Is Science everything?

I don't think science is everything. I think science is everything on this level of existence. Everything we sense has to follow the laws of science. However, I think that things outside of our world don't necessarily follow the laws of science in our world.

Okay, seriously. I said this before on this forum, in a nearly identical $hitfest.

You got this giant universe whose parameters are unknown. We do not know what created it. We do not know whether other beings similar/superior to us are out there. We do not know everything about our OWN section of the universe, the world around us, our bodies and the brain that runs them. But atheists DO know for sure that there is no omnipotent being that created everything.

Sounds like another religion to me. You need faith to accept it, just like Catholicism or Buddhism.

Let's just drop the pretenses and let each other have faith in whatever we want to have faith in. You will NOT convince anyone -- especially on the internet -- on this issue. It's not going to happen.

Okay, seriously. I said this before on this forum, in a nearly identical $hitfest.

You got this giant universe whose parameters are unknown. We do not know what created it. We do not know whether other beings similar/superior to us are out there. We do not know everything about our OWN section of the universe, the world around us, our bodies and the brain that runs them. But atheists DO know for sure that there is no omnipotent being that created everything.

Sounds like another religion to me. You need faith to accept it, just like Catholicism or Buddhism.

Let's just drop the pretenses and let each other have faith in whatever we want to have faith in. You will NOT convince anyone -- especially on the internet -- on this issue. It's not going to happen.

I was just stating my opinion, but pretty much this. How about when we die, whoever predicts what happens right wins?

You got this giant universe whose parameters are unknown. We do not know what created it. We do not know whether other beings similar/superior to us are out there. We do not know everything about our OWN section of the universe, the world around us, our bodies and the brain that runs them. But atheists DO know for sure that there is no omnipotent being that created everything.

Sounds like another religion to me. You need faith to accept it, just like Catholicism or Buddhism.

It's not another religion. Based on your logic, I can say that black, the lack of a color, is a color? I could further say that if something is imaginary, then it is still real because something real must be imagining it.

No, that doesn't make sense. Atheism is just the rejection in the belief of a God. People who don't want to assume something exists. I'm pretty sure if God can be proved, many of the Athiests would be quick to convert.

Let's just drop the pretenses and let each other have faith in whatever we want to have faith in. You will NOT convince anyone -- especially on the internet -- on this issue. It's not going to happen.

So why can't we discuss it?

Atheism is just the rejection in the belief of a God.

So pagans are atheists?

I'm pretty sure if God can be proved, many of the Athiests would be quick to convert.

If it could be proven, it wouldn't be religion anymore.

Guess what? Science can't exactly be proven either. I believe in a lot of science myself, BUT you don't know for sure that it's real. There could be other factors that are way beyond what the human brain is capable of understanding.

It's pointless arguing about it though as nothing is truely proven. And people have different beliefs. What are you trying to accomplish by arguing about it anyway?

So pagans are atheists?

Woops, caught me there. Athiesm is the rejection of all gods, including Gods. Not all pagans are athiests. The Christian religion defines pagans as people who don't believe in God. That label includes everyone else who's not a Christian. You could say that all athiests are pagans, but not all pagans are athiests.

If it could be proven, it wouldn't be religion anymore.

lol.

Guess what? Science can't exactly be proven either. I believe in a lot of science myself, BUT you don't know for sure that it's real. There could be other factors that are way beyond what the human brain is capable of understanding.

Then you can say that we're all imaginary.

The reason scientific evidence is accepted is that as long as you follow a certain set of procedures, the same results almost always will appear.

It's pointless arguing about it though as nothing is truely proven. And people have different beliefs. What are you trying to accomplish by arguing about it anyway?

Passing time.

Religion runs along the line of belief. If God's existence could be proved, you will need to use science to prove or disprove, which factualize the existence of God, hence what russt said above.

Guess what? Science can't exactly be proven either. I believe in a lot of science myself, BUT you don't know for sure that it's real. There could be other factors that are way beyond what the human brain is capable of understanding.

It's pointless arguing about it though as nothing is truely proven. And people have different beliefs. What are you trying to accomplish by arguing about it anyway?

the definition of the word begs to differ

science
   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Religion runs along the line of belief. If God's existence could be proved, you will need to use science to prove or disprove, which factualize the existence of God, hence what russt said above.

Hmm...

that leads me to a very perplexing question:
What if God appears to Humankind and tells us some random statement, such as He is the only God?

Would that have to be proven as well?

Hmm...

that leads me to a very perplexing question:
What if God appears to Humankind and tells us some random statement, such as He is the only God?

Would that have to be proven as well?

id say no since religion is based on faith and faith means to believe in something not based in proof.

unless you want to prove it is true not just believe that he is the only god. then empirical evidence should be provided by this "god"

It's not another religion. Based on your logic, I can say that black, the lack of a color, is a color? I could further say that if something is imaginary, then it is still real because something real must be imagining it.

No, that doesn't make sense. Atheism is just the rejection in the belief of a God. People who don't want to assume something exists. I'm pretty sure if God can be proved, many of the Athiests would be quick to convert.So why can't we discuss it?

Again with me please lump everything in one section, I hate nested quotes.

Why not discuss it? Discussion is 1. for good conversation or 2. to convince someone of something. Religion deals with fundamental assumptions that are the cornerstone to every being's existence. Challenge those in the slightest and it's a warzone. You'll walk away probably very angry, certainly having accomplished nothing. THIS issue has been seriously beaten into the ground, people have argued it for YEARS, nobody has proven ANYTHING.

I am not saying science is a religion, I am saying ATHEISM is a religion. Atheism is not necessarily science because lots of scientists including my brother believe in God. The two are not necessarily the same. Atheists can be very rabid about the non-existence of God. I'd have argue they preach non-religion with the fervor of zealots... Bible-thumpers... evangelists. You can prove penicillin with science, you can't prove the parameters of the universe with it. We simply do not know whether God exists or not through empirical evidence, you have to use faith either way. For the religious, faith is acceptable. For the atheists supposedly only empirical proof is acceptable, but they HAVE no empirical proof. Logically then, only agnosticism and religion are logical alternatives. To actually say that God is "impossible" is without scientific evidence, and is an act of faith. Therefore, atheism is an act of faith. And the zealotry of the atheists is just proof of it. But you know what? I haven't convinced you. You still believe what you want to believe. And that's fine.

If you disagree with me that's FINE. But if we did argue you won't convince me either. We'd go around ALL FUUCKING DAY until we'd be screaming at each other, and nothing will happen. Some of my really good friends are atheists, I just don't talk about it with them, or they with me and because of that we can be good friends. Part of being a balanced human being -- regardless of what you believe -- is gaining the capacity to respect what others believe, even if you don't agree with it. It's one thing to stand by while some whore declares that pedophilia or rape is okay. But this seriously is not one of those issues. It's more of Republicans and Democrats coexisting with the other side even while they want their own guys running the country.

Offtopic: 31 replies in >24 hrs.

I'm an atheist. Sometimes I find it funny that if I tell someone that believes in god that I don't, they say "You'll go to hell" Bullshit.

Nevertheless, believing in a religion just to solve some questions with unreasonable answers is useless.

That's my opinion.

Offtopic: 31 replies in >24 hrs.

I'm an atheist. Sometimes I find it funny that if I tell someone that believes in god that I don't, they say "You'll go to hell" Bullpomegranate.

Nevertheless, believing in a religion just to solve some questions with unreasonable answers is useless.

That's my opinion.

Mocking religion as fairy tales and stuff for inferior intellects is not exactly better than bible-thumpers telling you to go to hell.

I'd have argue they preach non-religion with the fervor of zealots... Bible-thumpers... evangelists.

'they'

Who is this 'they'?

Offtopic: 31 replies in >24 hrs.

 This

1. for good conversation

Hence why the Rubik's Cube is called "Intelligent Conversation"

And what you've said was already mentioned. We're just taking it a step further.

Mocking religion as fairy tales and stuff for inferior intellects is not exactly better than bible-thumpers telling you to go to hell.

Then what is? Silence speaks conformity. If you don't believe something, at least say so.

Silence speaks conformity.

So before I popped my head into this thread, I agreed with everyone in here?

Please explain how this mechanism works.

Science cannot explain many things that happen in this world. However, it is yet to be seen, nor will it probably ever be seen in the living world, whether this is due to its incomplete nature or because of a greater power at work.

 This

Hence why the Rubik's Cube is called "Intelligent Conversation"

And what you've said was already mentioned. We're just taking it a step further.Then what is? Silence speaks conformity. If you don't believe something, at least say so.

Nested quotes. >.<

Intelligent conversation and good conversation are not necessarily the same thing. An intelligent conversation might be a horribly ugly legal proceeding in "family law," (divorces, custody battles, etc.) is VERY intelligent because it involves a judge and two lawyers, (which is 3 Juris Doctorates and as much as like 120-150 years of "conversation" experience.) I can tell you variations on such "intelligent conversation" for about an hour. However, intelligent conversation is not always good conversation. Internet religion debates are about as pleasant as family law, I think.

Silence is not conformity. It can be construed as any number of things, including respect, (students listening to a teacher,) to apathy, (people in an audience listening to a flatulent politician,) to boycott in some cases. Holocaust denial, a type of pseudo-academic hatred for lengthy reasons succeeds by engaging people about "dialogue" as to the reality of the Holocaust. They lie, their opponents tell the truth, but the truth cannot win against lies like this, so the history PhDs simply refuse to talk to the deniers. Silence is their rebuke to these people. Silence can be ANYTHING.

"They" was to the militant atheists. Since militant atheists were mentioned in the sentence befoer that one, I thought it was clear.

Guys I gotta go to bed, I am leaving the country Tuesday and I need to get some sleep.

So before I popped my head into this thread, I agreed with everyone in here?

Please explain how this mechanism works.

This mechanism doesn't work online, however let's say you're in school and your teacher asked you for an assignment:
Teacher: "You didn't do it did you"
You: *Nothing*
Teacher: "Ok, you didn't do it. I'm giving you a 0 on the assignment"

Likewise:
"Praise the Lord. God will bless you."
*Nothing* <~ Maybe smiling, looking away, idk.

^ If you don't say you're an Athiest and you step into a church, the members of that church usually automatically think you're religious.