religion

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Non Quixote [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And yet you continue to insist that science is a belief system as is religion.

Is it all science that you relegate to a belief system, or just the ones that support biological evolution?

If medical science is a belief system aren't you just as well off sitting at home with a broken leg and praying over it as you are visiting an emergency room? If a loved one contracts a life threatening illness are you simply going to pray for divine intervention?

Do you believe that computer scientists prayed over a block of silicon to receive enlightenment regarding computational complexity theory? Or is it more reasonable to assume that they arrived at a theory using the tools of science?

It exasperates me to no end that a person will decry evolutionary theory one moment and the next show up for an injection to protect themselves from the latest evolutionary form of a flu virus.

"All science is solid except for that evolutionary science stuff. That's just voodoo."

What exactly are you going on about? Why would I practice faith healing? Anyone with half a mind knows it not true. The best you will ever get is a placebo effect. Medicine was practiced long before the theory of evolution was canonized, so I'm not sure why I would be required to believe in evolution to receive medical treatment. By the way you know Luke was a physician right? Meaning a doctor. Science is not confined to evolution any more than its confined to the bible. If you can't see that then it only reinforces the fact that it is a religion. People were practicing science and medicine, curing diseases and practicing medicine long before Charles or Erasmus Darwin were ever even born. Evolution is not the end all be all of scientific endeavor or thought.

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Btw, there is nothing wrong with people going door to door asking if you want to hear what they have to say. It's ok that people have to accept the disease of being gay, but I'm not aloud to ask someone if they want to live the same happiness I do? Backwards logic there. What you also ask is that people accept facts that don't exist, but you also claim that people shouldn't accept, in your words, facts that don't exist. Also, the supernatural is up for personal interpretation for the most part.

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

This is open to basically ANYTHING currently not explainable could be considered supernatural. This even contradicts its other definition.

manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

So God in "theory" could just work at advanced technological levels that we don't understand, therefore it must be what you imply the definition of supernatural should be, but in reality, anything not able to be currently explained is supernatural, hell, most scientific theories could be explained as supernatural, and you base your opinions off of that, yet claim you don't believe in the supernatural.

Let's not also ignore the claims that science makes to be able to do God like things one day, and the existence of other life out there, apparently it's even more far fetched to assume that a God could possibly exist right? In the end though your responses and own beliefs are full of hypocritical statements and opinions. It isn't that you think people shouldn't believe in something, it's that you think everyone should just agree with your misinformation.

Holy fuck. Is everyone else reading this?

I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just trolling because I have a hard time believing that anyone's reading comprehension is that poor. But I'll give you some quick answers just in case it is.

The definition of supernatural that you gave works for the most part. Anything outside of the realm of the natural world is supernatural. A creator god would have to be outside of the natural world, else he or she couldn't create it.

Science only deals with the natural world, so no, scientific theories cannot be supernatural because the supernatural lies outside the realm of science. Which is why science makes no claim about gods, ghosts, goblins or spooks. Having said that, there are pseudo-sciences that do make that claim, so I understand the confusion.

Hell, science does god-like things now. Or at least it would appear so to a person a couple of centuries ago.

As to whether you agree with me or not, honestly I'm expecting you not to. That matters to me not a whit. What does matter is that I make a well reasoned argument, which is difficult given that the material that you've left me to work with is rife with non-sequiturs and confoundedly poor logic. But I like a challenge. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One question though:

Are you yet another one who believes that all scientists sit in labs using nothing but a Ouija board and a pair of dice or maybe some mouse entrails to create scientific theories?

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What exactly are you going on about? Why would I practice faith healing? Anyone with half a mind knows it not true. The best you will ever get is a placebo effect. Medicine was practiced long before the theory of evolution was canonized, so I'm not sure why I would be required to believe in evolution to receive medical treatment. By the way you know Luke was a physician right? Meaning a doctor. Science is not confined to evolution any more than its confined to the bible. If you can't see that then it only reinforces the fact that it is a religion. People were practicing science and medicine, curing diseases and practicing medicine long before Charles or Erasmus Darwin were ever even born. Evolution is not the end all be all of scientific endeavor or thought.

Danced all around my questions, so I'll just ask the most important one again. (Although I'm happy that we can both agree to faith healing being essentially bullshit.)

Is it all science that you relegate to a belief system, or just the ones that support biological evolution?

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Non Quixote [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Danced all around my questions, so I'll just ask the most important one again. (Although I'm happy that we can both agree to faith healing being essentially bullshit.)

Is it all science that you relegate to a belief system, or just the ones that support biological evolution?

I thought I stated it quite plainly several times. The theory of evolution is a religion. It does not encompass all science and all science does not require it. I respect the work of scientists,even those who are proponents of evolution. But I realize that it is a form of scientific interpretation, not science itself. Therefore I reject the interpretation of scientific findings into evolutionary terms.
Do you feel that there would be no science in any form without the theory of evolution?

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I thought I stated it quite plainly several times. The theory of evolution is a religion. It does not encompass all science and all science does not require it. I respect the work of scientists,even those who are proponents of evolution. But I realize that it is a form of scientific interpretation, not science itself. Therefore I reject the interpretation of scientific findings into evolutionary terms.
Do you feel that there would be no science in any form without the theory of evolution?

No, of course not. Science existed long before scientists started realizing that biological organisms evolved. Having said that, I can't think of any science that exists in a vacuum, or any that aren't connected to other scientific fields in some way.

I asked that specific question because many sciences contribute to or depend on evolutionary theory. Biology and anthropology for example. I asked medical questions because that science also contributes to, and is dependent on evolutionary theory.

I suppose I'm just trying to get my head around how you decide which of the fields of science are indeed "science" and which fields are just made up stuff.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Non Quixote [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, of course not. Science existed long before scientists started realizing that biological organisms evolved. Having said that, I can't think of any science that exists in a vacuum, or any that aren't connected to other scientific fields in some way.

I asked that specific question because many sciences contribute to or depend on evolutionary theory. Biology and anthropology for example. I asked medical questions because that science also contributes to, and is dependent on evolutionary theory.

I suppose I'm just trying to get my head around how you decide which of the fields of science are indeed "science" and which fields are just made up stuff.

How do you decide?

[mtb tripper]

jesus man... don't you understand that arguments like this never get anywhere.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

jesus man... don't you understand that arguments like this never get anywhere.

Go get high.

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How do you decide?

Good question. I'm an engineer not a scientist, (although I sometimes wish that I had chosen science instead) so I'm limited to reviewing evidence found in the field, and reading how scientists interpreted that evidence. I have no real problems with any science, so I'll stick to explaining why I accept evolutionary theory as opposed to rejecting it.

You're probably quite a bit younger than I am so suffice to say that I've had decades to delve into evolutionary study and review research findings. I've also had decades to research and review creationist and ID claims. What I look for are reasonable and logical interpretations of evidence as it relates to the natural universe. In other words, I've removed the possibility of supernatural influence from the equation. What I've found is that evolutionary science satisfies those requirements and explains the biosphere with enough clarity and precision to accept that the interpretations are valid. Further, the science is predictive, and in each instance where a prediction could be verified (in the field of microbiology for example), it has been.

When I add the possibility of divine intervention back into the equation and examine the claims of creationism, I find no evidence to support such a claim. But I suppose if there were evidence, we'd all be believers.

There you have my, albeit brief, honest answer.

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

jesus man... don't you understand that arguments like this never get anywhere.

Yeah, but I've got time to kill. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]