what is the definition of science?

SteveB

Well-known member
Still haven't worked out what atheism is, huh?
Oh, I don't know.
the Soviet and communist governments of Asia gave us some great examples.
Chinese citizens are thrown into prison, and killed quite regularly.
the soviet government provided fantastic examples of how spectacular the atheist mindset is.
Stalin alone slaughtered 20 million citizens.

The No. Korean government is still doing a wild job of showing us to this day, how great atheism is.
All I'd have to do is mention the word--- Jesus-- and I'd either be thrown into prison, or shot on sight.

If you have the courage, you can read the report for yourself.

the link in the article takes you to a 98 page report on what's been happening in No. Korea.

China,

So..... worked out atheism?
Looks pretty simple.
they don't like Christians, or anyone else who doesn't follow their ideologies, and once they get in large enough numbers, the anvil comes crashing down, and they remove their "enemies" from their site.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Oh, I don't know.
Precisely.
the Soviet and communist governments of Asia gave us some great examples.
No, they didn't.
Chinese citizens are thrown into prison, and killed quite regularly.
Irrelevant.
the soviet government provided fantastic examples of how spectacular the atheist mindset is.
No, it didn't.
Stalin alone slaughtered 20 million citizens.
Irrelevant.
The No. Korean government is still doing a wild job of showing us to this day, how great atheism is.
No, it's not.
All I'd have to do is mention the word--- Jesus-- and I'd either be thrown into prison, or shot on sight.
Irrelevant.
If you have the courage, you can read the report for yourself.

the link in the article takes you to a 98 page report on what's been happening in No. Korea.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
So..... worked out atheism?
I worked it out long ago. I am one, after all.
Looks pretty simple.
Yet, amazingly, you continue to get it wrong. As in this post.
they don't like Christians, or anyone else who doesn't follow their ideologies, and once they get in large enough numbers, the anvil comes crashing down, and they remove their "enemies" from their site.
See? You still don't know what atheism is and don't want to learn.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Precisely.

No, they didn't.

Irrelevant.

No, it didn't.

Irrelevant.

No, it's not.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

I worked it out long ago. I am one, after all.

Yet, amazingly, you continue to get it wrong. As in this post.

See? You still don't know what atheism is and don't want to learn.
Well, since everything is irrelevant, I guess that means you've just become irrelevant.
Ciao.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Well, since everything is irrelevant, I guess that means you've just become irrelevant.
Inventing again? Why do you never respond to what people actually say, but instead respond to things you invent?

The only person who has said or implied that "everything is irrelevant" is you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Inventing again? Why do you never respond to what people actually say, but instead respond to things you invent?

The only person who has said or implied that "everything is irrelevant" is you.
Nope. Your statements were pretty clear.
You said several times that my comments were irrelevant. Seems to me that since you are not able to discuss them, and view them as irrelevant, that pretty much makes you irrelevant.

Not sure why you're so bothered by my statement. You obviously had no problem whatsoever stating what I said was irrelevant.

What makes you think that you can dismiss the conversation of others and retain your relevance?

I'm simply giving you what you want. To be dismissed as irrelevant.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
The title of this thread is "What is the Definition of Science." It has been a long long time since anyone has posted anything about that question. I think it is potentially a very interesting philosophical subject. It is too bad no one here is discussing it anymore.
 

Komodo

Active member
The title of this thread is "What is the Definition of Science." It has been a long long time since anyone has posted anything about that question. I think it is potentially a very interesting philosophical subject. It is too bad no one here is discussing it anymore.
I don't think anybody actually disputed the definition offered by the Science Council which Steve quoted in the OP. I think we all understood that that definition, like any brief definition, was going to simplify or elide some things, but were there any that you see as particularly problematic?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
You are indeed entitled to your opinions.
Opinions that were backed up by dozens of quotes right outr of the Bible.

My opinion is based on facts.

Your opinion is based on ignoring facts.

I'm sure glad I never paid attention to your ideologies. We'd still be back in the inquisition. Although, as I understand it, a new inquisition is coming, and it'll be the atheists who head it up.
More paranoid delusions. What is your basis for thinking "a new inquisition is coming"? Is there any actual evidence for that, or is it wat your puppet master told you to think?

What is it you object to Steve? Is it this one:

"We oppose religious exemptions to laws pertaining to public health and safety."

Or perhaps this one:

"We oppose all religious litmus tests. There should be no religious test for running for office, for being considered “American” enough, for becoming an American citizen, or for visiting the United States."

Do you honestly think these are leading to "a new inquisition is coming, and it'll be the atheists who head it up"?

But hey, it is a nice distraction from the fact that the Bible says the world is flat and covered by a solid dome.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Wow..... if every there was a post filled to the hilt with preconceptions, and biased thinking....
IS there a point when you actually learn, instead of fitting what you read to your biases?

Well, congratulations.
Words can't even begin to find their way through the laughter.
.....
.....
.....
Congratulations P. You did in one post what you've accused others of for years.
But you cannot actually address a single point, can you? There are literally dozens of verses throughout the Bible that indicate the Earth is flat, and you are unable to address a single one.

But then, all you have is that your puppet masters have told you it is not so, and so you think it is not so. You have surrended your ability to actually think for yourself, and all you have left is this empty rhetoric.
 

J regia

Well-known member
But you cannot actually address a single point, can you? There are literally dozens of verses throughout the Bible that indicate the Earth is flat, and you are unable to address a single one.

But then, all you have is that your puppet masters have told you it is not so, and so you think it is not so. You have surrended your ability to actually think for yourself, and all you have left is this empty rhetoric.
And Jesus must have believed that Earth was flat too, and why he claimed that he could see India and China and Egypt and Rome from an extremely high mountain (Matt 4:8).
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Opinions that were backed up by dozens of quotes right outr of the Bible.
Actually, your opinions were backed up by your opinions of what the bible said.
They were rather glaring.
My opinion is based on facts.
No. If they were actually factual--- which you've spent years denying they were-- you wouldn't have used your opinions about them to do so.
So, thank you for so illustrious a collection of opinions about the facts.

Your opinion is based on ignoring facts.
That would make it esier for you to continue to deny the truth, wouldn't it.
The only problem is--- I'm not the one who keeps arguing that the bible is a book of myths, and God isn't real, so the ideas were clearly false.


More paranoid delusions. What is your basis for thinking "a new inquisition is coming"? Is there any actual evidence for that, or is it wat your puppet master told you to think?
No actually, observation.
in case you missed it, it started during Obama's presidency.
What is it you object to Steve? Is it this one:

"We oppose religious exemptions to laws pertaining to public health and safety."

Or perhaps this one:

"We oppose all religious litmus tests. There should be no religious test for running for office, for being considered “American” enough, for becoming an American citizen, or for visiting the United States."
Maybe it something else entirely.
After all, people who've claimed previously developed allegiances would not be able to break that allegiance to their allegiances, to become allegiant to this country's constitution, and bill of rights.


Do you honestly think these are leading to "a new inquisition is coming, and it'll be the atheists who head it up"?
Pretty much.

But hey, it is a nice distraction from the fact that the Bible says the world is flat and covered by a solid dome.
I find it amusing that you've chosen the catholic idea of the world, which, as I recall was based on an ancient greek philosopher, instead of the bible.
The problem I'm having here is that I was never a catholic. So, why would I have every accepted that as a valid worldview of the cosmos?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
But you cannot actually address a single point, can you? There are literally dozens of verses throughout the Bible that indicate the Earth is flat, and you are unable to address a single one.

But then, all you have is that your puppet masters have told you it is not so, and so you think it is not so. You have surrended your ability to actually think for yourself, and all you have left is this empty rhetoric.
Actualy, I was enjoying a nice night of sleep while you were ranting.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Actually, your opinions were backed up by your opinions of what the bible said.
They were rather glaring.
Steve, I quoted what the Bible said. Dozens of instances where it says the world is flat and the sun revolves around.

In contrast you have... nothing.

You are unable to address a single one of them. Why is that?

No. If they were actually factual--- which you've spent years denying they were-- you wouldn't have used your opinions about them to do so.
The fact is that the Bible says it. For example, it is a fact that Genesis 1: 6 says "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." You can go see for yourself by looking at this only Bible.

That is not my opinion, Steve. it actually says that.

And I am not saying the Bible is correct when it says that - it clearly is not - so please do not play that game.

The only problem is--- I'm not the one who keeps arguing that the bible is a book of myths, and God isn't real, so the ideas were clearly false.
No, you are not arguing anything. You have no reasoning, you have no evidence.

You have no arguments, so of course you are not arguing anything.

No actually, observation.
in case you missed it, it started during Obama's presidency.
So what are these observations?

I asked you for evidence, and your reply is this? Why no evidence, Steve? Because they are paranoid delusions!

Maybe it something else entirely.
Sure. But you clearly have no clue what that is.

You have been instructed to think "a new inquisition is coming, and it'll be the atheists who head it up", but you are clearly unable to offer any actual evidence of it. And apparently lack the ability to even realise that.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
A few weeks ago a former atheist, who runs a christian facebook page on science, pointing out all the great discoveries of the scientific world, posted a picture of DEgrasse-Tyson, and Sam Harris.
I finally went back to the first two posts to figure out what all the fuss is about. It seems that SteveB is critical of those who use science to support their disbelief in God, giving examples of DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris. I am not sure how this fairly narrow criticism got widened into a criticism of other scientists who do not share the view of DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris.

I will say that on the first point, I agree with SteveB. DeGrasse-Tyson's and Harris' beliefs do not follow inevitably from science. This is evident, not only from the examples of Newton and Galileo, but from the thousands of modern-day scientists who also find faith in God compatible with their understanding of science. I have not reviewed all the other posts in this thread, so I don't know if I agree with SteveB on everything else that has been posted.

However I will remark on the recent attempts to "prove" an incompatibility of faith in God with science. Those attempts have been primarily in citations of scripture and their literal interpretations. This may be sufficient to prove that the literal interpretation of every book of scripture as a science textbook is incompatible with science. But it is not sufficient to prove a more general incompatibility of faith in God with science. At most this would be sufficient to prove incompatibility with science only for those very few churches that do take every word of the bible as literally true as a science textbook. But the vast majority of Christian and Jewish and other faiths do not believe this. Most of them believe that scripture is intended to be 100% true regarding the essential relationship between God and Man, with the understanding that each book of the bible was written in a different literary style and requires understanding of the context to extract the essential truths. So unless someone here is defending the science textbook literal truth of the bible, there is little point to citing contradictions to that interpretation, or you will be fighting with a straw man.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I finally went back to the first two posts to figure out what all the fuss is about. It seems that SteveB is critical of those who use science to support their disbelief in God, giving examples of DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris. I am not sure how this fairly narrow criticism got widened into a criticism of other scientists who do not share the view of DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris.
It's not directed towards those who don't have similar views as DeGrasse and Harris.
It never was.
So, thank you for pointing this out!
My point always was about people who treat science as something other than it actually is.
My academic career was in math and physics. As part of my coursework I took chemistry, programming in C++, and C#. In my subsequent work I learned to code in VBA, mostly for Excel, but it slowly expanded to Android, xml, and Java.
So, my love and respect for actual science is not quenched.


I will say that on the first point, I agree with SteveB. DeGrasse-Tyson's and Harris' beliefs do not follow inevitably from science. This is evident, not only from the examples of Newton and Galileo, but from the thousands of modern-day scientists who also find faith in God compatible with their understanding of science. I have not reviewed all the other posts in this thread, so I don't know if I agree with SteveB on everything else that has been posted.
My point was not to get people to walk in lockstep with me. It never was.
It was to simply point out the bs that people call science which is actually scientism.


However I will remark on the recent attempts to "prove" an incompatibility of faith in God with science. Those attempts have been primarily in citations of scripture and their literal interpretations. This may be sufficient to prove that the literal interpretation of every book of scripture as a science textbook is incompatible with science. But it is not sufficient to prove a more general incompatibility of faith in God with science. At most this would be sufficient to prove incompatibility with science only for those very few churches that do take every word of the bible as literally true as a science textbook. But the vast majority of Christian and Jewish and other faiths do not believe this. Most of them believe that scripture is intended to be 100% true regarding the essential relationship between God and Man, with the understanding that each book of the bible was written in a different literary style and requires understanding of the context to extract the essential truths. So unless someone here is defending the science textbook literal truth of the bible, there is little point to citing contradictions to that interpretation, or you will be fighting with a straw man.
I'm good from here.
Have a great day.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I finally went back to the first two posts to figure out what all the fuss is about. It seems that SteveB is critical of those who use science to support their disbelief in God, giving examples of DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris. I am not sure how this fairly narrow criticism got widened into a criticism of other scientists who do not share the view of DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris.

I will say that on the first point, I agree with SteveB. DeGrasse-Tyson's and Harris' beliefs do not follow inevitably from science. This is evident, not only from the examples of Newton and Galileo, but from the thousands of modern-day scientists who also find faith in God compatible with their understanding of science. I have not reviewed all the other posts in this thread, so I don't know if I agree with SteveB on everything else that has been posted.
I don't think Tyson or Harris have ever claimed that their beliefs about religion follow inevitably from science. Steve's criticism still remains wholly unsupported, as he has not quoted a single word from Tyson or Harris to object against, and has equally failed to support his charge against CARM atheists with so much as a single quoted example. In fact, when pressed Steve admitted that by 'treating science as a religion', he just meant anyone who had the gall to disagree with him on biblical matters, showing his objection to have nothing to do with science or atheism, and everything to do with his own inflated ego.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
My academic career was in math and physics. As part of my coursework I took chemistry, programming in C++, and C#. In my subsequent work I learned to code in VBA, mostly for Excel, but it slowly expanded to Android, xml, and Java.
Hey, neat. Me too. MA in Math, 1970. I have apps the Google Play Store and Apple's App Store. I also program microcontrollers and design circuit boards.

Steve's criticism still remains wholly unsupported, as he has not quoted a single word from Tyson or Harris to object against
Such a quote is not needed when there are so many other scientists who do not arrive at the same conclusion. Therefore we can safely say DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris have their personal opinion, and they are welcome to it. But the burden is on them (or you) to show that their view follows from science, not one Steve to show that it doesn't.


, and has equally failed to support his charge against CARM atheists with so much as a single quoted example.
I think we can write off that charge as just speculation or hyperbole, and not central to his view.

It may not be true for all atheists, but it does seem to be true for these particular atheists (DeGrasse Tyson and Harris) that they treat science as their religion, since they use it (abuse it?) to arrive at a religious conclusion. By the way, I really admire DeGrasse Tyson when he speaks strictly about science.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Such a quote is not needed when there are so many other scientists who do not arrive at the same conclusion. Therefore we can safely say DeGrasse-Tyson and Harris have their personal opinion, and they are welcome to it. But the burden is on them (or you) to show that their view follows from science, not one Steve to show that it doesn't.
The burden is on Steve to show that they treat science as a religion. He has not done that. They don't have to show their views on religion follow from science. That has never been their claim. They need only support their views with reason, which is what they do.

I think we can write off that charge as just speculation or hyperbole, and not central to his view.
It's his entire argument, and he hasn't even attempted to support it in any way whatsoever.

It may not be true for all atheists, but it does seem to be true for these particular atheists (DeGrasse Tyson and Harris) that they treat science as their religion, since they use it (abuse it?) to arrive at a religious conclusion. By the way, I really admire DeGrasse Tyson when he speaks strictly about science.
Where do either of these authors treat science as a religion? Where do they abuse science in support of their conclusions about religion? Steve has given no support for this at all - maybe you can do better?
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
The burden is on Steve to show that they treat science as a religion. He has not done that. They don't have to show their views on religion follow from science. That has never been their claim. They need only support their views with reason, which is what they do.


It's his entire argument, and he hasn't even attempted to support it in any way whatsoever.


Where do either of these authors treat science as a religion? Where do they abuse science in support of their conclusions about religion? Steve has given no support for this at all - maybe you can do better?
I still think you have the burden of proof backwards. The statement that one thing does not follow from another is the null hypothesis. The claim that it does is the positive hypothesis. Steve is claiming the null hypothesis, which is circumstantially supported by the fact that other scientists, who presumably have access to the same scientific skills, are people of faith.

As for treating science like a religion, what can that mean other than that someone draws religious conclusions from it? By drawing religious conclusions from science, that science is essentially elevated to the level of being a religion in itself. With the correct understanding of the sense of the term, it is not that far fetched to say that those who draw religious conclusions from science are treating science like religion.
 
Top