I constantly hear this from religious people all the time aswell

Watch this video, he makes some really good points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEyVCkTashw

that fatso has to be one of the stupidest people i've ever seen

i wish i had the past 5 minutes of my life back

i wonder if they managed to take any video of the horses front end...

Here's another response I found which deals with the claim that atheism is a religion:

quote:Originally posted by:

Let’s say you are right and atheism is a religion. Let’s also assume, for simplicity, that you’re a Christian.

You believe in the Christian God, and that belief is a religion, so you have 1 religion.

You don’t believe in Aphrodite, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 2 religions.

You don’t believe in Vishnu, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 3 religions.

You don’t believe in Thor, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 4 religions.

You don’t believe in Osiris, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 5 religions.

You don’t believe in Zeus, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 6 religions.

You don’t believe in Shiva, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 7 religions.

You don’t believe in Odin, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 8 religions.

You don’t believe in Ra, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 9 religions.

You don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 10 religions.

You don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 11 religions.

You don’t believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 12 religions.

You don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 13 religions.

You don’t believe in the Abominable Snowman, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 14 religions.

You don’t believe in fairies, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 15 religions.

You don’t believe in elves, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 16 religions.

You don’t believe in orcs, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 17 religions.

You don’t believe in hobbits, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 18 religions.

You don’t believe in King Kong, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 19 religions.

You don’t believe in Godzilla, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 20 religions.

What’s that? You don’t have 20 religions, only one, because non-beliefs are not religions?

Well, with atheists it’s the same, except that we don’t have even that one. We have zero religions. “What’s your religion?” “I don’t have any.”

Is it so hard to understand that, to an atheist, the Christian God - or indeed any god - is as much a fictional being as those other examples?

Of course it can be argued that a religion involves more than just believing in a god and that King Kong, hobbits, etc. aren't deities and aren't associated with any religions, but the point they're trying to make is valid.

he's actually a pritty smart guy. In his videos he completly fucks over christians who dont even know there own religion.

About the topic of that video he makes a good point.

If we look at science like a god hypothetically. Its far superior to any gods in religion.

Science doesnt judge you if you dont believe in it or not. Science wont torture you if you dont follow its teachings. Science answers are prayers to feed the hungry and cure the sick. Science makes our lives as comfertable as possible. Science answers are questions about the universe and life. And you still have that free will all these religious people claim because you can use science for good or evil.

eioh hallo mah name is brutt keane and im stupdi and fat and no matter what stupid inanae things come out my fat mouth i'm acutaually pritty smart't

thanj you

Atheism is a religion? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I don't collect coins. I guess not collecting coins is a hobby of mine, then?

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:



Science doesnt judge you if you dont believe in it or not. Science wont torture you if you dont follow its teachings. Science answers are prayers to feed the hungry and cure the sick. Science makes our lives as comfertable as possible. Science answers are questions about the universe and life. And you still have that free will all these religious people claim because you can use science for good or evil.

I've never heard it put quite that way. Nice.

The funnest argument I have heard for science being a religion goes like this

"science offers an explanation to the beginning of life and the universe"

That guy wasn't very funny at all. Science can be viewed as a religion. People follow it blindly and believe all that is said without question just like alot of people of faith. Science is more of a method or system then a faith or belief though. I don't know if you want to look at it like a religion you can. It probably will be compared to other faiths in the future once we follow something new. Well actually I believe once science and faith combine then that will be truth. So far science hasn't disproved any other faith and vice versa for faith disproving science. Either way though by definition Atheism is the belief in no god and believing science is a god makes you something else I don't know what.

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

Science can be viewed as a religion. People follow it blindly and believe all that is said without question just like alot of people of faith.

That's not true. Science has an element that religions are adamantly opposed to: It leaves itself wide open to inquiry and encourages refutation. If we followed it blindly and believed all that was said without question like people of faith do with their respective Holy Books, then science never would progress like it does.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

That's not true. Science has an element that religions are adamantly opposed to: It leaves itself wide open to inquiry and encourages refutation. If we followed it blindly and believed all that was said without question like people of faith do with their respective Holy Books, then science never would progress like it does.



However, science doesn't always maintain this attitude. Or at least perhaps I should say that some scientists don't follow this. There are periods of stagnation in science when people refuse to go any further and some people that refuse to progress if it undermines there previous ideas. But can't we see the same in Religion? Periods of stagnation punctuated by breakthroughs.

But also on the point that science and religion differ in that people follow blindly one and not the other, I think this might be wrong. How many of us actually attempt any experiments for the sake of proving something to ourselves? I mean, we read thatsuch and such happens in a text book and most people will leave it that. Many people blindly follow science as much as as any religious fanatic. There are those that defend science with the rabidity of any fundamentalist.

Now you could say that you can prove science, it doesn't take an idiot to notice that gravity happens. However, couldn't you say the same thing about Religion? Not that you can prove some of it such as God, that would defeat the object, but it's tenets can be tested, those that are right continue, unfourtunately some of the wrong ones continue too. Could we say the same about science?

Shit.... I've forgot what my point was....

I'm hoping there was one.

One point I was going to make was that while atheism isn't a religion (in my opinion) it still has religious aspects... Or at least you could say there were aspects and get away with not elaborating on it http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

So let's just rip the core of this guy's argument out, right here.

The majority of Religious people don't dispute science past a trivial level.

Religion and science co-exist every day.

A lot of people turn to religion, in addition to the scientific, for peace of mind, humility and faith (that I believe is a major prerequisite for change).

quote: Originally posted by JesuiteArtiste:

There are periods of stagnation in science when people refuse to go any further and some people that refuse to progress if it undermines there previous ideas. But can't we see the same in Religion? Periods of stagnation punctuated by breakthroughs.

But Science still has the option to replace old ideas with new ones, after experimentation and the results thereof. Religion strongly opposes this idea. In fact, there are many scriptural passages among many religions which actually prohibit this very thing. I’m not quite sure what you mean by breakthroughs in religion after periods of stagnation, unless you are counting the more warm-fuzzy New Testament to the strict, harsh O.T.

quote:One point I was going to make was that while atheism isn't a religion (in my opinion) it still has religious aspects... Or at least you could say there were aspects and get away with not elaborating on it

Awww, no fair! Elaborating is so much more fun. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) It’s a good exercise, no?

quote: Originally posted by CatharticWeek:

The majority of Religious people don't dispute science past a trivial level.

Come, now! I’d say that the belief that a supernatural being created our Universe is pretty non-trivial, considering the grand implications of such. And let’s not forget that the majority of people still cling to this belief, even the moderates, when you back them into a corner.

quote:But Science still has the option to replace old ideas with new ones, after experimentation and the results thereof. Religion strongly opposes this idea. In fact, there are many scriptural passages among many religions which actually prohibit this very thing. I’m not quite sure what you mean by breakthroughs in religion after periods of stagnation, unless you are counting the more warm-fuzzy New Testament to the strict, harsh O.T.

I won't argue that there are religions that aren't really all for change... Or for change at all, but as a whole religion changes, individual religions may stay put for a while, but a few people's ideas change , these ideas spread, differant groups spring up etc.

Of course they could easily all be centered around a similar crap them, but I guess you have to deal with that.

I'm not just thinking about the OT to NT jump, although you have to admit that the church has changed, and evolved on a personal level... or maybe you don't have to admit it, it works well for me to say it anyway. but on a large religious scale over time religion changes.

I'm not sure how I was relating this to science, there waas probaly something there, but it's a nice though to have.



quote:Awww, no fair! Elaborating is so much more fun. It’s a good exercise, no?

Well I guess it does give you something to do http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

^ Religion changes over time to reflect societal/moral changes in humanity.

As for people 'blindly' following science and not attempting experiments on their own, well that's just ridiculous. Obviously people aren't going to be doing these experiments for themselves because they have already been done before by others and replicated numerous times by other scientists.

Nobody would have the time to try all these experiments and whatnot to see if so-and-so really is the speed or light, or whatever it may be. We take our 'proof' from authority figures such as scientists that have done these calculations/experiments, whereas religion has no such experiments or the like.

Example: You go to the doctor and he tells you that you have an illness. He says you need to take these pills and drink 3 glasses of water a day and it will be gone in a week or two. Of course you aren't going to go through medical school, examine this disease and all its strains, and then speculate as to what course of treatment is the best--the doctor has already done these things and we grant them the authority to replace our judgment with theirs.

Science is the same.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 03-02-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:



Example: You go to the doctor and he tells you that you have an illness. He says you need to take these pills and drink 3 glasses of water a day and it will be gone in a week or two. Of course you aren't going to go through medical school, examine this disease and all its strains, and then speculate as to what course of treatment is the best--the doctor has already done these things and we grant them the authority to replace our judgment with theirs.

Science is the same.



what we can do is get dozens of other scientists opinions though. Science is a group effort.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Come, now! I’d say that the belief that a supernatural being created our Universe is pretty non-trivial, considering the grand implications of such. And let’s not forget that the majority of people still cling to this belief, even the moderates, when you back them into a corner.

You're missing my point. Science is the observation of the natural world. Religion is about the creation of this natural world, as it exists today.

Saying "god is stupid because science provides better" isn't a watertight argument because if God created the universe, he created everything in it (science).

ATHEISM ISN'T A RELIGION! Whoever thinks that is a moron.

Is Buddhism a religion? Wikipedia says so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budism), but in Buddhism there are no gods. Atheism is simply not believing in any gods. Buddhism is a great example of an atheist RELIGION. Atheism can be a religion.

Religion is defined as a set of beliefs. Like in Christianity, they believe in god, but they also believe other things. For example, they believe in their morals. Atheists can believe in other things, or nothing. Atheism is not a religion, but atheists can have a religion (even if its not organized, eg, they have religious philosophies, etc, that they came up with them selfs and believe in completely).

I hope this made sense...

If its so easy for religious people to just say "God has been and always will be", proclaiming Gods infinite magnitude, then why isn't it just as easy for them to accept that atheists like me believe the same thing about the universe?

Why does it even matter? Look at the universe as we know it so far. We are pretty much the only ones around so far. Why would he go through making the entire universe, all the stars, planets, galaxies, gases, metals, chemicals etc that make up the universe, just to make us humans, and we are the only ones that go to heaven? Are Humans that special? No... not really. We're just primates, animals like the rest of them. We just happened to hit the evolutionary groove first and came out on top with increased ability to think above an instinctual/animalistic level, communicate, and (one of the reasons why we are as far ahead as we are) record/document events that happen.

Look at animals for a moment... what have they done for the past million or so years? They pretty much eat, shit, and reproduce. Animals don't really do many new things. Humans were the same way until we developed communication and documentation. Now, since we can just read it up and gather knowledge that way, we can spend more time developing new and better things... and then you look at the world now and look at how far we've come. Notice that through time, the amount of progress as a species has directly been a result of communication/documentation (look at youtube, Totse, google, etc). Totse is a website BASED on this idea of communication and documentation.

Humans aren't special enough to have a god.

/end

quote:Originally posted by CatharticWeek:

Saying "god is stupid because science provides better" isn't a watertight argument because if God created the universe, he created everything in it (science).

If you think that the "god is stupid because science provides beter" is my argument, then you too are missing the point.

I don't think god is stupid. I just think God(s) are unnecessary.

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

That guy wasn't very funny at all. Science can be viewed as a religion. People follow it blindly and believe all that is said without question just like alot of people of faith. Science is more of a method or system then a faith or belief though. I don't know if you want to look at it like a religion you can. It probably will be compared to other faiths in the future once we follow something new. Well actually I believe once science and faith combine then that will be truth. So far science hasn't disproved any other faith and vice versa for faith disproving science. Either way though by definition Atheism is the belief in no god and believing science is a god makes you something else I don't know what.

hahahahaha you fucking retard, the very nature of science means that if it's being followed blindly, it's not longer scientific. Of course the person could call it science, but any scientist who clings to an old theory with no evidence becomes laughing stock. Just look at the flat-Earthers, or the "global warming is a lie" people.

www.sciencevsfaith.ytmnd.com (http://www.sciencevsfaith.ytmnd.com)

quote:Originally posted by The Death Monkey:

IWe're just primates, animals like the rest of them. We just happened to hit the evolutionary groove first and came out on top with increased ability to think above an instinctual/animalistic level, communicate, and (one of the reasons why we are as far ahead as we are) record/document events that happen.

Exactly. hahaha, funnily enough they've found monkeys who hunt with crude bamboo spears, which they carve with their teeth. Talk about extended phenotype, lol.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

hahahahaha you fucking retard, the very nature of science means that if it's being followed blindly, it's not longer scientific. Of course the person could call it science, but any scientist who clings to an old theory with no evidence becomes laughing stock. Just look at the flat-Earthers, or the "global warming is a lie" people.

www.sciencevsfaith.ytmnd.com (http://www.sciencevsfaith.ytmnd.com)

My comments about science being followed blindly simply meant people take scientific fact of the present as fact. In school, etc. Untill a new theory comes along then people believe that. If you think people don't follow science blindly that is foolish. They do. For an example just look at medications like Vioxx being recalled. People seriously believed that medication could help them when in fact it could be seriously dangerous. But they believed blindly that it would help them. That's all I meant by that I know science is constantly changing with new theorys, etc.

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

My comments about science being followed blindly simply meant people take scientific fact of the present as fact. In school, etc. Untill a new theory comes along then people believe that. If you think people don't follow science blindly that is foolish. They do. For an example just look at medications like Vioxx being recalled. People seriously believed that medication could help them when in fact it could be seriously dangerous. But they believed blindly that it would help them. That's all I meant by that I know science is constantly changing with new theorys, etc.

You are using the word 'blindly' much too loosely. I take medicine that is FDA approved instead of going to witchdoctors because modern medicine is based on sound science. The fact that medicines are sometimes recalled because of side effects is irrelevant. When I'm sick, I go to a doctor because I am aware of the tremendous amounts of scientific proof that is required before a medicine is put on the market, not because I think the field of medicine has reached perfection. It matters not one bit that a treatment used today might not be used tomorrow. What matters is the evidence I have that traditional medicine is the best we've got. Calling this "blindly following science" is absurd.

Well if you would make a comment like witch medicine i'm sure you feel people following medicines traditional to their society are in fact wrong and following something blindly because of scientific evidence (what you believe in). Anything that can be said about people following Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Hinduism, etc blindly the same can be said for science. Scientific beliefs are basicaly beliefs it's not fact. Just as the same could be said that the bible is fiction and God is just a belief by scientists.

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

and following something blindly because of scientific evidence (what you believe in).

Is this too hard a concept for you to grasp? Belief based on evidence is the opposite of belief that is followed blindly. The fucking definition of blind faith is that which is believed without evidence. Get a fucking clue already!



quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

Scientific beliefs are basicaly beliefs it's not fact.

Scientific beliefs are basically beliefs? No shit! They're beliefs based on FACTS! My belief that that the Earth is a sphere is based on facts, meaning my belief is not being followed blindly. Wake up!

quote:Originally posted by DiamondX:

[...] Atheism can be a religion. [...] Atheism is not a religion, but atheists can have a religion...

Have you contradicted yourself?

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Originally posted by yango wango:

and following something blindly because of scientific evidence (what you believe in).

Is this too hard a concept for you to grasp? Belief based on evidence is the opposite of belief that is followed blindly. The fucking definition of blind faith is that which is believed without evidence. Get a fucking clue already!



quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

Scientific beliefs are basicaly beliefs it's not fact.

Scientific beliefs are basically beliefs? No shit! They're beliefs based on FACTS! My belief that that the Earth is a sphere is based on facts, meaning my belief is not being followed blindly. Wake up!



You just said it yourself it's a belief and any belief can be followed blindly because it's a belief and now there is a fact. BTW i'm not of faith just a spiritual person. I'm not discrediting science but yes man it can be followed blindly and a ton of people do. Just because it is finding fact doesn't mean shit I mean to people in the bible that stuff is complete fact with evidence that evidence? The Bible. So what if the whole point of science is fact thats the whole point of religions when they started out in the first place. God, the Big Bang, Evolution, Adam and Eve all beliefs supported by supposed facts. All beliefs people discredit often on different sides of the fence. Just because science is the search of fact doesn't mean it can't be followed blindly it's in fact blind to believe that.

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

You just said it yourself it's a belief and any belief can be followed blindly because it's a belief and now there is a fact. BTW i'm not of faith just a spiritual person. I'm not discrediting science but yes man it can be followed blindly and a ton of people do. Just because it is finding fact doesn't mean shit I mean to people in the bible that stuff is complete fact with evidence that evidence? The Bible. So what if the whole point of science is fact thats the whole point of religions when they started out in the first place. God, the Big Bang, Evolution, Adam and Eve all beliefs supported by supposed facts. All beliefs people discredit often on different sides of the fence. Just because science is the search of fact doesn't mean it can't be followed blindly it's in fact blind to believe that.

holy fuck your a retard. Re read what you just wrote. God and adam and eve are NOT supported by facts. Thers none whatsover. People believe it because there told to do so. Just the same if you believe in trolls because soembody told you.

Science is the opposite, first you find evidence before its a belief. The example about the medication doesnt work, because it was probably thought that it did help, untill new facts came in and it was found to be harmfull.

If somebody wants to agree with science on the others peoples word for it thats because they dont care enough to check it out. BUT they can if they want, therefor its not following belief blindly. Therse no way 1 person can study all the sciences and understand everything that we find, its impossible. Its a group effort into understanding the universe. Not the effort of 1 person righting a book and claiming it to be fact.

How can you all not see that following anything even if that set of beliefs is set up to not follow something blidnly CAN be followed blindly. Adam and Eve where is the proof? It's in the Bible man it's the word of God! That is proof to people of faith. How can you be so blinded in your way of thought you won't even step out to think that not everyone who believes in Science strongly has a clue or is following it because of their own decision. How many people develope scientific beliefs throug school? Is that not just following what you have been told to? No atheist can win this one because any set of beliefs can be followed blindly and most intelligent people wouldn't even try to argue that one. As far as the medication go yeah it was recalled but originaly it was thought it was good so a SHIT load of people went on it. Now why did these people go on a medication? Because they were told it would help. Turns out it didn't. The same goes for anti depresants and benzodiazepines there is plenty of scientific evidence these medications are dangerous but people still go on them often not knowing a thing about benzodiazepines because they think it will help them. Low and behold they get addicted to a drug because they followed the scientific system of medine say it with me blindly. I'm not arguing that the scientific theory is flawd because it's constantly changing and new information is constantly emerging i'm just saying people can follow this system without any thought of it or why they are following it instead of other ways of looking at the world around them. Alot of people don't question science and take it all at face value as fact and that is how the world is to them. Just like people take the bible at face value and actually believe that Noah restarted the world they take it as fact and that is their world to them. A world of God. A world of Science. Both worlds can be lived in intelligently both can be lived in blindly and without thought. Simple as that.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

^ Religion changes over time to reflect societal/moral changes in humanity.

As for people 'blindly' following science and not attempting experiments on their own, well that's just ridiculous. Obviously people aren't going to be doing these experiments for themselves because they have already been done before by others and replicated numerous times by other scientists.

I won't argue what you said first, although you could say the influence was exerted both ways.

However, my interpretation of the second part causes me problems. It seems to me to be saying that if you are told that something is a fact, and many people believe in this fact then the fact does not need to be verified by the individual (If that makes the sense I hope it does.). I'm not sure if this is right, but this is the point I am trying to argue against, if you accept science on the basis that you have read a book on it and many other people have said that it is in fact the truth, then you should be willing to accpet religion on the same basis, or at least you shouldn't use this as a way to discount religon.

In both cases (as I see it) you are are merely being told what to believe. Now I can see that science is more easily believed in, mianly because you can reproduce results and you can see it have a practical application in life, however I object to accepting science at face value and disregarding religion as something foolish.

Anyway, I'm rambling and I'm in a hurry, else I would try to clear this up a bit, and reply to the rest of the post....

I agree with yango wango's idea's as well.

If a fact is a truth, and truth is unchanging, and science is based upon these unchanging truths...why do so few hypotheses remain the select theory to explain observed Law?

I propose that the theories in the scientific community are being replaced and reworked constantly because there is very little truth behind 'science'...we don't have shit for facts. The hypotheses we come to in scientific fields are often as much bullshit as any other dogma. Humans are grand manipulators - we can twist numbers and observations in a variety of ways to support our own views and agendas, often without anyone wiser to see the fatal mistake. It takes a truly great mind to scrutinize the fabric of truth in any woven conclusion with inerrant accuracy. Disagree if you like, but so few theories have held firm to explain the observed Laws of this universe.

Take a look at spiritual matters for a moment. Here too, you see many beliefs arise that are meant to explain the truths of the heart and the universe. We hurt and we feel good, why? Some say a balance, some polarity, some divine presence, ect. The simple matter of unchanging truth, when it comes to ANY issue, (scientific, religious, or imaginary) is that we don't fucking know WHY anything happens. We aren't perceptive enough to discern, without flaw, objective truth from subjective 'truth'.

Like Penn Jillette says, "The numbers aren't bullshit; the bullshit is bullshit."

Stop using the world "blindly" its too ambiguous

The athiests are calling god followers blind because they follow without any testable proof (you cant test to see if the bible is accurate).

The god followers are calling the athiests blind because many people are "ignorant" (thats a better word) of the science. For example, I belive the speed of light is about 300,000,000 m/s. However the god followers would call me out as blindly following science because I have not personally tested and calculated the speed of light.



EDIT: To the person above me ^

Yoou must remeber that truth is relative. Two people can watch the same car crash and have different "truths" on what happened. Some belive that its true that God exists and some belive that its true that God doesn't exist. Truth is merly an individuals interpretaions of relality. There is no truth.

You do, however, arise an intresting point about science and religion. They have become more like one another over the years. Millions of years ago man considered himself equal to animals. They have mouths and eyes and eas. They look like us. Logos gave him the ability to construct a spear to kill the animal, but myth gave him the ability to relive himself of the guilt from killing an equal. The myths were a justification for their actions. Why do you think there are all theese animal rituals? Doing things to ease the spirit of the killed animal. Then agriculture came along and man started to worship mother earth. "You don't get somthing for nothing." So man gave human sacrificed to the earth in return for a good harvest.

Read this book, its great http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Myth-Myths/dp/184195716X

The point is that Myth started off as a way to explain the universe while logos was around to ensure survival. But over the years science has taken the place of explaining the universe. It used to be belived that thunder was caused by Thor, smashing down his great hammer. The myth was the explanation of facts.

There is thunder!

Why is there thunder?

I have an idea!

A magic sky wizard is hitting a hammer against something.

Can the idea be dissproved?

No?

Ok!

That is the truth.

---many years later---

I have an idea!

Maybe thunder is really caused by the cooling air after it is heated up by 50,000F lightning.

Can the idea be dissproved?

No?

Ok!

That is the truth.



Notice how the more we find out about the world the less we rely on God? We don't need Thor any more, we have replaced him with science. We don't make sacrifices to mother earth anymore because we realized that it has nothing to do with having a good harvest. We don't need Poseidon because we can explain the ocean tdes through the moon. You can't blame our ancestors for not figuring that out many many years ago. But now we have, so now we got rid of Poseidon.

The last Myth is God. That myth is used the explain the creation of the universe, its purpose, the meaning to life, everything! As humans we desire an explanation and so we have created one.

[This message has been edited by Punk_Rocker_22 (edited 03-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

If a fact is a truth, and truth is unchanging, and science is based upon these unchanging truths...why do so few hypotheses remain the select theory to explain observed Law?

1. "Fact" doesn't mean unchanging truth in Science.

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

-- Stephen Jay Gould

2. Hypotheses aren't necessarilly based on truth.

Daoism is a religion and transhumanism is my God. Now shut the fuck up, you stupid atheist.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:

I won't argue what you said first, although you could say the influence was exerted both ways.

However, my interpretation of the second part causes me problems. It seems to me to be saying that if you are told that something is a fact, and many people believe in this fact then the fact does not need to be verified by the individual (If that makes the sense I hope it does.). I'm not sure if this is right, but this is the point I am trying to argue against, if you accept science on the basis that you have read a book on it and many other people have said that it is in fact the truth, then you should be willing to accpet religion on the same basis, or at least you shouldn't use this as a way to discount religon.

In both cases (as I see it) you are are merely being told what to believe. Now I can see that science is more easily believed in, mianly because you can reproduce results and you can see it have a practical application in life, however I object to accepting science at face value and disregarding religion as something foolish.



I research different scientific theories that are being put forth concerning various subjects that haven't necessarily been regarded as true yet, but things that have already been determined as fact do not need to be investigated further. If something is fact, it's not just people believing it to be true, it is true. It's not about just a lot of people 'believing' a fact, it's about whether or not the fact is actually true.

Why the hell should I have to break salt down, determine that it is composed of the elements sodium and chlorine through a series of tests, and only then can I say salt really is sodium chloride?

I don't have to do this because it has already been determined as fact. It has been reproduced thousands of times by different scientists and there is absolutely no point in me performing the experiment myself. If people weren't able to take knowledge from other authority sources, sources that have done the scientific method themselves and determined such and such as fact, then science would get nowhere.

You cannot be serious that every little snippet of scientific knowledge I have needs to be verified by my own scientific experiments. That's absolutely ludicrous. Almost all scientific knowledge is taken from authority sources who have done these experiments. I don't have to verify that knowledge myself.

Religion has no evidence to support it, no experiments to verify it, and nothing but some guy saying this and this is true because it just is. It is backed by absolutely zero evidence. Science is backed by evidence, and I trust the scientific method because, among other reasons, it gets shit done.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 03-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Punk_Rocker_22:

Yoou must remeber that truth is relative. Two people can watch the same car crash and have different "truths" on what happened. Some belive that its true that God exists and some belive that its true that God doesn't exist. Truth is merly an individuals interpretaions of relality. There is no truth.

Truth is not relative. Just because one person believes it is true that God exists, and another person believes it true that God does not exist, that does not make both of those things true. Either God exists or God does not exist, and only one of them can be the truth.

Two people can perceive two different things happening after witnessing a car crash, and they may each think they're right on what happened, but there is only one truth of what actually happened.

You've gotten truth, belief, and perception all mixed up in a one big cluster-fuck.

^

quote:

Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.

Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?

Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.

Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?

Protagoras: Indeed I do.

Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.

Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.

quote:Originally posted by Punk_Rocker_22:

^



Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.

Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?

Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.

Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?

Protagoras: Indeed I do.

Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.

Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.



You know what? Protagoras is wrong. Dead fucking wrong. Not all old philosophers with funny names had everything figured out.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

You know what? Protagoras is wrong. Dead fucking wrong. Not all old philosophers with funny names had everything figured out.

Yup. I'm sure Socrates and Protagoras are wrong, not you http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Punk_Rocker_22:

Yup. I'm sure Socrates and Protagoras are wrong, not you http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

No, going by that quote of Socrates, he was right. He says truth is absolute.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



I propose that the theories in the scientific community are being replaced and reworked constantly because there is very little truth behind 'science'...we don't have shit for facts. The hypotheses we come to in scientific fields are often as much bullshit as any other dogma. Humans are grand manipulators - "

Science may not claim to have the absolute truth. BUT IT GETS SHIT FUCKEN DONE!!!!! Thats proof that we are on the right track. the results of science are all around us. It has shaped our world, it has brought our eyes into the universe. I'm not goona list all the thigns science has accomplished, its pretty obviouse. When you can right down something, make some predictions and go out and do experiments and it works and conferms your experiment. And with those results you are then able to make new predictions, and those ones turn out to be true. Its obviose your on the right track.

Is it possible to know absolute truth through science. No more new discoveries, we master everything. Only time will tell. But not if faith has anything to do about it.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 03-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Science may not claim to have the absolute truth. BUT IT GETS SHIT FUCKEN DONE!!!!! Thats proof that we are on the right track. the results of science are all around us. It has shaped our world, it has brought our eyes into the universe. I'm not goona list all the thigns science has accomplished, its pretty obviouse. When you can right down something, make some predictions and go out and do experiments and it works and conferms your experiment. And with those results you are then able to make new predictions, and those ones turn out to be true. Its obviose your on the right track.

Is it possible to know absolute truth through science. No more new discoveries, we master everything. Only time will tell. But not if faith has anything to do about it.



I never said science doesn't work...I was simply stating that it's just as much a bullshit claim by an individual to say science is a representative of absolute truth as it is when they say religions are representative of absolute truth.

They're derived from perception, and are thus incapable of reaching absolute truth. Does this necessarily invalidate either one? No. But neither religion nor science can be heralded as the ultimate seeking of truth...they both step over well into the realm of bullshit.