Has Science Morphed Into A New Religion Unto Itself?

[Anonymous Participant]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Proof is for math, not science. 

Perhaps, but what also isn't "for science" is running your mouth about so called facts that you have no evidence of and claiming you do, or deriding a critic because he says you're wrong.

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Proof is for math, not science. 

I have a thought for you to ponder. Steven Hawking has allegedly came out in opposition to the concept of intelligent design, citing his doubt that any superior intelligence even notices our existence. He doesn't actually talk, he "speaks" through an electronic wheelchair that supposedly has a computer that can generate a voice from his thoughts, which are input into the device through subtle movements of his hand. he has a disease that should have killed him 2 decades ago and how convenient it is he can't actually speak IMO. This disease leads to a total lack of physical coordination, so how does mr Hawking have such an extensive vocabulary with involuntary movements that I can't even detect?

. he is one of the few noteworthy scientists in history who has openly espoused such a belief in the non-existence of a creator. Most real scientists understand it's not a venue for discussion in science.... What if it isn't really his ideas? How would you know? Have you ever examined his amazing miraculous wheelchair and heard a realistic explanation of how he interfaces with it? (me either, and I have my doubts!)

Edited September 16, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[Daecon]

He was talking about aliens, not gods.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

.Who is brow beating who? Do you know what the psychological phenomenon called "projection" is?

It appears it is you going off the deep end, on a science forum no less, running some sort of agenda driven campaign, to brow beat us Heathens and Atheists, that dare confront you with the scientific method, empirical evidence for incumbent scientific theories, while at the same time showing much ignorance in demanding proof, when all you yourself have is empty rhetoric. I'm sure there's a spare pulpit in some church somewhere for you to do your preaching tomorrow.

5 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Wow, I can't believe how ignorant some people can seem when they try to support nonsensical ideas.

Try looking into a mirror. 

6 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I asked a question with this thread.

You asked questions with no intention of accepting any answers. That's preaching and running your crusade and points to an agenda.

 

5 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Why should I bother? What difference would it make? The point is you cannot use clearly biased "studies" as proof of Wikipedia's credibility. They are all well known to be part of the same secular humanist (atheist-nihilist) agenda, it's whats known as a "circle jerk".

This isn't a conspiracy forum. 

5 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Intelligent design is probably the most falsifiable theory in science. Out of the entire body of known science facts and laws, all you have to do is demonstrate one that proves there is no intelligent design in the order of the universe. Because you cannot does not mean it isn't falsifiable, it means you can't prove it wrong.

And it remains unfalsifiable until we are able to obtain evidence, which won't happen because there isn't any. Why may I ask do you continue showing your ignorance with demanding proof all the time, when you have been told a scientific theory does not deal in proof? 

And that dear friend is why it remains as the best system we have, despite many thousands of years of ignorantly induced mythical beliefs, in ghosts, goblins, spaghetti monsters and any deity you care to name.

5 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

It seems likely as we continue in this debate that eventually the proponents of the "non intelligent design presupposition" of modern science are going to reveal their agenda, and perhaps that is why it is such a censored and  un-debated subject, because there is an underlying agenda controlling scientific inquiry ..

Obviously you are pissed off that science over the years has pushed the need for any deity or any ID of any kind back into near oblivion. The universe/spacetime evolved from the BB, matter was created as the Superforce decoupled, our first elements, stars, supernova  planets, abiogenisis, evolution and then life. While some of that lacks in detail, the basis is well supported. In fact in essence, there is really no other scientific methodology for how life arose then via abiogenisis. We are an accident, no design, no designer, no spaghetti monster.

Take it easy. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by beecee

[Daecon]

6 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Why should I bother? What difference would it make? The point is you cannot use clearly biased "studies" as proof of Wikipedia's credibility. They are all well known to be part of the same secular humanist (atheist-nihilist) agenda, it's whats known as a "circle jerk".

Is that the same as the Liberal and/or Gay agenda?

[Anonymous Participant]

1 hour ago, Daecon said:

Is that the same as the Liberal and/or Gay agenda?

The so called LGBT+?? agenda IS indeed a moral relativistic agenda that weakens the human resistance to being dominated. It also has another obvious agenda of population control by lowering the birth rate (and increasing the mortality rate) among the target population, whites.  1 out of 5 homosexuals in the US is said to be infected with the virus that causes AIDS according to CDC studies, and sexually transmitted diseases are over 60 times as prevalent overall. 2 out of 10 transsexuals end their own lives, and now both of these groups are allowed to adopt children. Children raised in homosexual environments are something like 6 times as likley to be "gay" themselves. Who really benefits from it, that's what you need to ask yourself. As for the liberal agenda being one in the same, if the coat fits and there are no others left in the closet, it's yours, out it on. Obviously conservative means holding on to the tried and true morality of the past, and liberal challenges morality, it IS moral relativism

[Daecon]

Hahahahahahaha!

*wipes tears from eye*

Oh, you're serious?

Hahahahahahahaha!

Comedy gold.

[Anonymous Participant]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

It appears it is you going off the deep end, on a science forum no less, running some sort of agenda driven campaign, to brow beat us Heathens and Atheists, that dare confront you with the scientific method, empirical evidence for incumbent scientific theories, while at the same time showing much ignorance in demanding proof, when all you yourself have is empty rhetoric. I'm sure there's a spare pulpit in some church somewhere for you to do your preaching tomorrow.

Try looking into a mirror. 

You asked questions with no intention of accepting any answers. That's preaching and running your crusade and points to an agenda.

 

This isn't a conspiracy forum. 

And it remains unfalsifiable until we are able to obtain evidence, which won't happen because there isn't any. Why may I ask do you continue showing your ignorance with demanding proof all the time, when you have been told a scientific theory does not deal in proof? 

And that dear friend is why it remains as the best system we have, despite many thousands of years of ignorantly induced mythical beliefs, in ghosts, goblins, spaghetti monsters and any deity you care to name.

ssed off that science over the years has pusheObviously you are pid the need for any deity or any ID of any kind back into near oblivion. The universe/spacetime evolved from the BB, matter was created as the Superforce decoupled, our first elements, stars, supernova  planets, abiogenisis, evolution and then life. While some of that lacks in detail, the basis is well supported. In fact in essence, there is really no other scientific methodology for how life arose then via abiogenisis. We are an accident, no design, no designer, no spaghetti monster.

Take it easy. 

Actually my goal is to force you the realization that what you think is science is in fact a new religion, and I abhor religious restraints being placed upon intellectual disciplines like science. We don't approach science with any preconceived notions about what we expect to find and staying within those parameters, and we don't exclude theories or hypothesis because they challenge our own religious beliefs, in your case atheism.

I asked a question to induce thought and debate on the subject, and the result has been exposure of the fact that at least some people who call themselves scientifically literate are approaching the discipline within the context of a religious belief. The two are not compatible.

Science has not led us to the conclusion that the universe is a random happenstance, an agenda within it be portrayed as science has attempted to place that crown of thorns on the head of science.

. The ideas that espouse this belief are much more laughable and childish than the genesis version of creation, which I find to be nothign more than a reasonable child's fairy tale personally. The idea that the universe just sprang forth from nothing and created itself is not an adult, intelligent view, it is a pseudo intellectual view, as is abiogenisis.

As scientists we approach ideas with probability based on evidence, and generally the simplest explainations are considered the more acceptable ones according to occams razor.

The probability of abiogenesis  resulting in the double helix DNA code through random happenstance has been calculated by credible biochemists to be something on the order of 1x10^-150. It's a theory without any empirical evidence, a non theory, as is the BB. There is no real explanation how life came into existence, the theory that it sprang forth from rocks is the origin of the abiogenisis belief. Another idea that I was exposed to in the public schools through required reading was the idea that lightning struck a mud puddle filled with organic compounds (Frankenstein?) and life sprang forth. No explanation, just a stab in the dark really, it isn't a theory.

 

                                                                                                                         Big Bang evidence discarded

It has just recently been admitted by NASA that the so called background radiation of the BB predicted by the BB theory detected by research satellites turned out to be coming from cosmic dust:.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result

As predictably as the heroine's death in an opera, the biggest claim in cosmology in years has finally officially unraveled. Last March, cosmologists working with a specialized telescope at the South Pole called BICEP2 claimed direct evidence that in the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the universe underwent a bizarre exponential growth spurt called inflation. The signs came in their study of the big bang’s afterglow, the cosmic microwave background (CMB). But now, in a joint analysis with cosmologists working with the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Planck spacecraft, BICEP researchers take back that claim and report no such signs of inflation, according to a press release issued by ESA.

Like Mimi in Giacomo Puccini's opera La Bohème, the BICEP claim seemed doomed from early in the drama. "I would have been surprised if it had turned out otherwise," says Suzanne Staggs, an observational cosmologist at Princeton University. In September, the Planck team released data that suggested the BICEP signal was largely, if not entirely, an artifact of dust in our galaxy, which emits microwaves of its own.

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Daecon said:

Hahahahahahaha!

*wipes tears from eye*

Oh, you're serious?

Hahahahahahahaha!

Comedy gold.

That is just an overpowering retort, you have me convinced!! 

WTF are you even babbling about anyway?

Let me guess, you're "gay" as well as atheist? SO you DO have an agenda driven preconceived notion to bring to science, don't you? No need for morality or right and wrong if there is no purpose to our existence, is there? See where I'm coming from? I KNOW where you are coming from, your beliefs in science conform to your dealing with your own unnatural and what most consider deviant sexual habits and justifying them to others within the context of moral relativism

. look, I don't care who you "do it" with as long as it is a consenting adult and you don't promote it to impressionable children using deceptive brainwashing tactics, keep sex behind closed doors where it belongs and not marching in the streets shoving it down peoples throats.

Have you ever noticed a "gya pride" parade is always replete with objects, symbols and themes designed to be extremely attractive to children? unicorns, rainbows, and balloons may create a false image of what being "gay" really is in a child's impressionable mind, don't you think? How many kids do you think they would attract with the truth, a high incidence of violence, anal incontinence and disease FI?

                                                                        AN AMORAL AGENDA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REAL SCIENCE

Why can't you just say it , you're a HOMOSEXUAL, you prefer sex with other men. Let the kids hear the truth and decide if they like it. Most children are instinctively repulsed and disgusted by the idea. they have to be tricked into accepting it, or in many cases FORCED. We are told by activists that homosexuality in nature is normal but I've never once seen a single youtube video of one animal "cornholing" another it just doesn't happen because animals act on natural instincts. A human being LEARNS this behavior, he's not born wanting to do it.

 If it had, it would be on youtube (lmao!). There IS a video of a chimp forcing a toad to engage in oral sex, BTW, but no cornholing in the natural world, because it isn't natural.

I see every day kids being brainwashed to believe a "gay" person is just someone who loves people of the same sex.

BULLCRAP.

A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual relations with people of the same sex, all kids love people of the same sex one would hope, don't you think (or know) that is intentionally confusing them? Doesn't it open the door to pederasts in the minds of kids? Why is NAMBLA linked to the homosexual activist movement intrinsically, from the very beginning?

Look, we both know there are two conflicting ideas here, one of us believes there is a purpose to our existence, and one of us believes there isn't. We both have our reasons for believing or wanting to believe that...BUT, neither of those BELIEFS has any place in science. We let the chips fall where they may, science isn't a predetermined destination we are traveling to, it is a journey filled with wonder, not knowing whee it will lead!

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This is closed. Anonymous Participant, your comments here regarding sexual orientation are absolutely unacceptable. Please review the forum rules before you post next time, (though the way this is going, 'next time' may never come).