Scientists to Unveil Proof of 'God Particle' (Article) (Link) (PRETTY DAMN INTERESTING)

[gry60]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

All I see from you is another unfounded, baseless, belief with no evidence supporting it other than your uninformed and/or uneducated opinion on the matter.

Word?
All of these tough words...

So then, lets get to the core of this, since you are obviously so much more knowledgeable than me (and evidently the Ivy league educated physicists, whose dissertations you laugh off)...tell me, what is a religion?

Science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 

Religion

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

All I see from you is another unfounded, baseless, belief with no evidence supporting it other than your uninformed and/or uneducated opinion on the matter.

Word?
All of these tough words...

So then, lets get to the core of this, since you are obviously so much more knowledgeable than me (and evidently the Ivy league educated physicists, whose dissertations you laugh off)...tell me, what is a religion?

Word. I got you doggie it's so simple http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

And for extra measure https://www.google.com/se....1.1.0...0.0.I2-APOqFv4I

Religion does not investigate the how, it does not seek to discover. It just tells you to believe their why which more times than not can be crude interpretations of the world around us, romanticized, revered and of course made in to myth to the modern day extreme of fantastic fiction.

To say science is faith based is beyond anti-logic. The only thing a scientist would have faith in is their own logic and reasoning skills in which they use to come to their conclusions when they work and if that's the core of your argument you're not a rational human being.

Just so you know I can see why you'd view those words as "tough" but they just come off as the truth to me. Go ahead with your hyperboles though, I aint getting caught up in your tangents and strawmen arguments.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

PleasurePhD you're wasting your time with Goldenchild on this topic. If he believes or thinks science and religion is the same thing or that science is a religion then he's wrong and most likely does not know what science is or what it entails AND probably has no idea what goes on with religion when it comes to how they conclude what they believe and the concept of faith.

He could also be trolling you and trying to be vague as hell with each and irrationally rationalize to compare the two and point out "similarities".

PPL who believe science is a religion are a waste of time. Probably trying to create their own religious sect themselves.

Y'all dudes are hilarious.
Do you know that there are world renowned physicists, who are religious and that there is also a whole school of thought, which articulates the interconnectedness of science and religion?

Look up Charles Coulson a Cambridge educated pioneer in quantum theory or Harold Schilling a noted scientist and the former chairman of physics at Penn State. Read their works and then attempt to laugh it off as easily.

[size=+2]CONCERNING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION[/size]

Just look at this thread...you're hollering " don't waste your time trying to convert those silly non-believers " just like a staunch religious zealot would and others are in here pump faking....talking about "I'm scared" & "I KNEW IT!!"...like they have any real grasp of the intimate details or realistic implications of this finding 

 Just like the masses of uninformed religious followers.

It's hilarious man....science is the new religion of the West.

Because countries in the eastern hemisphere don't help contribute to modern day science? WOW. Some countries in Europe and Asia are at the forefront of advancing certain fields or science. Do you even know where CERN is? 
In fact since we are on the topic, which is far from the original, but I'll play along. Some countries in Europe and Asia have more openly atheistic individuals than the US. That is the percentage of individuals that will openly say they are atheists is higher than the US. 

 

[mitchellicious]

Can someone put this into layman's terms for the more dimwitted (myself included) NTers?

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by Gry60

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Word?
All of these tough words...

So then, lets get to the core of this, since you are obviously so much more knowledgeable than me (and evidently the Ivy league educated physicists, whose dissertations you laugh off)...tell me, what is a religion?

Science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 

Religion

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 

That can't be the proper definition of religion as there are undoubtedly religions, which hold at their core, that there is no mystery god and that belief in supernatural powers is unbecoming...

A more accurate definition of religion would be: These are more accurate descriptions of a religion. 

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects




Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems and worldviews.




You can't monopolize the subject of religion by ascribing only the customs and beliefs of Abrahamic systems to the whole concept.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

First of all....

I wasn't attempting to prove that science is a religion by citing the importance of meditation to Buddhist philosophy or by pointing to the responses in this thread.

i was asked to cite a religious hypothesis which was validated through experimentation, hence validating the existence of that religion...I clearly showed that.

And what scientist is going to argue with the fact that the pruning of synaptic connections, normally done during sleep cycles but can be replicated through mediation, is essential to clear thinking? Stop talking out your behind.

I clearly responded to the question asked of me by PleasurePhD.

Now if you would like some insight into why science is a religion, I can provide that as well...

Actually you didn't respond to my questions right. But, in all fairness I see that I misunderstood one of your earlier posts. So it's whatever.
Also, many scientists would argue with what you are saying. One word... Biochemistry. 

 

[|A-Man|]

^Again with the vagueness to better suit your argument. You want to make religion this broad spectrum that covers a ridiculous amount of things that do not belong being grouped with it. You're forgetting to add the part about belief systems that do not require proof or supporting evidence of any kind.

Real talk you couldn't come up with a religion that "comes close to the scientific method’s reliance on skepticism to advance understanding."

I mean I could go on and on with links and quotes that explain quite nicely why you're wrong but it'd be just as easy for you to search them and learn it yourself but you're too busy doing what you're doing now.

 

[gry60]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by Gry60

Originally Posted by goldenchild9


Word?
All of these tough words...

So then, lets get to the core of this, since you are obviously so much more knowledgeable than me (and evidently the Ivy league educated physicists, whose dissertations you laugh off)...tell me, what is a religion?

Science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 

Religion

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 

That can't be the proper definition of religion as there are undoubtedly religions, which hold at their core, that there is no mystery god and that belief in supernatural powers is unbecoming...

A more accurate definition of religion would be: These are more accurate descriptions of a religion. 

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects




Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems and worldviews.




You can't monopolize the subject of religion by ascribing only the customs and beliefs of Abrahamic systems to the whole concept.

According to your definitions, political systems can be defined as religions, right? 
Also

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.  

The definition includes systems such as Animism (belief in spirits) and Hinduism (many gods). 

 

[goldenchild9]

ATGD7154xBBxMZ wrote:

Religion does not investigate the how, it does not seek to discover. It just tells you to believe their why which more times than not can be crude interpretations of the world around us, romanticized, revered and of course made in to myth to the modern day extreme of fantastic fiction.

To say science is faith based is beyond anti-logic. The only thing a scientist would have faith in is their own logic and reasoning skills in which they use to come to their conclusions when they work and if that's the core of your argument you're not a rational human being.

Religion does not investigate how things came about?
It does not seek to discover how things came to be?

Its just tells you to believe their why (way) and presents "crude interpretations of the world around us, romanticized, revered and of course made in to myth to the modern day extreme of fantastic fiction. "...

 what are you even saying?

I'm far from Christian but this is from the Bible:

A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might




An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.




Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.




For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul




For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.







Scientists having faith in their logic?

Scientists do not arrive at models and theories by application of logic. They arrive at them by many processes lumped under the name 'induction'. Induction cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (though many have tried). To see patterns (sometimes subtle and hidden ones) in data and observations requires creative ability. This is the ability to think ahead and say, "What model, set of statements (laws) or theoretical construct could I devise from which these observations and data might be deduced? 

Go have a seat, bruh.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

^Again with the vagueness to better suit your argument. You want to make religion this broad spectrum that covers a ridiculous amount of things that do not belong being grouped with it. You're forgetting to add the part about belief systems that do not require proof or supporting evidence of any kind.

Real talk you couldn't come up with a religion that "comes close to the scientific method’s reliance on skepticism to advance understanding."

I mean I could go on and on with links and quotes that explain quite nicely why you're wrong but it'd be just as easy for you to search them and learn it yourself but you're too busy doing what you're doing now.

That's what religion is.
I'm attempting to ascribe things to religion that don't belong to it...but you're saying that religions must include "belief systems that do not require proof or supporting evidence of any kind."

How silly do you sound, man? 

That is in no way shape or form a qualifier of religion.

Are you going to just keep bringing up new questions every post...then accuse me of using strawmen arguments? 

When did you ask me to show a religion that comes close to "the scientific method’s reliance on skepticism to advance understanding."? 

The scientific method is unique to the field of science, just as the apparatuses of Judaism is unique to Judaism and won't be recognizably replicated in Vudun.

Make some sense and try to reply to what is being said instead of throwing out wild categorizations and random accusations.

 

[firmeporvida]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

ATGD7154xBBxMZ wrote:

Go have a seat, bruh.

I'm guessing you need the seat, G.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by Gry60

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by Gry60

Science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 

Religion

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 

That can't be the proper definition of religion as there are undoubtedly religions, which hold at their core, that there is no mystery god and that belief in supernatural powers is unbecoming...

A more accurate definition of religion would be: These are more accurate descriptions of a religion. 

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects




Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems and worldviews.




You can't monopolize the subject of religion by ascribing only the customs and beliefs of Abrahamic systems to the whole concept.

According to your definitions, political systems can be defined as religions, right? 
Also

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.  

Those aren't my definitions but people can certainly be religiously committed to their political party. 
However I wouldn't call political parties a religion because they don't deal with the deeper aspects of existence. You have Muslim and Catholic Democrats who share fundamentally different beliefs about existence, yet they hold up the same political banner because of their parties proposed solutions to more "mundane" problems.

And there are religions that don't subscribe to any of that. 

Google Unitarian Universalism...

 

[gry60]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

ATGD7154xBBxMZ wrote:

Religion does not investigate the how, it does not seek to discover. It just tells you to believe their why which more times than not can be crude interpretations of the world around us, romanticized, revered and of course made in to myth to the modern day extreme of fantastic fiction.

To say science is faith based is beyond anti-logic. The only thing a scientist would have faith in is their own logic and reasoning skills in which they use to come to their conclusions when they work and if that's the core of your argument you're not a rational human being.

Religion does not investigate how things came about?



It does not seek to discover how things came to be?

Its just tells you to believe their why (way) "crude interpretations of the world around us, romanticized, revered and of course made in to myth to the modern day extreme of fantastic fiction. "...

 what are you even saying?

I'm far from Christian but this is from the Bible:

A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might




An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.




Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.




For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul




For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.







Scientists having faith in their logic?

Scientists do not arrive at models and theories by application of logic. They arrive at them by many processes lumped under the name 'induction'. Induction cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (though many have tried). To see patterns (sometimes subtle and hidden ones) in data and observations requires creative ability. This is the ability to think ahead and say, "What model, set of statements (laws) or theoretical construct could I devise from which these observations and data might be deduced? 

Go have a seat, bruh.

About your first point:
When Galileo discovered that the Earth was round and that it rotates around the Sun, he was put on trial as an heretic because the Catholic church taught that the Sun rotated around the Earth (based on their studies of religious texts). The only way he was able to save his head was by declaring in front of the court and the Catholic judges that he was wrong. It wasn't until Magellan traveled around the Earth that the Church acknowledged that fact. 
What do you think would happen to a scientist in Saudi Arabia if he were to prove that wearing the burqa for long periods of time would be detrimental to the health of the wearer? 
Regarding your quote about scientists supposedly not using logic, I'll just say this: cause and effect IS logic, and it's used in the formulation of hypotheses. 

 

[KMante]

 

 = Sillyputty

 

[goldenchild9]

Galileo did not discover that the world was round...so I'm not even entertaining that nor am I going to attempt to defend the Catholic church's position hundreds of years ago (or today for that matter).

That's where y'all cross the line and become extremists, throwing this whole discussion off track.

You can't use these Abrahamic religions and dark age policies as the be all, end all discussion of religion. Its no different from the people who ignorantly slander science and only bring up Nazi experiments, Hiroshima, Eugenics and the like.

You can't marginalize science or religion in that way, b.

The greatest minds find a way to balance concepts from both disciplines.

 

[solegit08til]

Higgs Boson > Jesus
Silly Putty > Goldenchild

I just hope that when they accidentally create a new universe it doesn't mess ours up, but it almost seems inevitable.

 

[humble pedant]

When we look at the fundamentals of Science and certain Religions, we will come to the conclusion that Science and Religion will inevitably, always clash.  

 

[1994ss]

Why is there so much hype around this story. It's just some science.

 

[milestailsprowe]

I love this thread
Science is a religion and then not a religion

It has provided us with answers and solutions when we needed it. It helps us through the day and gives people hope as in scientist/engineers will find solutions to our problems. We wield a lot of power with it and if these "God Particles" are harnessed we become closer to godliness. 

Sadly because nothing is absolute and faith is only in self that your hypothesis is right is as far as faith goes in science. Its ever changing with no true word. New research can show that a cell is actually a small insect or some other stupidness.

 

[ai for mvp]

Originally Posted by nflowshoe

I'm assuming they have a miniature universe some where in one of their labs, and thru experiments they are trying to figure out how to get mass from one side off their "toy" universe to another. They are working on making mock black holes, mock DNA, and tweaking things they don't understand. I'm afraid of what will happen if this experiment goes wrong

 imagine a smaller planet inside or planet.............
Once this mock universe in a box is revealed things are going to get interesting.

QTF
All scientist want to be the man


Still interesting though 

 

[dt43]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Galileo did not discover that the world was round...so I'm not even entertaining that nor am I going to attempt to defend the Catholic church's position hundreds of years ago (or today for that matter).

That's where y'all cross the line and become extremists, throwing this whole discussion off track.

You can't use these Abrahamic religions and dark age policies as the be all, end all discussion of religion. Its no different from the people who ignorantly slander science and only bring up Nazi experiments, Hiroshima, Eugenics and the like.

You can't marginalize science or religion in that way, b.

The greatest minds find a way to balance concepts from both disciplines.

I get what you're trying to say. But your statement that science is a religion is very, very disingenuous. 
Actually, if you want to be successful in your argument you should dissociate yourself from the term "religion" altogether. There are ways to make your argument (or rather, introduce a DISCUSSION) without using the term-- which, frankly should fade into obsolescence because of its generally excessively-polarizing nature in our current cultural climate.

When you finally find a new way to express your ideas, you'll likely realize that there isn't anything to argue at all and that you were unnecessarily creating division between two "factions" that have no reason to be in conflict. That is, of course, if you aren't doing what you've been doing in this thread for the sole purpose of fueling some inner desire you have to create conflict. If that's what you're doing then nevermind this post, go right ahead. 

 

[wisepharoah]

Was just reading an article on this O.P. I've been staying abreast with the L.H.C. since it's construction and I find it incredibly fascinating that they have yet to release any information on project "Alice" in which I believe they were attempting to possibly peer into other dimensions. I imagine we are only getting a very small percentage of what they have discovered thus far with the L.H.C. It is always suspiciously out of commision. The conversation that is going on between the two guys about science and religion is unnecessary. The relative points of perception and experience won't allow either of you guys to agree with one another so it's incredibly pointless to argue over what is what. I know this is a discussion forum and arguing goes hand in hand but both of you really chill. Lets discuss the matter at hand and what incredible discoveries you think in theory will come from the knowledge of collapsing atoms and matter. I suppose if we don't destroy ourselves man will be able to create matter in what appears to be thin air. I also believe we will be able to understand better the illusion of locality.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by DT43

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Galileo did not discover that the world was round...so I'm not even entertaining that nor am I going to attempt to defend the Catholic church's position hundreds of years ago (or today for that matter).

That's where y'all cross the line and become extremists, throwing this whole discussion off track.

You can't use these Abrahamic religions and dark age policies as the be all, end all discussion of religion. Its no different from the people who ignorantly slander science and only bring up Nazi experiments, Hiroshima, Eugenics and the like.

You can't marginalize science or religion in that way, b.

The greatest minds find a way to balance concepts from both disciplines.

I get what you're trying to say. But your statement that science is a religion is very, very disingenuous. 
Actually, if you want to be successful in your argument you should dissociate yourself from the term "religion" altogether. There are ways to make your argument (or rather, introduce a DISCUSSION) without using the term-- which, frankly should fade into obsolescence because of its generally excessively-polarizing nature in our current cultural climate.

When you finally find a new way to express your ideas, you'll likely realize that there isn't anything to argue at all and that you were unnecessarily creating division between two "factions" that have no reason to be in conflict. That is, of course, if you aren't doing what you've been doing in this thread for the sole purpose of fueling some inner desire you have to create conflict. If that's what you're doing then nevermind this post, go right ahead. 

You're right about the inaccuracy of the word religion but wrong about me creating division. 
Look at the previous posts, I didn't start the discussion...I just intelligently articulated my position.

My objective in all of my posts was to show the similarity in the two concepts, not to cause division. New once did I put down science.

 

[|A-Man|]

Scientists do not arrive at models and theories by application of logic. They arrive at them by many processes lumped under the name 'induction'. Induction cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (though many have tried). To see patterns (sometimes subtle and hidden ones) in data and observations requires creative ability. This is the ability to think ahead and say, "What model, set of statements (laws) or theoretical construct could I devise from which these observations and data might be deduced

Go have a seat, bruh.
Dog you can't be that clueless and dense, you have the nerve to mince my words and act as if you made a point. Induction does not require reasoning skills? Reasoning skills? You know the second thing I said after I said logic? Oh you didn't read that part? You thought you was slick and was making a point?

C'mon son. You can do better than that.

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

First of all....

I wasn't attempting to prove that science is a religion by citing the importance of meditation to Buddhist philosophy or by pointing to the responses in this thread.

i was asked to cite a religious hypothesis which was validated through experimentation, hence validating the existence of that religion...I clearly showed that.

And what scientist is going to argue with the fact that the pruning of synaptic connections, normally done during sleep cycles but can be replicated through mediation, is essential to clear thinking? Stop talking out your behind.

I clearly responded to the question asked of me by PleasurePhD.

Now if you would like some insight into why science is a religion, I can provide that as well...

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Yes it is.
The same system of experientially based hypotheses, reflection and imaginative theory is found in both science and religion.

You love bragging about you level of education but your propensity to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal beliefs and life experiences says more about the true level of your acuity than any of your academic braggadocio. 

No, it's not. 
ARE you mother effin kidding me? The same system of experiment based hypothesis are used to validate and prove religion? Name ONE, ONE experimentally based hypothesis from religion, which has been used to test and prove the validity of the religion. 

1. Chill out. You're getting as riled up as a religious extremist, when confronted with opposing ideas. That alone says much about the parallels of religion and science.
2. One of the tenets of Buddhism ( a religious system and philosophy) is the importance of meditation to the development of a structured mind and spirit. Modern science has conclusively found tangible benefits to meditation. And while some in the modern neuropsychological community would like to write that off as a merely physical phenomenon...the bottom line is that this revelation was intuited by a religious society and validated through their lens of spiritual understanding thousands of years before the word science even existed.

Thats just one thing off top.

I just peeped this. You did not cite a religious hypothesis which was validated through experimentation. When did Buddha or a Buddhist hypothesize that meditation is good for your body or mind? And how exactly would that even validate the religions existence? So you telling me if scientists discover that christian prayer has some type of benefit on the mind that is a religious hypothesis validated by experimentation? Do you even know what experimentation or a hypothesis is?

I mean can you even cite any other examples by Buddhists or another religion where they hypothesized something and concluded they were wrong in the same vain a scientist would have a hypothesize something, gather data, review previous works on the topic if there are any, and after experiments come to the conclusion their hypothesis was wrong? That's all part of the process in science. All you've stated is that Buddhists have a tenet of meditation that is important because it allegedly helps the development of the mind and the "spirit". You then have the nerve to vaguely state science has also concluded there are benefits from meditation. Has science concluded it specifically develops the spirit or even confirmed a spirit exists?

This poor example runs parallel to ppl saying a religion states the do's and don'ts and somehow that's exclusive to that particular religion or the category of religion in general as if a non-religious person could not come to the conclusion that killing and stealing is wrong. This is not cutting it man. Just because scientists have concluded meditation has benefits to the human body does not mean Buddhists were validating "religious hypothesis's" with experimentation. It doesn't even establish that Buddhists hypothesized. Like you're really trying to associate being still and clearing your mind directly to Buddhism as if ppl who've existed before that philosophy and later that religion were created couldn't have come to the same conclusions?

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

ATGD7154xBBxMZ wrote:

Religion does not investigate the how, it does not seek to discover. It just tells you to believe their why which more times than not can be crude interpretations of the world around us, romanticized, revered and of course made in to myth to the modern day extreme of fantastic fiction.

To say science is faith based is beyond anti-logic. The only thing a scientist would have faith in is their own logic and reasoning skills in which they use to come to their conclusions when they work and if that's the core of your argument you're not a rational human being.

Religion does not investigate how things came about?
It does not seek to discover how things came to be?

Its just tells you to believe their why (way) and presents "crude interpretations of the world around us, romanticized, revered and of course made in to myth to the modern day extreme of fantastic fiction. "...

 what are you even saying?

I'm far from Christian but this is from the Bible:

A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might




An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.




Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.




For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul




For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.



Where in this quote does anything I just said been refuted? What is religion or religious ppl actively investigating? What knowledge are they actively seeking? It's ironic you quote a book filled with contradictions. You're gonna post this quote that urges one to seek knowledge and then ignore the rest of the ignorance in the book? The Bible says a lot of things. It TELL it's followers to BELIEVE and DO a lot of things, that does not mean they are in any way doing what science does, it does not mean it is seeking the truth in how things came to be. According to them they already have the truth and if  a Christian truly adhered to this one quote in the bible they'd find themselves straying farther and farther away from the core beliefs and traditions of the alleged holy word.

How quaint.

As far as "

what are you even saying" from your example of "religious" hypothesis you seem to display a clear lacking in reasoning. You think Buddhists meditating equals hypothesis and experiment. You even had the nerve to act as if it was a discovery of theirs before science even existed. Religions do/are doing/have done exactly what I just stated whether you want to laugh about it or not.

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

^Again with the vagueness to better suit your argument. You want to make religion this broad spectrum that covers a ridiculous amount of things that do not belong being grouped with it. You're forgetting to add the part about belief systems that do not require proof or supporting evidence of any kind.

Real talk you couldn't come up with a religion that "comes close to the scientific method’s reliance on skepticism to advance understanding."

I mean I could go on and on with links and quotes that explain quite nicely why you're wrong but it'd be just as easy for you to search them and learn it yourself but you're too busy doing what you're doing now.

That's what religion is.
I'm attempting to ascribe things to religion that don't belong to it...but you're saying that religions must include "belief systems that do not require proof or supporting evidence of any kind."

How silly do you sound, man? 

That is in no way shape or form a qualifier of religion.

Are you going to just keep bringing up new questions every post...then accuse me of using strawmen arguments? 

When did you ask me to show a religion that comes close to "the scientific method’s reliance on skepticism to advance understanding."? 

The scientific method is unique to the field of science, just as the apparatuses of Judaism is unique to Judaism and won't be recognizably replicated in Vudun.

Make some sense and try to reply to what is being said instead of throwing out wild categorizations and random accusations.

What new questions? You haven't given a straight answer. You're giving broad generalizing answers that include everything under the sun in order to steer your argument your way.

You'll give a broad definition of religion in order to include science which is not a religion. It'd be no different if I tried to say porn was a sport.

http://blogs.nature.com/h...orships-doubt-as-its-god

I mean seriously, according to you, nazism, egoism, libertarianism, absolutism, capitalism, anarchism, communism, socialism, etc. are all religions. Yet they're not. Those are philosophical and political ideas but because you say religion are a set of fundamental beliefs by a group of ppl or a collection of cultural systems, belief systems and worldviews and just that that's what it is. You're purposely ignoring the spiritual and moral value aspect that is present in ALL religions.

Can you even provide a link to where you copy and pasted that? Cuz I got a feeling you purposely left out the rest of the definition to fit your argument

I mean after googling it myself I'm pretty sure you can not provide a link to those statements and those sentences alone

Shameful

 

[dprociak]

I swear this is old news...Heard this few months back