Satanic Occult Symbols in Washington

[kay]

how is science a religion when its very goal is to espouse the benefits of evidence and examination over faith ?

genuine question

science CAN be metaphorised as a religion as can sport/reading/making music etc. to anyone who wishes to argue for it as one

doesn't make it a religion anymore than football is a religion and not a sport

science is like a religion when it's approaches become just as dogmatic as certain religions.

science evolves

thats the point of science

its 'approach' or 'the method' entails this naturally within the structure of the concept

assumption-hypothesis-repeated testing under certain conditions-results-affirm or deny original assumption - isn't dogmatic because inherent in the structure is that by following a rigid protocol or methodology we get different results that are in total accordance with reality as we know it

the scientific method is like a mathematical function - a highly complex one

what is contained under the concept of science is changing all the time, allowing what science can both explain and 'be' to adapt and change, importantly, in accordance with reality as clear as it can be understood

when bible = god exists can be proven like 1 + 1 = 2 then the two can be analogised effectively

until then there is a semantic and very real world gulf between the two in almost every way

its possible to abstract the idea of science, and metaphorise it as religious in nature, but ACTUAL real world science is just different.

I think that some scientists forget what science is about, and end up treating it (or the theories they believe) as though it were religion.

[flyingointment]

ODD FUTURE IS ILLUMINATI!!!!11

[el-tel]

militant atheists rattle on in much the same way as religious fanatics

fact is, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of god

[kay]

militant atheists rattle on in much the same way as religious fanatics

fact is, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of god

Well, science does not actually need to prove nor disprove the existence of god. What science does need to do, however, is show whether a god is necessary or not to explain why the universe is the way it is.

[Dub_freak]

Science has also failed to disprove the existence of unicorns...

If there is no evidence, not even a hint or theory that could prove something is real, then does it really exist at all?

Oh and science and atheism are two different things, there's a reason scientific people are mostly atheist...

[noam]

militant atheists rattle on in much the same way as religious fanatics

fact is, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of god

militant anyone should probably be ignored cos their views of the world are blinkered by blind devotion to a unique goal or truth

[nousd]

hmm, that's a pity
I consider myself a fundamentalist steppa...
I'm not sure that we should totally ignore the blinkered tho,
they're the ones whose pogroms target the thoughtful first.

[SCope13]

militant atheists rattle on in much the same way as religious fanatics

fact is, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of god

On your second point: no shit? I don't think it's ever claimed to.

And comparing militant atheists to religious fanatics is a false equivalency. Tell me the last time an atheist has bombed an abortion clinic or waged a massive war in the name of his/her beliefs. "Militant" atheists write books. Militant religious fanatics kill people.

[JTMMusicuk]

militant atheists rattle on in much the same way as religious fanatics

fact is, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of god

On your second point: no shit? I don't think it's ever claimed to.

And comparing militant atheists to religious fanatics is a false equivalency. Tell me the last time an atheist has bombed an abortion clinic or waged a massive war in the name of his/her beliefs. "Militant" atheists write books. Militant religious fanatics kill people.

[garethom]

militant atheists rattle on in much the same way as religious fanatics

fact is, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of god

On your second point: no shit? I don't think it's ever claimed to.

And comparing militant atheists to religious fanatics is a false equivalency. Tell me the last time an atheist has bombed an abortion clinic or waged a massive war in the name of his/her beliefs. "Militant" atheists write books. Militant religious fanatics kill people.

LOL, plenty of times.

[magma]

And comparing militant atheists to religious fanatics is a false equivalency. Tell me the last time an atheist has bombed an abortion clinic or waged a massive war in the name of his/her beliefs. "Militant" atheists write books. Militant religious fanatics kill people.

People exercise power against those weaker than them for all sorts of reasons... of course, there have been countless 'religious' wars and massacres - most people up to the current day have been religous - but the Holocaust was secular in philosophy and used a twisted Darwinism to justify itself. Same goes for Eugenics followers forcably sterilising the "weak of mind".

Stalin tried to eradicate religion in favour of communism - he massacred millions whilst he was at it. Pol Pot created The Killing Fields in Cambodia without the need for any God and The "Coalition of the Willing" has killed tens of thousands over the last few years in the name of "Freedom" and Oil.

Believing or not believing in a God isn't a very reliable measure of being a good person.

[James Kofi]

85% of conspiracy theorists have read up to one book by David Irving and 52% believe AIDS was invented by Suge Knight to boost Tupac's record sales.

[kay]

Science has also failed to disprove the existence of unicorns...

If there is no evidence, not even a hint or theory that could prove something is real, then does it really exist at all?

Oh and science and atheism are two different things, there's a reason scientific people are mostly atheist...

I've never actually met a scientist who's an atheist before. All the ones I know are agnostic.

[Dub_freak]

Science has also failed to disprove the existence of unicorns...

If there is no evidence, not even a hint or theory that could prove something is real, then does it really exist at all?

Oh and science and atheism are two different things, there's a reason scientific people are mostly atheist...

I've never actually met a scientist who's an atheist before. All the ones I know are agnostic.

There are two different types of agnostics though. those who ignore religion and those who follow it in the hope there really is a god.

[kay]

Science has also failed to disprove the existence of unicorns...

If there is no evidence, not even a hint or theory that could prove something is real, then does it really exist at all?

Oh and science and atheism are two different things, there's a reason scientific people are mostly atheist...

I've never actually met a scientist who's an atheist before. All the ones I know are agnostic.

There are two different types of agnostics though. those who ignore religion and those who follow it in the hope there really is a god.

Errr what? By definition, the latter are not agnostics.

[SCope13]

And comparing militant atheists to religious fanatics is a false equivalency. Tell me the last time an atheist has bombed an abortion clinic or waged a massive war in the name of his/her beliefs. "Militant" atheists write books. Militant religious fanatics kill people.

People exercise power against those weaker than them for all sorts of reasons... of course, there have been countless 'religious' wars and massacres - most people up to the current day have been religous - but the Holocaust was secular in philosophy and used a twisted Darwinism to justify itself. Same goes for Eugenics followers forcably sterilising the "weak of mind".

Stalin tried to eradicate religion in favour of communism - he massacred millions whilst he was at it. Pol Pot created The Killing Fields in Cambodia without the need for any God and The "Coalition of the Willing" has killed tens of thousands over the last few years in the name of "Freedom" and Oil.

Believing or not believing in a God isn't a very reliable measure of being a good person.

Yes, they were terrible terrible people, and yes, I agree with the idea that belief in god isn't a measure of how good a person is. But neither of them did that in the name of atheism. The Crusades were done in the name of religion. 9/11 was done in the name of religion. The Inquisition and the witch trials were done in the name of religion.

[SCope13]

And comparing militant atheists to religious fanatics is a false equivalency. Tell me the last time an atheist has bombed an abortion clinic or waged a massive war in the name of his/her beliefs. "Militant" atheists write books. Militant religious fanatics kill people.

People exercise power against those weaker than them for all sorts of reasons... of course, there have been countless 'religious' wars and massacres - most people up to the current day have been religous - but the Holocaust was secular in philosophy and used a twisted Darwinism to justify itself. Same goes for Eugenics followers forcably sterilising the "weak of mind".

Stalin tried to eradicate religion in favour of communism - he massacred millions whilst he was at it. Pol Pot created The Killing Fields in Cambodia without the need for any God and The "Coalition of the Willing" has killed tens of thousands over the last few years in the name of "Freedom" and Oil.

Believing or not believing in a God isn't a very reliable measure of being a good person.

Yes, they were terrible terrible people, and yes, I agree with the idea that belief in god isn't a measure of how good a person is. But neither of them did that in the name of atheism. The Crusades were done in the name of religion. 9/11 was done in the name of religion. The Inquisition and the witch trials were done in the name of religion.

[JBoy]

Religion has been the cause of atrocities for thousands of years so if eventually the whole of humanity disregarded god in favour of science and sensible beliefs what difference would that make? Humanity will always find something to fight over, its in our nature.

[kay]

I don't think there was much atheism going round back during the eras of the Crusades, Dark Ages and the Inquisition. Most people back then believed in some higher power or spirits or similar.

Was 9/11 religion-based? I thought it was an act against American and Western oppression/control of the Middle East. It just happened to be perpetrated by people of Islamic background.

[garethom]

I don't think there was much atheism going round back during the eras of the Crusades, Dark Ages and the Inquisition. Most people back then believed in some higher power or spirits or similar.

Precisely.

People will fight over whatever shit is important at that time. Religious Wars back in the day when there was fuck all else to fight over (except territorial wars, which there were plenty of), Colonial Wars when new parts of the world were being discovered, and getting there to kill people started getting easier and easier, Oil wars today, more resource wars in the future as materials become more scarce.

When life revolved around ploughing fields for turnips and going to Church, there were of course going to be religious wars.