DeletedUser
The whole concept of "God" is the driving force of the universe. Every religion has something that runs the Universe, so it has a god, and that includes your Atheism, Adelei (you have Science as a God).
DeletedUser
Define "God". And no, I don't worship science.
But, you missed the point of my last post. To claim that every other religion is evidence of your own religion is completely egocentric. There is no reason to believe that in the slightest.
Let's assume that you are right and everyone has a concept of a "God" (not true...but let's assume it for this conversation). First, everyone could be wrong. Second, there is no more reason to believe that they all prove your religion true any more than there is reason to believe that they all prove some completely different religion true.
Yours is poor logic all around.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I'd say that's completely false, but do eloborate.
False. Not every religion has something that "runs" the universe in the same way that your Yahwe micromanages humanity.
False yet again, atheists do not worship science as a god.
That is the most ******ed comment I've seen all year.
Overall your post is uneducated, ignorant, lacking in logic, and completely ludicrus.
Edit: nice de-rep attempt here:
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser14280
Wow, how'd you get double green rep with a attitude like THAT?
I don't think Mr. Franklin here meant that atheists literally worship science.
What he MEANT (or at least, what I think he meant) was:
Atheists can put their faith in science, and trust in it,
the same way a follower of whatever religion believes the teachings and stories of that religion.
Where devout Christians have 'God created the world in 6 days',
Atheists have the theory of evolution, if they so choose to believe it.
I'm not sure how to continue, but you've all gotten the idea, right?
DeletedUser
Science isn't a belief system, its taking observations and making objective judgements based on them. Its not something you believe in, unless you're going down the hellish road of 'I think therefore I am' and all you can truely know is that you have the capacity of a mind but that the world might be real or imagined or an insane scientist might have you plugged up to the matrix. Basically the branch of philosophy called epistemology, what can we know? But thats a path for agnostics who want to fence sit.
Science is merely the observation and interpration of data.
When you get down to it, its one of the silliest arguments a Christian can come out with, that Athetists believe in Evolution, no matter how many times it comes up as a trump card on the web, to the point where on a lot of websites its considered trolling.
Its not even a neccessary card, I don't understand why Christians feel the need to compare the two, or bring up Science as a god, but its amazing how many debates that involve God devolve into that argument.
DeletedUser14189
+1
The big difference is that we dont let science control our every day life. We set up our own morals and values and live by our own book. Not some dusty book from the past...
DeletedUser
Since he said, "(you have Science as a God)", I think you're wrong.
But, even if that IS what he meant to say, you're still wrong. You don't need to put faith in science the way that you do a religion. Science demonstrates the validity of its findings through experiments. Religion does not. We are talking about two completely different beasts. And, science doesn't demand "faith". It openly accepts people questioning what it says, looking at the evidence, disagreeing, etc. Science is not dogmatic, but changes constantly. Religion, on the other hand...
First, an atheist doesn't necessarily HAVE the theory of evolution. Being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in a "God" or set of gods. There is no requirement that you believe in evolution.
Second, evolution isn't all that controversial. We use the concept all of the time in creating different agricultural products, in medicine, etc. What creationists don't like are the theories of abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory. To believe in evolution, you don't need to believe in either abiogenesis or the Big Bang.
Third, again, science is based off evidence. Religion is not. So belief in one does not require the same amount of faith as belief in the other.
DeletedUser
That attitude is what consitutes half my rep.
I'm not afriad to say my peace.
I'm sure Mr. Franklin is fully capable of articulating his own arguments without you
having to stand up for him as if he were a silly cild uncapable of such.
Be real careful about putting words into someones mouth like that.
You have no way of knowing what he ment, and the fact is that he said science = god of atheists.
Which is both utterly false, and rather idiotic an statement.
Further, there are many kinds of atheists, and I've yet to meet even a single person
whom "puts their faith in science", as belivers put their faith in god.
The very argument is silly to the point of a tragic comedy.
It's not about choosing to belive anything, it's about accepting the facts and mountains of evidence.
I'll spell out the diffrence for all to see;
Religion is about faith, beliving something is thus because your holy book says so,
or because a theologian once argued that is to bo thus and thus.
Whereas science puts its "faith" in hard evidence and observation.
How can you possibly compare them?
On top of it all you manage to say that science and philosophy are the same,
making no clear distinction between them.
There is no need to continiue. It is rather hard to not observe your complete failing
in understanding the diffrences between science and religion.
QFT.
QFT.
+rep to both of you.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser14280
Mr. Rose, after reading and re-reading that, I've come to the conclusion that you pad out your arguments with insults and ad hominems.
Did you even consider the possibility that we were using metaphors?
Now, I figure it's ridiculous to label science as a god, and I don't do it.
But would you suppose that there's some people in the world,
some people, who believe that science can explain every little bit of their lives and existence,
and have faith that anything unexplained, will be explainable?
Would it be possible to call that a religion?
Did you even consider the possibility that we were using metaphors?
Now, I figure it's ridiculous to label science as a god, and I don't do it.
But would you suppose that there's some people in the world,
some people, who believe that science can explain every little bit of their lives and existence,
and have faith that anything unexplained, will be explainable?
Would it be possible to call that a religion?
DeletedUser
Celxius, that doesn't convert scientific studies into a religion, and definitely not "science" into a god.
If a person believes scientific research will eventually answer every question, that is not faith in science, it's faith in the human spirit. Scientific research is merely the means.
If a person believes scientific research will eventually answer every question, that is not faith in science, it's faith in the human spirit. Scientific research is merely the means.
DeletedUser14280
Well, that's nicely said.
Come to think of it, this whole discussing faith and god and science and whatever...
Haven't we done this before? On this forum, on other forums, all over the internet?
DeletedUser
Is Yahwe a matephore to you or any christian?
No, he is not. He is percieved to be real.
Thus when someone speaks about belief in God,
and then goes on to compare this belief to the trust in the evidence
presented by science, then should one assume they are using metaphores?
Quite certainly not.
Mr Franklin however did.
No, even insinuating it is silly.
See above posts for why.
DeletedUser
as hell said science is not religion and region is not science but they are like ... well friends
Albert.E said:
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
QFT.
Yes, this discussion resurfaces on a regular basis.
The fallacy of the theist remains a constant though.
I tend to strongly disagree.
DeletedUser14280
I was only talking about one metaphor.
To be precise, when Thomas Franklin said "Science is a god" or whatever,
I think he meant "some people put their faith in science, and believe the explanations that scientific inquiry brings".
Don't give me rubbish about putting words into his mouth, that's how I read it.
What do you believe in, John?
DeletedUser
My perception was the he ment it in a literal sense, due to the context,
and his previous display of ignorance through his postings.
The following post is a prime example:
As for my beliefs, I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion,
but I'm sure that anyone who's been around long enough will have a good indication.
DeletedUser
i am at a complete lack of what to say
well most gods are nature power based ......
and we know nature because of science
so actually science made religion
well most gods are nature power based ......
and we know nature because of science
so actually science made religion
DeletedUser14280
Once again, we read Franklin differently.
I read him as saying "People don't have to have faith in a god, they can believe in anything, including science".
I read him as saying "People don't have to have faith in a god, they can believe in anything, including science".
If you're claiming to honestly believe that whatever created the universe now takes the shape of an ONION, I think you're either lying or mad. Be serious.
DeletedUser
Fixed it for you JR
DeletedUser
Wrong.
Religion arose because of lack of knowledge and superstition.
Humanity needed answers, and with the lack of evidence they concluded it was all done by magic and fairies. This is the opposite of a scientific approach.
Science isn't a philosophy, science isn't something you belive in.
The aforementioned human spirit however is.
Personally, I think you are giving Franklins post more credit than they are due.
Read up on the teachings of The Onion and you should be able to discern my beliefs.
Edit: Thanks George.