RE: The connection of atheism and isis
December 10, 2017 at 11:20 pm
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2017 at 11:22 pm by vulcanlogician.)
Okay, the separation into paragraphs really helped.
Well, in a way man is special (his cognitive functioning and social features seem to differ wildly from the rest of the species) but I don't want to miss your point. Science doesn't by its nature elevate man at all; science is a mode of observation. Nobody here worships it, and people take offense when they are told they worship something they don't. If you told me somebody is the best eye doctor in town, that doesn't mean you worship him. You merely appreciate his ability to correctly diagnose eye problems. If you caught genital herpes, you may not consider him to be an appropriate expert to consult in your search for treatment.
So it is with science. Science can tell you what happens when particles collide, about the origins of the universe, about certain biological principles. It can't be an object of veneration unless someone tacks some kind of religion to it.
Not in the same way believers do. No one has killed another because they didn't give due respect to Copernicus.
Look, maybe some scientist pursues work that interests him. Duh. That's how discoveries are made. Disinterested parties wouldn't be able to pursue their work with the requisite passion. But if it helps you sleep at night, I'm sure that many, many scientists end up being bored to tears by what they do. So bored in fact, that they might even rather read a copy of "Exotic Tales from Ancient Israel".
You have made a whole list of really weak points here. Maybe you should just pick your strongest point and see if you can't argue that. It's exhausting to tell you how wrong you are on all of that.
PS: I don't think you should take offense to responses to your first post. If you write clearly as you did in your second post, more perhaps might discuss it with you.
(December 10, 2017 at 10:38 pm)macgyver151 Wrote: You guys are right, it was not well written, my heart was not in it because there is no point in attacking someones religious beliefs. One of the religious beliefs of science is that is not a religion. People get offended when you attack their religious beliefs. So I apologize, here are the top 10 reasons science is a religion.
Well, in a way man is special (his cognitive functioning and social features seem to differ wildly from the rest of the species) but I don't want to miss your point. Science doesn't by its nature elevate man at all; science is a mode of observation. Nobody here worships it, and people take offense when they are told they worship something they don't. If you told me somebody is the best eye doctor in town, that doesn't mean you worship him. You merely appreciate his ability to correctly diagnose eye problems. If you caught genital herpes, you may not consider him to be an appropriate expert to consult in your search for treatment.
So it is with science. Science can tell you what happens when particles collide, about the origins of the universe, about certain biological principles. It can't be an object of veneration unless someone tacks some kind of religion to it.
(December 10, 2017 at 10:38 pm)macgyver151 Wrote: Science Reveres Its Own Saints-
Not in the same way believers do. No one has killed another because they didn't give due respect to Copernicus.
(December 10, 2017 at 10:38 pm)macgyver151 Wrote: Science requires faith -Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.
Look, maybe some scientist pursues work that interests him. Duh. That's how discoveries are made. Disinterested parties wouldn't be able to pursue their work with the requisite passion. But if it helps you sleep at night, I'm sure that many, many scientists end up being bored to tears by what they do. So bored in fact, that they might even rather read a copy of "Exotic Tales from Ancient Israel".
You have made a whole list of really weak points here. Maybe you should just pick your strongest point and see if you can't argue that. It's exhausting to tell you how wrong you are on all of that.
PS: I don't think you should take offense to responses to your first post. If you write clearly as you did in your second post, more perhaps might discuss it with you.
