Support for a friend

[Angrboda]

Hi there, this is my first post here but I was wondering if any of you could offer some advice. I have a friend who lately tells me he has found christ, god etc after all of this time of knowing him, I thought he was a little bit more critical in his thinking but he has seemed to be absorbed all of a sudden. I have tried talking on both a critical level and sympathetic level as I hate to think of any of my friends to lose their heads in make believe. Here is a link to one his videos on youtube anyway. You'll probably find it as I did, uncomfortable, a tad bit awkward and feeding the fearful:

Moderator Notice
Link removed for a violation of the 30/30 rule. Please familiarize yourself with our rules here: https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

He also believes science is a form of religion which again, is uncomfortable and without sounding patronising, makes him sound quite uneducated.

If any of you out there can offer him direct advice or even some critical comments via his youtube, that would be great. I know he reads them and I can only hope he steps off Noah's Ark after reading them.

Thanks a lot and I appreciate any advice that is given.
Elle

quick question how is science not a form of religion?

Here is a definition of religion provided by merrium webster:
an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

So then with this definition in mind.. please explain how science does not fall into this "FORM" (his words) of Religion?

...Seems to me 'education' would have one consider all possibilities of a word or meaning, and not just automatically exclude all none typical points of understanding or reasoning given a word or subject matter.

That 'form' of religion is a figurative sense.  In other words, an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group is metaphorically like a religion.  It doesn't mean that passionate interests literally are religions.

[Drich]

quick question how is science not a form of religion?

Quick answer, for the same reason the smell of my farts aren't a religion.

Long answer, because science is a method of enqiring about the universe usin evidence to postulate theories and improving or discarding them as more or better evidence comes along (eg General Relativity replacing Newton's inverse square law to explain how gravity works). Religion is a method of convincing people that unevidenced assertions about the world are an unchangeable and immutable truth even when the evidence proves the assertions wrong (eg genesis and creatardism in general), and then using that brainwashing to exert power over the poor gullibles you've fooled.

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.

[Losty]

Quick answer, for the same reason the smell of my farts aren't a religion.

Long answer, because science is a method of enqiring about the universe usin evidence to postulate theories and improving or discarding them as more or better evidence comes along (eg General Relativity replacing Newton's inverse square law to explain how gravity works). Religion is a method of convincing people that unevidenced assertions about the world are an unchangeable and immutable truth even when the evidence proves the assertions wrong (eg genesis and creatardism in general), and then using that brainwashing to exert power over the poor gullibles you've fooled.

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.

Drich how many times a day do you blur your monitor with the hot results of your jerking off over your own posts?

[Drich]

quick question how is science not a form of religion?

Here is a definition of religion provided by merrium webster:
an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

So then with this definition in mind.. please explain how science does not fall into this "FORM" (his words) of Religion?

...Seems to me 'education' would have one consider all possibilities of a word or meaning, and not just automatically exclude all none typical points of understanding or reasoning given a word or subject matter.

That 'form' of religion is a figurative sense.  In other words, an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group is metaphorically like a religion.  It doesn't mean that passionate interests literally are religions.

No, no I get the definition and I get that it a metaphor... I also get that it is still apart of the definition of the word religion, as it describes the works and dedication absent deity worship. Which again is compared to those who do worship a deity, but minus the deity which makes it a "Form of religion." (works and dedication minus the god)

Or do I need also define the word form??

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Drich how many times a day do you blur your monitor with the hot results of your jerking off over your own posts?

I dunno how many times he does it but I doubt it is quite as many as me.

But then, he's not a turtle.

No, he's a douchenozzling buttfaced santiclause.

[Crossless2.0]

That 'form' of religion is a figurative sense.  In other words, an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group is metaphorically like a religion.  It doesn't mean that passionate interests literally are religions.

No, no I get the definition and I get that it a metaphor... I also get that it is still apart of the definition of the word religion, as it describes the works and dedication absent deity worship. Which again is compared to those who do worship a deity, but minus the deity which makes it a "Form of religion." (works and dedication minus the god)

Or do I need also define the word form??

So why not simply dispense with the metaphor and use plain English, such as "work" or "dedication"? Of course, that's a rhetorical question. Doing so would deprive you of the false equivalency you perversely thrive upon.

[Pat Mustard]

Quick answer, for the same reason the smell of my farts aren't a religion.

Long answer, because science is a method of enqiring about the universe usin evidence to postulate theories and improving or discarding them as more or better evidence comes along (eg General Relativity replacing Newton's inverse square law to explain how gravity works). Religion is a method of convincing people that unevidenced assertions about the world are an unchangeable and immutable truth even when the evidence proves the assertions wrong (eg genesis and creatardism in general), and then using that brainwashing to exert power over the poor gullibles you've fooled.

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.

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.

To finalise as to why science isn't a religion I'll quote two scientists, one arreligious and one decidedly religious:

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.

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.

See that, neither scientist thought science a religion nor did they think that science had any relationship with religion.

[Drich]

No, no I get the definition and I get that it a metaphor... I also get that it is still apart of the definition of the word religion, as it describes the works and dedication absent deity worship. Which again is compared to those who do worship a deity, but minus the deity which makes it a "Form of religion." (works and dedication minus the god)

Or do I need also define the word form??

So why not simply dispense with the metaphor and use plain English, such as "work" or "dedication"? Of course, that's a rhetorical question. Doing so would deprive you of the false equivalency you perversely thrive upon.

Because on the oppsite side of the coin there are those who blindly follow their gods of 'science' out of sheer faith much like the faithful of anyother religion. Also because these paralells that you are all so quick to condemn by the religious swell your ranks as well. But yet you all pretend they do not. that somehow worshiping theory and culture of constant one ups-man-ship that 'science' is based on protects it's followers from blind faith. Which again is not true. Only the completely deluded and brain washed can possibly think that their 'faith' whatever it is 'lukewarm follower proof.'

[FatAndFaithless]

So why not simply dispense with the metaphor and use plain English, such as "work" or "dedication"? Of course, that's a rhetorical question. Doing so would deprive you of the false equivalency you perversely thrive upon.

Because on the oppsite side of the coin there are those who blindly follow their gods of 'science' out of sheer faith much like the faithful of anyother religion. Also because these paralells that you are all so quick to condemn by the religious swell your ranks as well. But yet you all pretend they do not. that somehow worshiping theory and culture of constant one ups-man-ship that 'science' is based on protects it's followers from blind faith. Which again is not true. Only the completely deluded and brain washed can possibly think that their 'faith' whatever it is 'lukewarm follower proof.'

Oh Drich...

[robvalue]

Anyone who thinks science is a form or religion is just showing they can't imagine any system where knowledge isn't declared by fiat. Really sad.

As I was saying...