will still show me to be correct, and you to be making things up.

You seem incapable of distinguishing between religious beliefs and political beliefs. EVEN IF they have something in common, it does not make them equal.

I am issuing a challenge, and you still attempt to define the rules. Why am I not surprised?

BTW, I not only understand the differences, and similarities, between religious and political beliefs, I know they are not mutually exclusive. This video was produced by people who are religious fanatics, not BY people with simple political beliefs.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM&[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am reposting this post by QW to show that he was right. He did not say that I was "half right" He said that I was "almost right"

But he can't say what isn't right

Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.

The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.

How is Gods' existence provable?

How is it not?

 

[daveman]

The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say " I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day." which makes it clear his position is not certain.

It is a lie. Try again

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"

davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie

Soooo...the scientist who said "...But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter..." doesn't count?

You're a retard.

 

[daveman]

Wrong.

I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up

The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue

So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?

Here, for one, you childish little git.

You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.

Now, quick! Pretend I didn't just prove my point!

dave lie #1 - scientists believe in dark matter

dave lie #2 - I denied that there are stupid people on either side

That's why dave won't post the quote. He knows the post doesn't say what he claims it says. Dave thinks his newest lie will cover up his earlier lies. Here's what my post says:

Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.

Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers

Retard.

 

[daveman]

Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)



So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

You're being irrational. Once again, I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have. If you think I have, you'd best be linking it. I'm getting tired of your nonsense.

Translation - dave won't repeat and clarify his accusation because he knows it's a lie

For the record - fave accused me of denying that there are stupid people on both sides of this issue, but he's too scared to post a quote of mine to prove his point. All he has is his childish insults. I'll repeat

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

Retard.

 

[daveman]

evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.

I know, as I've made quite plain throughout this entire thread.

However...not everyone knows they're different...including some who don't believe in creation.

Retard.

 

[Montrovant]

Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.

The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.

How is Gods' existence provable?

How is it not?

I don't think god is well-enough defined to have anyone's version proven to exist. It's also possible the very definition some give for god may make it impossible to prove.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is Gods' existence provable?

How is it not?

I don't think god is well-enough defined to have anyone's version proven to exist. It's also possible the very definition some give for god may make it impossible to prove.

I think I agree with you.

 

[sangha]

Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.

The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.

How is Gods' existence provable?

How is it not?

The lack of proof

But since you continue to insist that Gods existence is provable, maybe you could post the proof

Or maybe not. Bullshitters make claims, but never back them up

 

[sangha]

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"

davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie

Soooo...the scientist who said "...But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter..." doesn't count?

You're a retard.

No because the same scientist said that dark matter is unproven

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is Gods' existence provable?

How is it not?

The lack of proof

But since you continue to insist that Gods existence is provable, maybe you could post the proof

Or maybe not. Bullshitters make claims, but never back them up

The lack of proof makes something unprovable? I might be confused but I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Unprovable is different from unproven in the real world.

Please note that at no point did I insist that the existence of God is provable, I am simply challenging you to prove it is unprovable. There is a significant difference, even if it escapes your massive intellect.

 

[sangha]

How is it not?

The lack of proof

But since you continue to insist that Gods existence is provable, maybe you could post the proof

Or maybe not. Bullshitters make claims, but never back them up

The lack of proof makes something unprovable? I might be confused but I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Unprovable is different from unproven in the real world.

Please note that at no point did I insist that the existence of God is provable, I am simply challenging you to prove it is unprovable. There is a significant difference, even if it escapes your massive intellect.

OK, Gods existence is unprovable because His nature (supernatural) is beyond our comprehension. I do not know of any religion that doesn't define God (or Gods) as supernatural. Do you?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

yup. everyone wants to be in a group that they can believe in. it used to be 'God is on my side' but now it is 'the scientists say...'

And yet the two are not equivalent. One is based on blind faith, the other is based on reproducible facts.

I am issuing a challenge, and you still attempt to define the rules. Why am I not surprised?

Define the rules? No hardly. I am however posting definitions of WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE which you seem to fail at understanding. If you disagree, then by all means where I am defining "rules". You can't.

Stop being a child. You're wrong. I just provided numerous sources regarding the definitions of the words you're using which directly show you're wrong. Quit while you're behind.

BTW, I not only understand the differences, and similarities, between religious and political beliefs, I know they are not mutually exclusive. This video was produced by people who are religious fanatics, not BY people with simple political beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM&

So far you are showing that you in fact have no clue what the differences are, and what actually constitutes religious beliefs. Take the video you just posted. Which part is religious about it? Do you need me to define religion again for you?

Retard.

Retard.

Retard.

You are not presenting a very convincing rebuttal.

 

[daveman]

Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"

davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie

Soooo...the scientist who said "...But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter..." doesn't count?

You're a retard.

No because the same scientist said that dark matter is unproven

But he said there are reasons to believe in it.

So you think that means he doesn't believe in it?

Well...you are you, after all, so, yeah, you probably do.

 

[daveman]

Retard.

Retard.

Retard.

You are not presenting a very convincing rebuttal.

The people those are aimed at will not accept any rebuttal.

This ain't my first rodeo.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.

The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.

How is Gods' existence provable?

How is it not?

It's not provable because no proof exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll make it really simple for you.

If Scientology actually meets whatever definition you have for religion, than I can easily fit AGW into the same definition. There is no way you can define Scientology as a religion that would exclude AGW unless you require that a religion define itself by applying to the US Government for tax exempt status. I am not even sure that would apply since Al Gore routinely applies for subsidies for his "business" interests.

Bet feel free to continue to apply your own interpretation of English, since you will anyway.

That's not quite how it works. You don't get to call global warming a religion just because I call scientology a religion. You're wrong, regardless of what correct points I make. This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of English. I just gave you a Wikipedia article to read which you clearly didn't. If you don't like that source, you can select any standard dictionary in the country. It will still show me to be correct, and you to be making things up.

You seem incapable of distinguishing between religious beliefs and political beliefs. EVEN IF they have something in common, it does not make them equal.

But here, instead of relying on your avoidance of the actual issue, I'll just provide the definitions for you:

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.

Applies to scientology, and not global warming.

re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn]
–noun a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Applies to scientology, and not global warming.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power

Applies to scientology, and not global warming.

Are you starting to catch the trend now? Yes, if you do continue to make your ridiculous point, I will continue to shoot you down with those pesky things called facts and reason.

I am not the one that has the problem differentiating between religious and political beliefs.

Funny thing about facts, they support the truth, and not any false belief system. The truth is that AGW believers are religious fanatics, as this movie clearly demonstrated.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM[/ame]

Feel free to live in denial if you like, but the truth is still the truth.