Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Invisig0th

Science is a religion.

325 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Invisig0th

Discuss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Religion never changes, Science changes when new information is presented. Now I have to go pray before the altar of Sagan. :rolleyes:

I think you meant scientology.

Religion never changes? I think you need to wander down to your uni's religion department and ask them about the development of Christianity. 

When it comes down to it, mainstream science, despite all its claims of objectivity, and despite the fact it attempts to lay claim to the truth, is itself a religion.

Science places itself on a pedestal and assures everyone it has dispassionately arrived at its conclusions. Meanwhile, however, it is full of assumptions, denials and limitations, and makes the serious mistake of presenting its theories as facts. The errors of mainstream science are gladly seized upon by technocrats, eager to use science and technology to further their own ambitions of control, and include forcing the vaccine, GMO, surveillance, man-made global warming, geoengineering, SMART and micro-chipping agendas onto an unsuspecting public.

Edited by Invisig0th
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose

I guess it depends on how rigid the scientist is.

I mean, there have been lots of scientists who held onto something long after everyone else was saying hey, you mucked that study up. 

And there have been times where there was a consensus about something and it turned out to be wrong. But at least it's a system that does allow for mistakes to be corrected. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
Just now, ChaosRose said:

I guess it depends on how rigid the scientist is.

I mean, there have been lots of scientists who held onto something long after everyone else was saying hey, you mucked that study up. 

And there have been times where there was a consensus about something and it turned out to be wrong. But at least it's a system that does allow for mistakes to be corrected. 

Ask Graham Hancock about how well the self-correcting system works.

Every year there's another Göbekli Tepe that demonstrates modern archaeologists to be more and more wrong. And yet they cling to their dogma and tear down all dissenting viewpoints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
Just now, XenoFish said:

How about if I'm just honest about the whole subject and say that I don't care. To be honest all this anti-science crap is why people are progressively becoming stupider.

Who said anything about anti-science? I'm pro-science. I'm vehemently against close-minded individuals who don't realize that they too are clinging to a belief system.

We all pray to something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
4 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

hen it comes down to it, mainstream science, despite all its claims of objectivity,

science never 'claims' anything> what are you talking about? do you know what the word 'claim' means?

Edited by Dejarma
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose

I figure the scientific method isn't perfect, but what else have we got that's better?

As long as we understand that there are questions science can't really help us with, it's all good.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Just now, Invisig0th said:

You pray to the certainty of critical thinking and logic.

That's not praying. It's called using my brain. I like to know things, factual things. Makes life easier. Yeah keep hating on science while you use that computer. 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
Just now, XenoFish said:

That's not praying. It's called using my brain. I like to know things, factual things. Makes life easier. Yeah keep hating on science while you use that computer. 

 

Who decides what is factual? I'm serious. Let's break this down. 

You rely upon a notion of objectivity. Who determines what is or isn't objective? Your own perceptions? Collective peer-reviewed perceptions? Which peers? Which biases?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Methinks the question teeters precariously on the thin precipice that is running out of the edge that juts out of 'faith'

~

Edited by third_eye
coffee yet to come
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose

I get that whole gnosis thing you've got going on. The whole there are other ways of knowing idea. 

It's just that there's only so far down the rabbit hole you can go before you're having tea with the Mad Hatter.

I think you're there, dude.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

How about we do this. I'm going to assume that you know electricity can kill or hurt you pretty bad, right? So let's experiment. Wrap both of your index fingers in tinfoil, make sure they have a pointy tip. Then shove them into a wall socket. Will you get shocked or not? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

How about we do this. I'm going to assume that you know electricity can kill or hurt you pretty bad, right? So let's experiment. Wrap both of your index fingers in tinfoil, make sure they have a pointy tip. Then shove them into a wall socket. Will you get shocked or not? 

Why don't you respond to the questions I asked?

No one in this thread is contesting whether electricity exists or whether one can be electrocuted. You're so wrapped up in being clever you're avoiding the call of the question.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose

There are clearly questions science can't help us with, and people often look to religion for answers. 

Dogmatic organized religion just seems to make more problems, though. 

Better to be spiritually open-minded, but not so open-minded your brains fall out. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
15 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

Who decides what is factual? I'm serious. Let's break this down. 

You rely upon a notion of objectivity. Who determines what is or isn't objective? Your own perceptions? Collective peer-reviewed perceptions? Which peers? Which biases?

 

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Is there even a question? Sorry I wasn't paying attention. 

 

Evidently faith in the scientific method has not developed strong reading comprehension skills.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose

I'm just viewing it through different lenses, I guess. It seems to be a gnostic thing. 

There has been a lot of that floating around, lately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

I'm just viewing it through different lenses, I guess. It seems to be a gnostic thing. 

There has been a lot of that floating around, lately. 

In what way?

I've actually realized I have no idea of the true definition of Gnosis. Yes, it means knowledge, but is it an epiphany? Satori? A realization that something else underlies the material?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose
1 minute ago, Invisig0th said:

In what way?

I've actually realized I have no idea of the true definition of Gnosis. Yes, it means knowledge, but is it an epiphany? Satori? A realization that something else underlies the material?

Well, there is gnosis and then there are Gnostics. 

Generally, you find that there are just people who think there are other ways of 'knowing' things...and in particular, things that science can't tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
Just now, ChaosRose said:

Well, there is gnosis and then there are Gnostics. 

Generally, you find that there are just people who think there are other ways of 'knowing' things...and in particular, things that science can't tell us.

Sounds as if you're describing the psychedelic experience. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose
1 minute ago, Invisig0th said:

Sounds as if you're describing the psychedelic experience. 

Nah, it doesn't have to be that. 

I'm not a psychonaut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
52 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

Discuss.

Science is a religion?

No. Science has evolved through time.

Religion is based on dogma.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisig0th
4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Nah, it doesn't have to be that. 

I'm not a psychonaut. 

Another example could be the meditative experience.

When one goes deep into meditation, there are altered states achieved that words fail to describe. Direct experience is your only form of engagement with such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.