Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:01 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Support for a friend
#51
RE: Support for a friend
(August 11, 2016 at 11:20 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:
(August 11, 2016 at 10:09 am)Drich Wrote: very good... now that you got your knee jerk response out of the way. Now try and answer/account for the defination of "religion" I provided in that very same post you responded to, that would other wise encapsulate the works or dedication to 'science' as being a religious effort.

A) My definition wasn't kneejerk no matter how much you want to dissimulate on that matter. It was consdiered, well researched, accurate and somewhat irreverant and funny.
All of that, and somehow you seemingly had to ignore the purpose/parameter in which the question was framed. How is Science not a form of faith when viewed upon through the lens of the defination provided.

To take one part of the question and abandon the rest, then phrase your answer around the 1/2 you highlighted is known as a straw man fallacy. As funny as you'd like to think your fart based answer was... It did not address the question presented, rather it answered a straw man of your own creation allowing to set up a punch line of your own choosing.

Example:
Me: Why did the chicken cross the road?
you: Waiter, there is a fly in my soup. "don't worry he can't eat much."

Me: you did not answer the question
you: my punch line was funny

Again, what is the point of trying to be apart of a conversation if you can't address what is being discussed?

Quote:B) Even by your very much twisted definition of what a religion is, science does not count as a religion. Science is a way of finding out about the world using empirical data and experiments, which has nothing got to do with any sort of religious mentality or practise.
Again my 'twisted' defination was cut and pasted from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. If this definition seems wrong then perhaps it is you who does not have a complete understanding of the word.

Quote:To finalise as to why science isn't a religion I'll quote two scientists, one arreligious and one decidedly religious:
Carl Sagan Wrote:In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
Then carl sagan if a moron who should stick to his day job, and not speak on things that make him look so foolish..
If you google how many different forms of Christianity there are you'll see a number ranging from 24-30 thousand Recognized forms of Christianity. Each one of them is predicated on the idea that one's original method of worship was 'wrong and hearts and minds were changed.' and the religion went in a completely new direction.
Msgr Georges Lemaitre when refuting Pope Pius XII claiming the Big Bang proved god Wrote:As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction.
ROFLOL
You do understand that ultimately Lemaitre and Pius worked together to change how the church viewed and incorporated science into the faith do you not?

If so, doesn't this very example contradict your first quote?

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[22] though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.[23]

Since you seem to be quoting random crap allow me to explain..

In the beginning the relationship between science and the 'church' was bad. (Galileo)

As time progressed 'Science' was adopted to explain how God worked.

In 1951 Lemaitre and pius came to agreement to keep science a netural and seperate matter from the church.

In this there are 3 changes in official catholic church doctrine that your first quoter (and apparently you) do not understand or seeming know about (even though you are the one to quote lamaitre.)

Yeah, so good job that one is funny.

Quote:See that, neither scientist thought science a religion nor did they think that science had any relationship with religion.
You need to go a little further back in church history/world history sport, say 200 years or so and back. At that time the 'church' sponsored science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...nd_science

That aside.. I am not saying science is a church. I am saying science is blindly followed like a jones town religion. As in most followers have not vetted really anything they 'believe' they simply blindly follow what the loudest 'barker' says and thinks. Meaning the general consensus is that science is anti god anti religion even though it's very practices and execution follows the very same type of peer pressure and peer shaming religious cults employ.

Do you see the irony in all of this yet? of course you don't.. what was I thinking...
Reply
#52
RE: Support for a friend
And that concludes the end of Chapter 13: Drich is a Cunt
Reply
#53
RE: Support for a friend
Did someone mention iron?

Oh irony, sorry.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Baptists in Texas don't support Biden Foxaèr 12 1375 January 7, 2021 at 5:16 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Christian loons who support the death penalty. Jehanne 85 8502 December 4, 2016 at 10:09 am
Last Post: Jehanne
  Need Advice w/ Christian Friend DeadChannel 23 5267 August 8, 2015 at 9:29 am
Last Post: Dystopia
  Jesus is my friend Fidel_Castronaut 22 5809 July 28, 2015 at 11:43 am
Last Post: Pyrrho
  He who is a friend of the world is an enemy of mine? clergyman 14 2803 July 3, 2014 at 10:17 pm
Last Post: Losty
  Christian disonance of support iteractions. Brakeman 0 912 November 23, 2013 at 2:12 pm
Last Post: Brakeman
  A Dear Friend Falls Victim to the Virus FallentoReason 6 2979 July 25, 2013 at 2:55 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  Lord Carey attacks PM over Christian 'support' Darwinian 6 2856 March 30, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  God is the great spirit friend jstrodel 320 100335 March 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  I want to help my friend, but is it too late? Milennin 24 8951 January 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Last Post: JudgeDracoAmunRa



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)