Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 After making some research I came to those conclusions: Science can be a religion if I tell you what my definition of "religion" is. For a complete definition of "Religion" see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/davepriority/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Science can also be a fruit if I tell you what my definition of 'fruit' is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Your definition of "religion" is trivial, poorly reasoned, and so broad as to be totally meaningless. Any definition which does *not* include the above flaws excludes science. The two have fundamental differences far beyond any of the differences *between* religions. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 it`s a nice sentiment for sure, and I`m positive that you mean well by it. however there are a few flaws in there that are not quite congruent with "Science" being a religion. personaly, I`de aim for a certain and agreed upon definition of Religion, and THEN do the same for Science. from there you can apply any data that overlaps or is common to both, (Not a task I`de like to try), but non the less, that would be the favoured methodology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Alright smart guys, I saw some comments but not corrections. So, what word can be used to replace religion for the definition of "set of beliefs"? What word can be used to mean "set of beliefs"? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Science is more about certain Universal Standards as opposed to differing dogma often generated by ones cultural matrix. and so you YOU must decide what wording is appropriate for YOUR idea, rather than US doing your work FOR you as I said, it`s Not a task I`de like to take on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 "Set of beliefs" is too vague because you end up using a different definition of "belief" for religion than for science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 So what is worng by saying: The set of beliefs of science? Because someone who doesn't believe in evolution shoudn't consider his future to be in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 So what is worng by saying: The set of beliefs of science? Because someone who doesn't believe in evolution shoudn't consider his future to be in science. Because of the inevitable equivocation. Belief is just a bad term to use. It depends on the reason you don't believe - dogma vs credible evidence. Any given theory could be wrong, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 if science can have credible evidence then we should believe them until they can be disproved. Isn't? So science do have beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 -We believe in what can be proven. If something can be proven then belief is not required. That is the problem with your criterion - belief and proof are mutually exclusive, and since sceince is based on proof it cannot be a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Alright, so the science deal with what can be proven or already proven. and religion deal with what didnt being proved yet. So should I just call my new groups = Introduction to science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I don't generally cite quotes from other threads, but this is too relevant (and this is GD, after all): My problem is that I am new to science and I am aloneAnd from your Yahoo group site:I am a scientist, I am inviting you into that quest.Just because you now believe in science doesn't make you a scientist. As I told you in the other thread (which you obviously ignored or rejected), science is not a religion with a congregation. It's believers are not called "scientists". Scientist in this case refers to a paid profession. I get a raging case of the heebie-jeebies whenever someone starts using phrases like "path of reality" and "I ain't going to tell you what you want but what you need". Do you suddenly consider yourself to be some kind of prophet for science since you have found religion lacking? Please write this down: "Faith" and "belief" are part of spirituality because they deal with the unobservable. Science relies on observation of that which is physically sensed. Even proof is true only until it's proven otherwise. No belief is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Religions are lies and science is very confusing to start at first. Alright, so the science deal with what can be proven or already proven. and religion deal with what didnt being proved yet. So should I just call my new groups = Introduction to science? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/davepriority/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Religions are lies and science is very confusing to start at first.This is not a good bias to start your impartial observations with. Alright, so the science deal with what can be proven or already proven. and religion deal with what didnt being proved yet. So should I just call my new groups = Introduction to science? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/davepriority/ This is redundant from post #12. Please don't do that any more. Religion doesn't deal with anything that can be proven. It relies on faith in what can't be observed or proven. Religion can't be proven right or wrong, you'll just spin your wheels trying. If you wish to be scientific in your thinking, you need to stop thinking in terms of lies, realities and illusions. Just read, learn and observe. Don't make hasty generalizations or conclusions. And why do you need to start your own group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 because science is very confusing to start at first. I answered that question already. should I call my new group = Welcome to science? or Introduction to science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 because science is very confusing to start at first.And having your own "group" makes it less so?should I call my new group = Welcome to science? or Introduction to science?Both are misleading. How about, "Welcome to davepriority's Point of View". Truth in advertising and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DQW Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Phi, I admire your patience !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 "Phi for all" you are misleading yourself! DQW, your useless comment doesnt help, idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Should I call my new group' date=' "Welcome to science" or "Introduction to science"?(punctuation corrected) "Welcome to science" implies a set of references to and recomendations of resources intended to give people a basic grounding in science, this is something you must not only have but have exceeded before you can begin passing it on."Introduction to science" implies resources themselves and some education, something that would help people understand the very basic principles that get used in most areas of science. As you seem to have a limited understanding of what science even is, niether title would be apropriate. A better title would be any of the following: The grand collection of mispellings and poor gramma Dave P's false claims about his own proffesion A group that features a self-contradicting introduction Dogmatic bollocks without any sign of justification or support Phi, I admire your patience !!As do I.DQW' date=' your useless comment doesnt help, idiot.[/quote']He was merely complementing Phi, I don't see anything wrong with that although I do see quite a bit wrong with your refusal to accept when people know more than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davepriority Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The tree, you an other useless ****, your sense of prejugist of lametable, your post is a waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Seriously, please tone it down. You're being offensive now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 What do I care if my post is a waste? I'm on holiday. I can't really see the benifit of your post either. Please be aware that you are not a scientist, you have failed to prove any of your statements and your "group" is useless. I wouldn't be suprised if one of the moderators that you've decided to augue with bans you and I hope you understand how completely they are justified in doing so. Edit I see they have banned you, the above still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 To all people considering using offensive language on this forum: we don't want members like davepriority, thanks. (Hence, thread closed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts