• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Science a religion?

Not really, snake oil is snake oil and science has done plenty to help the World without the proselytising and prayer. Was the 1940s the most recent you could find?

Nope, just the quickest.

Sure, science has done plenty to help the world. As has religion. The whole point was that these kinds of "here's an example of this and here's an example of that" arguments are silly. Both have done great good, both have done immeasurable harm.
 
Nope, just the quickest.

Sure, science has done plenty to help the world. As has religion. The whole point was that these kinds of "here's an example of this and here's an example of that" arguments are silly. Both have done great good, both have done immeasurable harm.

I disagree, religion has retarded human progress, science has freed us from that retardation.
 
I disagree, religion has retarded human progress, science has freed us from that retardation.

Feel free to disagree. But use better arguments. Merely listing an example of this and an example of that is silly.
 
Feel free to disagree. But use better arguments. Merely listing an example of this and an example of that is silly.

There are more humans on the planet now, and generally living very well, historically speaking, than ever due to science.

The days of religion are coming to an end. Thank science for that. The future is bright and free and scientific.
 
So, there is no proof that life began spontaneously. It might have been created. It may have come from elsewhere, either on its own or not.

On the other hand, in principle, we have many of the pieces to show in principle of how it could have happened. And, ew don't have any method in principle that shows how a deity would exist.
 
Feel free to disagree. But use better arguments. Merely listing an example of this and an example of that is silly.

The irony of snake oil salesmen faking and claiming to make the lame walk while science actually does it was clearly lost on you.
 
And, ew don't have any method in principle that shows how a deity would exist.

Aren't the plethora of holy books enough for you? Believe, believe........no proof needed!
 
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?

Your buddy has a good point, I am in the same position, tho I do call it, and consider it, "MY" religion
 
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?

So words are simply accepted representation of specific ideas. When we put them in sentences we are trying to convey complex ideas. So here's the thing. Does the word or words define the idea or is the idea defined by a set of words.

Clearly calling science a religion is a case of words trying to change the meaning of an idea, rather than that idea being defined by a set of words.

Having said that, the dictionary meaning is in fact, a group of people that share like ideas, but even if you try to make the word science describable by the word religion, does that really convey the meaning to your audience? Isn't that the point of using a specific set of words when conveying an idea? When people think about religion they think of theists, people who, in general, believe they know that a god exists, but cannot provide evidence to prove it. This idea is antithetical to science.

Science says nothing about a specific god, but through evidence and experiment makes claims about what is provisionally true, that is, true until new evidence is accepted to supplant old ideas. Clearly, this isn't what we know the word religion mean.
 
So words are simply accepted representation of specific ideas. When we put them in sentences we are trying to convey complex ideas. So here's the thing. Does the word or words define the idea or is the idea defined by a set of words.

Clearly calling science a religion is a case of words trying to change the meaning of an idea, rather than that idea being defined by a set of words.

Having said that, the dictionary meaning is in fact, a group of people that share like ideas, but even if you try to make the word science describable by the word religion, does that really convey the meaning to your audience? Isn't that the point of using a specific set of words when conveying an idea? When people think about religion they think of theists, people who, in general, believe they know that a god exists, but cannot provide evidence to prove it. This idea is antithetical to science.

Science says nothing about a specific god, but through evidence and experiment makes claims about what is provisionally true, that is, true until new evidence is accepted to supplant old ideas. Clearly, this isn't what we know the word religion mean.

Maybe you have thought of religion a in terms of deities. I always though ar religion as a set of self (or otherwise) inposed rules, not the people who are a part of that religion.
 
I have no understanding of MY OWN religion, but YOU do??? That's funny.

Theists always assume atheists or the irreligious have no experience with religion. Most atheists come from a religious background. Many atheists are former preachers, and priests.
So yes it is entirely possible he knows more than you.

Maybe you have thought of religion a in terms of deities. I always though ar religion as a set of self (or otherwise) inposed rules, not the people who are a part of that religion.

Many religions do not require deities. Most atheists know that. Most theists do not.
 
Last edited:
Theists always assume atheists or the irreligious have no experience with religion. Most atheists come from a religious background. Many atheists are former preachers, and priests.
So yes it is entirely possible he knows more than you.



Many religions do not require deities. Most atheists know that. Most theists do not.
While you have not said it precisely. It appears you have assumed that I am, a theist. I AM NOT, I am an Athiest. (Shoe on the wronge foot?)
 
Back
Top Bottom