Seeing as science is now a religion?

)reply(

File: 5275890759032573.png (127KB, 1153x823px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1153x823px

>>8861994
>Seeing as science is now a religion?
Here's your reply.

wew

File: 1373355394902.jpg (696KB, 3648x2052px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 3648x2052px

>>8861994
Congratulations!
You're retarded!

>>8861994
(You)

>>8861994
they basically already have, though they won't call them that
CERN is basically the Vatican of science-centered secular humanism

1) religion does not equal belief
2) belief does not equal trust
3) region requires belief, but doesn't require trust
4) science DOES requires trust, (which is neither faith nor religion nor belief) and is verified every time it is feasible to do so

Point 4 is probably why OP compares science to religion. The scientific method is an algorithmic solution to the trusting trust problem that every religion is plagued with. In all ways comparable it is different and NOT like religion.

The fact that science requires trust but not belief/faith, and religion requires faith/belief but not trust means it's possible for people to accept both. Most Christians who have higher education will continue to practice their faith. This is further proof that science is not a religion.

>>8862101
>3) region requires belief, but doesn't require trust

You're fucking retarded

>>8861994
Scientists want us to believe that the universe sprang from nothing in an instant for no reason, basically what they are saying is "give us one free miracle".

You face similar repercussions, ostracize, become persona non grate, etc, if you are in a religion but you have doubts about something they teach, and if you have doubts about what science is peddling.

>>8861994
Edgy, kys.

>>8862101
>1) religion does not equal belief
Wrong. All religions are specific sets of beliefs.

>2) belief does not equal trust
But there must be an amount of trust in a belief for it to be a belief in the first place.

>3) region requires belief, but doesn't require trust
It requires an amount of trust in that belief.

>4) science DOES requires trust, (which is neither faith nor religion nor belief) and is verified every time it is feasible to do so
Not necessarily. Although people would generally trust a scientist who said, for example, a water molecule is 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, there's nothing preventing them from refusing to believe this claim until they personally learn the chemistry and read the evidence, or even run an experiment themselves to verify whether the claim is true or not. Science does not "require" trust, though trust is usually a more convenient way of approaching scientific knowledge for a non-expert.


Also OP please leave this board and never come back. Thanks.

>>8861994
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew

>>8862111
>Scientists want us to believe that the universe sprang from nothing in an instant for no reason
That's just new age Papal spin, a Jesuit stole that theory from the Vatican basement catacombs.

File: 1492800585705.png (138KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 500x486px

>>8861994

File: haha.jpg (41KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x437px

>>8862111
>Scientists want us to believe that the universe sprang from nothing in an instant for no reason

File: konata_wall___test_v101_by_xnekomatax-d4nji3y.png (267KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1032x774px

>>8862111
>Scientists want us to believe that the universe sprang from nothing in an instant for no reason
wew

Neck yourself ASAP

File: 1491936652093.jpg (48KB, 971x959px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 971x959px

>>8862101
the sheer amount of autism in this post pains me

>>8862288
looks like OP has been irreparably BTFO, close this thread now to save yourself embarrassment OP

>>8862278
>>8862305
>>8862315
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang.
>the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is still poorly understood and an area of open investigation and speculation.
>Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[14] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. How closely models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity is debated
>This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang"
>"the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.
>The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time; this infinite energy density is regarded as impossible in physics. Still, it is known that the equations are not applicable before the time when the universe cooled down to the Planck temperature, and this conclusion depends on various assumptions, of which some could never be experimentally verified.
>One proposed refinement to avoid this would-be singularity is to develop a correct treatment of quantum gravity.[116]
>It is not known what could have preceded the hot dense state of the early universe or how and why it originated, though speculation abounds in the field of cosmogony.

File: konata_izumi_by_kmilofx.png (268KB, 1420x893px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1420x893px

>>8862416
>It is not known what could have preceded
Like I said, neck yourself

>>8862416
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony
>The most commonly held view is that the universe was once a gravitational singularity, which expanded
>on the question of whether time existed "before" the emergence of our universe. One cosmogonical view sees time as fundamental and even eternal: The universe could have contained the singularity because the universe evolved or changed from a prior state (the prior state was "empty space", or maybe a state that could not be called "space" at all). The other view says that there was no change through time because "time" itself emerged along with this universe (in other words, there can be no "prior" to the universe).[5] Thus, it remains unclear what combination of "stuff", space, or time emerged with the singularity and this universe.
>there is currently no theoretical model that explains the earliest moments of the universe's existence (during the Planck time) because of a lack of a testable theory of quantum gravity.
>no accelerator experiments probe energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed shortly after the Big Bang. Furthermore, since astronomical observations imply a singularity at the origin of the universe, experiments at any given high energy level will always be dwarfed by the infinite energy level predicted by Big Bang Theory. Therefore, significant technological and conceptual advances would be needed to propose a scientific test for cosmogonical theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
>The very early universe, from the Planck epoch until the cosmic inflation, or the first picosecond of cosmic time; this period is the domain of active theoretical research, currently beyond the grasp of experiments
>The Planck scale is the scale beyond which current physical theories do not have predictive value.

>>8861994
It is a sad state of affairs to see people deify science as they have, for science is simply an understanding of the physical world we live in, not a set of morals. People know smoking is bad for them, but they do it anyway.

All people did, as a science, was observe these things and came to logical conclusions. Anyone can do these things. Just a matter of actually doing.

If people truly view science as their "religion", then they worship facts about this life. Nothing more. There is no enlightenment, morals, or any structure in place that is meant to lift the individual up.

Just facts. Most of which, isn't used by those that learn these things. Only the bits and pieces that are relevant. Therefore, if it is seen as a "religion" it has no door to prevent people from behaving as they see fit, this includes the bad, which there has been an increasing amount of globally, even in positions of authority.

Such a sad state of affairs. Good thing it'll be over soon.

The further removed from the observable, the less useful the science. So yes, as you try to piece together the creation of the universe then you start dabbling in areas more akin to faith. And then there are the shitters that come out with "it's a x% chance it's all a simulation". Oh how convenient. But no.

science and religion are part of the same spectrum

Religion is woo-woo and bullshit formulated by the irrational fear that subhumans have of the objective knowledge that there is no afterlife, and only really stupid, shitty woo-woo-meisters are religious (it should be illegal to be religious)

Atheism is the only thing that is eternal, along with taxes. Fuck religion, fuck philosophy and fuck anti-science (Republican politics, climate change denial, etc.).

WOO-WO ALERT!!!! BUYBULL DETECTED!!!!!!

>>8862703

Side note, science has completely crushed the necessity for religion, and thus it is a toxic and extinct ideology only held by very stupid people.

Science is a substitute for religion, and thus should be revered as such. Atheists/scientists (same thing) always have a greater IQ and better qualities than religious "people", so that's enough proof needed to debunk woo-woo

File: billnyemothfull.gif (408KB, 467x326px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 467x326px

So is this guy /sci/s pope now? Kind of seems that way.

File: David.jpg (52KB, 322x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 322x600px

Science and religion are basically the same thing these days. A bunch of random facts glued together with a bunch of falsehoods. Sold to the masses as the absolute truth.
Anyone who disagrees with the dogma, is a heretic.

File: 1485140647393.jpg (268KB, 747x667px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 747x667px

>>8862101
>>3) region requires belief, but doesn't require trust
>4) science DOES requires trust, (which is neither faith nor religion nor belief) and is verified every time it is feasible to do so
this is what undergrads believe

>>8861994
Universities are the churches and chapels of science.
The scientific method is a satanic ritual.

>>8861994
>I don't understand science

>>8863649
a ritual that, unlike churches, does produce miracles

>>8863671
only for hedonists

>>8862497

>It is a sad state of affairs to see people deify science as they have, for science is simply an understanding of the physical world we live in, not a set of morals

what is sociology?

admit it, the difference is very blurred

>>8861994
Just because a few people who aren't scientifically educated stand on the side of scientists despite not understanding their work,

it doesn't fucking mean that scientists don't understand their own work

>>8863541

NO THEY FUCKING AREN'T, you are a piece of shit, a Buybull-thumper, and have no problem in telling that when you die, the last thing you feel before eternal oblivion is fear and sadness. There is no God, the Buybull should be banned and replaced by textbooks, and you are a total fucking piece of shit for DARING to even think that religion and science are the same; SCIENCE IS FOREVER; SCIENCE IS ATHEISM

Scientists! If you aren't atheist or Democrats, then you are poo-poo-heads and not thinking hard enough!

>>8863671

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA THIS SO MUCH! Fuck church and fuck religion, science is the only medicine you'll ever need!