Science Is The Modern Religion

» Home » Science

And a scientist is the modern priest. We believe everything they tell us all they need to do is wave a formula at us - who cares if we understand it or not? If a scientist came to your door and said that they'd just found a 950 year old flammable gas substance under your house and that it could explode any minute and if your house wasn't taken down and rebuilt you'd all die, most people would rebuild their house. Especially if the scientist had a formula with him.

Hermione82

28 Sep 2008 12:42

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Evolution is the MODERN RELIGION not science

v00v

12 Oct 2008 05:24

5 Comments

Stereotyping is the sign of narrow-mindedness.

Smito

12 Oct 2008 05:32

Comment

My god! I never thought about it that way! Your right! I know that if a scientist came to my door to tell me that I would say YES! Go on then! I don't want to die! I mean it's like when people changed their mind about religion they started to look to science so I suppose we are living in a time of religion change it's just this time we can have proof!

Monique

28 Sep 2008 15:46

Add a Comment

Here's the main difference between religion and science.
In science one must be able to prove it by formula or experiment for it to be true.
In religion everything in a little book, most of which are unrealistic, must be true.

Now its not the scientists fault if the people are to stupid to make the scientist prove it to them and explain the formula he's just helping his own life.

Smito

12 Oct 2008 05:31

2 Comments

Precisely, it's the same as it was with christianity etc 600 yrs ago. Technically a person those years ago would have said that their religion wasn't just in a book but out there - their proof for them was just convincing as science today.

Hermione82

18 Oct 2008 21:24

Comment

I’m not exactly sure what the definition of “religion” is you’re using for this debate. However, if by “religion” you’re referring to a set of beliefs signifying one’s thoughts when concerning a deity or deities, then I most certainly disagree.

Here’s a few major differences between science and religion.

- Religions normally describe the place and role of humans within reality. Science describes only the mechanics of how the natural world operates.

- Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power(s). Science does not.

- Religious ideas are usually static. They normally only change by splitting off into new religions. Theories in science change rapidly as new evidence is found.

Furthermore, how can a religion not have any supporters? When someone is asked what their religion is, many, perhaps most, scientists will call themselves members of a mainstream religion, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, ect. None that I’m currently aware of identify their religion as “science”. If science truly is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected to actually be a religion by all its members.

Hizashi

12 Oct 2008 04:54

Add a Comment

This is ridiculous, it just betrays an absurd ignorance on the part of the original poster. Science *CAN* be understood by anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to do so. Religion cannot. Religion cannot be researched, it cannot be tested and it cannot be demonstrated in any way, shape or form. Science can.

It's just ridiculous the kind of ignorant fools that post on this site.

Cephus

28 Sep 2008 17:34

18 Comments

Very well put Cephus; tell it like it.

Andromeda

05 Oct 2008 03:21

Comment

1. You've given me no reason to think you see any reason in any belief. I find that unreasonable.

2. Your ceasing to exist would not be sad if you are happy with it. There are many people I have known that would not be happy with ceasing to exist. In their case, it would be sad.

In the case of going to hell (I have no idea what your "traditional" definition is, but by most definitions it would be a cause for sadness.

3. I will certainly die in your terms. Which for me will be to begin living. If you truly believe you will die and cease to exist, you are truly insane. There is no reason for your reasoning.

4. Again, your reality is incredibly dull and lifeless.

5. And my definition of Christianity is based on Christ. That would be because I am not influenced by other influences the way you are.

And I can definitely demonstrate the definition is reasonable and true more than anyone who doesn't base their definition on Christ...you being a great example.

6. Why someone would want to go by the "traditional" (whatever that is) view of anything instead of finding the correct view is beyond me.

Easy to demonstrate my view is factually true. My criteria is perfect. Your "traditional" views aren't. Your views aren't.

You've given me no reason to believe you accept the notion of perfect. It is an undefinable word to you. To ask me to demonstrate perfect to you is insane. You don't believe in it. You can't debate it. You would have to present at least one attribute of perfect. I dare you to try. I wonder if you can do it without showing perfect is flawed.

Comment

1. Would you please explain one thing you believe in.
2. You're the one that asked about sadness. It's your personal emotional response we're talking about.
3. The evidence is the fact that you reason. Reasoning doesn't link up to ceasing to exist. Sometimes I think you have a problem with distinguishing between evidence and proof.
4. The life you describe and how it would be bored with eternal existence is truly and factually (I have to go with what you say about yourself) dull and lifeless.
5. You are wrong on this point. If someone says being a Christian is defined by having blonde hair, and then they say they are a Christian because they have blonde hair...they are a Christian by their definition. It is a stupid definition but they are a Christian by their definition. Once again, I base the definition on the teachings of Christ. You are more than welcome to question me about those teachings.
6. The evidence is your ceasing to exist. You insist you will be shut-up. It's one thing I won't be needing to say to you.

Comment

1.  If you're looking for something I "believe" that is lacking in well-reasoned logical examination and a critical examination of the available evidence, I doubt you're going to find it so what's the point?
2.  No, you brought up sadness in one of your responses, I simply responded to it.  I suppose it's neither here nor there.
3.  Reasoning is a faculty of the human brain, that has nothing to do with whether or not it can cease to exist.  My brain didn't exist for more than 14 billion years, it came into existence for a mere blink of an eye and then it will return to non-existence.  It didn't affect my ability to reason one bit.
4.  It only shows you fail to understand what a real eternity would be.  I suppose that's not unreasonable, forever is a concept difficult for the human brain to comprehend, but most people once they even get around 90-100 get bored with being alive, they run out of things to do, places to see, what would you do if you had a billion x a billion x that 90-100 years to spend and still couldn't die?
5.  You get your ideas by your interpretation of the teachings of Christ.  There are literally thousands of different ways to interpret them, illustrated by the thousands of different denominations of Christianity that have popped up over the centuries.  No one has been able to demonstrate a single, factually demonstrable, logically defensibly "correct" interpretation and frankly, no one has ever been able to demonstrate that Jesus was even real or said any of the things that have been attributed to him.  The odds that you, out of the billions of people who have ever claimed to "follow the teachings of Christ" got it right are astronomical.
6.  Since we'll both cease to exist, what's your point?

Oh wait, you don't have one, you just like to blather on.

Comment

1. I'll do it for you ya hardhead. You believe a man walked on the moon. You weren't there so you can't know it's true but you believe the evidence that has been presented to you. gee...

2. Nope. You said something was sad. I said it would be hard to find it. You said "is that not sad".  I agreed with you. Then you started saying I started the sad thing. Don't make me say you're being an idiot.

3. There is no reason for you to reason. Like you said, it's just a blink. No reason. If you weren't going to cease to exist you would have a reason. I have a reason. I'm not going to cease to exist. Reason.
4. I would get to know everyone. Even you. Heck, with all your contradictory reason that should take at least 1000 years. lol
5. It's really not that difficult to "interpret" the teachings of Jesus. When asked what the main commandment was, Jesus said, Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy mind and all they understanding and love thy neighbor as thyself.

I have no idea why you could possibly have a problem with that and why the people you spoke of chose to ignore that statement. But I'm not them and unlike you are not influenced by them. And there are others like me so your odds are cut down.
6. If we both cease to exist there is no point. That's the point. You having this discussion is proof that you're not going to cease to exist. Either that or you and I are blithering idiots.

Comment

1. I don't have to have been there, we have moon rock, video footage and we placed mirrors on the moon that we can bounce lasers off of whenever we want.  The strength of the EVIDENCE is what convinces me we were there.
2.  Don't make me report your post for being insulting.  If you're going to act like an ass, we're not going to have this conversation.
3. No, you have a belief, not a reason.  Your belief is unjustified.  There is no rational reason for anyone to take your belief seriously, it is not based on any objective evidence or rationally justified observation.  You keep insisting that simply because you believe something, it must be a good reason to think that it is factually true.  I'm pointing out that it's not.
4. Yet 1000 years is nothing but the blink of an eye compared to eternity.  You could get to know every alien in the universe and still have nothing to do.  The length of time that man has existed on this planet is nothing  compared to eternity.
5. It's not the simple platitude of "love your neighbor as yourself," it's precisely how one "loves their neighbor" that causes problems.  I'm sure Fred Phelps thinks he's being a model Christian.
6. If we both cease to exist, you've simply wasted the only life you know that you have worshipping a non-existent deity, praying to yourself, giving money to a pointless church and trying to convince others to follow a lie.  You've betrayed your own intellectual integrity and wasted your time.  In the scheme of things, you've lived a lie and done nothing of consequence.  I'd call that being a blithering idiot, to use your terminology.

Comment

Oh goodness not this again. Science is a source of information on the natural world. Religion’s province is the spiritual, they are separate matters. The perceived conflict is because some scientific findings are perceived to contradict certain mythological elements of some modern religions. No one goes to scientists and says,”Professor, forgive me for I have sinned against Einstein’s law of relativity.” People don’t go to scientists for moral authority at all they go to scientists for factual accuracy. A useful resource but not the same thing as religion.

finsch

28 Sep 2008 16:34

1 Comment

I don't have to give a comment on this debate you've already said everything I would have said. The sinned against Einstein bit was priceless. Well done. (-;

Andromeda

28 Sep 2008 16:40

Comment

OK we really need to check past debate threads before posting new nearly identical ones. Just last week there was a topic named something like "Science has taken the role religion played in past societies", it had extensive discussion, in fact the comments on one post went past 40 comments.

So I'm not going to try to reconstruct that whole thing here. I'll just say these...

1) Religion inspires holy wars, martyrdom, and inquisitions. Science inspires none of those. 2) Religion marries, crowns, baptizes, and excommunicates. Science does none of those. 3) Religion instructs in good and evil, sin, the afterlife. Science does none of those. 4) Religion has pilgrims on bloody knees. Science does not.

If science earns respect due to its discoveries and advances it is not the same as religion. Religion simply demands respect whether or not it did anything to earn it. And that's precisely why more people will listen to scientists today than their pastor or their President, most of the time scientists are trustworthy, maybe even right, but those other people are full of all sorts of bull.

Grenache

28 Sep 2008 13:30

6 Comments

I like this one, very nice. (-;

Andromeda

28 Sep 2008 16:04

Comment

I don't deny at all that bad things can come from science but that does not make it synonymous with religion.  In fact "money" is more prevalently guilty of the examples you listed than science, you should call money the new religion.

You say "politics inspires holy wars, martyrdom and inquisitions."  Politics isn't science.  Politics may use science's technology in their war, but that's not the same thing as science causing the war.

Religion tells people don't think, don't question, don't deviate because the all seeing eye is always watching, stick with your own team and don't read the literature or seeing the ceremonies of the others, and in the most extreme cases it says to kill the others.  Science does absolutely none of that.

Science is a technique.  It's an observation.  And even though sometimes one scientific theory may be dominant history is full of many examples where dissenting voices eventually proved their case over prevailing science (such as the birds and dinosaur linkage argument).  In comparison, religion is authoritarian, there are one or a handful of people at the top who tell it like it is, you can never disprove them, all you can do is split off and start your own subdenomination.  Really disagreements within science and disagreements within religion is one of the best underscoring proofs that the two are not alike at all.

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments