In other words, it is that self evidence, objectivity, and demonstrability that makes logic / rationality more than faith, no?
That is just what I'm pointing out. A disturbingly increasing amount of people sought logic and/or rationality and/or science to explicitly change the old scriptures and dogmas. In some ways that's just like another kind of religions; with equations as its holy words.
Absolutely false. You keep equating a faith based system with an information and objective evidence system... they do not equate each other in terms of probability or rightness. 1 is right, the other is a pack of horrible lies that relies on human gullibility. You saying Atheism or Science is just another religion and equations are scripture is wrong...
1. Rational people don't worship. Period.
2. It doesn't require faith to know that 2 + 2 = 4, Nor do I know a single rational person who worships that equation. Saying Equations and formulas are our holy words is nuts, science is not a system of belief, its a system of learning. Do you have any idea how many Science based things there are in the world? SO are combustion engines our Helios Chariots? Is Chemical reduction our prayers? When we split atoms, is it religion? No. No it is not. My car is not holy. The Erl I smoke (Chemically reduced THC) is not magical.
Saying that Science = our religion would be like saying Bald is Vin Diesels hair color. It doesn't make sense.
It is not enlightenment, just seeking a different master to bow down at.
Huh? Uhh no... there is no "master to bow to" in Science, there is no worship, there is no reason for any of it. There is only slavery in Religion.
If, and this is a huge if, later someone'll find out that one of the metaphysical terms are true and in fact, helped made the world function, it will be no one other than the diehard scientific who will defend their understanding of the world strongly.
Hell, we already see it as far as things like astrology, divination, things like souls and energies are concerned..
I'm not sure what you're saying, but science evolves with time and method. Religion doesn't really. The die-hard scientist upon being proven wrong will usually adjust his system to the correct data. Thats the backbone of science. Astrology, divination and souls dont exist in reality. They are just words with no backing.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Or perhaps even if I'm right, there are no relations; the similarities between believers of science and believers of religion doesn't make your argument null and invalid. I realized the possibility.
What similarities? There really are none.
However, my proposition simply argues that they are seeking the same thing.
I know that's your point. I understand that, its still wrong.
I have to either ask for your cooperation to expand the definition of faith beyond religious faith...Or I'll follow your limits and engage you in your term
Alternatively, even when limiting the definition of faith within religious, dogmatic context; not all religious lacks facts and orders.
Your words seems to imply that being religious stifle sense, rationality, and logic.
It does... is it a wonder that something like 90% of all elite scientists are atheists or nonbelievers. Science and religion IMO are fundamentally incompatible. Yes I am focusing in on faith as in religion, but really, that's where its used. Can you tell me which religions don't lack facts?
You did realize that a significant number of scientist and biologists and scholars of yore are also religious people?
And that logic itself might have been a product of religion? (See : Buddhist/Indian logic. Even Islamic / Christian philosophers of yore provided efforts to study and develop logic)
Yeah, they lived during a time when atheism was considered heresy and they were put to death by the Church or stripped of their assets and wealth and arrested. Furthermore After the fall of Rome we entered the period known as "The Dark Ages" DO you know why they called it that? Its because there were very few central governments and all the power, armies, and wealth were controlled by the Church, that's not why they called it that. They called it that because under the Church education, research, literacy, all died. They burned people alive for practicing anything like science or as the religious called it at the time "Witchcraft"
The Dark ages were dark because the light of science had not come yet, Western Europe was under the yoke of the pope.
As for the Renaissance and later when Science etc blossomed, many of the scientists were secret atheists who were church members, why? Again because the Church owned everything. And if you wanted to learn anything, it was at the church behest. At the time it was actually secular pagans in Egypt and Asia - Asia Minor who kept the old greek and roman sciences alive. At least until the Christians took control in Alexandria and murdered all the pagan leaders and burned the Library of Alexandria down.
I see your point, but I think it's very limited.
I cannot help if you want to see only the fundamentalists (a.k.a the most insanely diehard of the religious) and the restraint religions placed to its members, and I may not disagree with your assessment, but I personally found your entire painting of the subject rather unfair to its other members.
Its not my job to don kid gloves for peoples irrational beliefs. Get with the program or accept that we all laugh at religious peoples beliefs for a VERY good reason. They're silly.
And................
Pray tell, Billy, are you not seeing the similarities in vitriol and fervor between you and the religious fundamentalists you're supposedly the opposite from?
No more than I see the similarities between my ideas and passions and any other group of people. Viking conquerors Greek hoplites at the hot gates, the guy who owns the worlds best stamp collection.. so on and so forth. If your point is that I am like a religious person because I will not lay down and listen to all the silly ideas about sky wizards, then yeah, ok fine... your grasping at straws has finally paid off. In 1 way I am similar to a religious person. I can give you another irrelevant way... I have skin, hair and teeth. I live on Earth, I require oxygen and food. I like sex, I suck at swimming, when I get cut I bleed red... there, now we can say atheism = religion.... because ya know... there's personal similarities.
Because I'm so sorry but I am. And I find your word really hard to believe and/or listen when you act so much like people you're supposed to distance yourself from.
So for you, HOW something is said is more important to you than WHAT is said? I guess that's your choice, I am the opposite.
