Tadeu wrote:My dearest opinion about religion is that it's something that'll never go away.
I, somewhat resignedly, tend to agree with you there.
Tadeu wrote:We may not know it yet but religion might be in our genes. Humans, in general, are programmed to believe in some higher power, and those powers, being real or not, do affect our world in realistic and undeniable ways, for better or worst.
Tadeu wrote:It is also a personal belief that science, as it is, is another religion.
Sure, a personal belief that is wrong.
Tadeu wrote:Of course people could claim we used it to move mountains and change the world, but you could make the same claim for religion, and science holds some of its unproven theories as truth
"But...but, science is just dirty old religion, and if that's so, then mine is better anyway!" Right?
Tadeu wrote:and much of Scientific Canon is unprovable or may be proven wrong in the future, and is defended just as fervently as many religious doctrines.
Yeah, right. And all those priests and cardinals of science will burn you at the stake for believeing the wrong things. Care to point me to a copy of the "Scientific Canon"? (with caps, no less)
And, maybe if you'd read through the thread you'd have seen some of your anti science BS preemptively demolished, eh?
Tadeu wrote:The reason why i say it can't be proven is because we, humans, "created" science, and we give thins in our world labels, and, as it is, it can be all a figment of our imagination that was purely coincidental. We can "prove" everything we invented, and it might work most of the time, but purely speaking, everything is a postulate that can't be proven.
And we could all be brains in vats. It's a non-starter. Descartes' demon really doesn't matter. Play like it's real. The other part of the above is just drivel, lacking in any content. Seriously, are you trying to say something like, "Stuff might not be real, so we might as well just throw up our hands and say 'fuck it'"? Cause that's the closes thing to a point you came to right there.
Tadeu wrote:I do not think people should hate religion, for we owe much if not all of our civilization to it, our moral ideals, and the expansion of our intellects to it
Tadeu wrote:and being real or not, God (and gods) have had massive effect on us, and in many ways, science can't put a finger on that.
Sure it can. So can history. It's not mystical, it's very easy to understand. Social control, manipulation, carrot-and-stick, hope, fear. We understand these motivators just fine without you trying to add any juju to it.
Tadeu wrote:Something that doesn't exist, yet it is a fact has affected us in one way or another.
No one says religion doesn't exist, and religion is what has the effect. Not gods. If you have evidence to the contrary, there is a Nobel, a templeton prize, and some serious cash from Randi waiting for you.
Tadeu wrote:For many other great religions, say Buddhism, they can affect body and mind. Many Buddhist monks are known for extraordinary abilities such as maintaining and raising body temperature, physical prowess to a point where they change the shape of their bodies, and open-minds with extraordinary wisdom and brilliance. And this is a religion who doesn't have a god more then it actually has a deity that was nothing but human.
Firstly, how about we see some citations? Secondly, that doesn't even contribute to your point. A person controlling their own body has nothing to do with religion. Is a Bruce Schneier roundhouse kick a divine event?
Tadeu wrote:Religion also has the ability to affect the Geo-political world, and science equally.
Geopolitics, yes. Science...well looking at the Bush administration's war on science, i am sadly forced to agree with you there too.
Tadeu wrote:The many problem people blame religion can be blamed on science too, such as wars, famines, pestilence and close-mindedness
Please, remind me when the last Newtonian crusade was...?
Tadeu wrote:and really, as i said before, all of these things were created by men.
Really? God(s) seems to be in the famine, war, and pestilence business quite a bit.
Tadeu wrote:None of it can be proven, therefore we can use the teapot to represent both a god and sciences.
I think you may be confused as to what the teapot actually means. Google it again, read more, understand more, get back to us.
Tadeu wrote:Keep in mind this is just my incoherent idea which i just typed out (you'll find a ton of nonsense in there i'm sure) and it's just my opinion, nothing else. It's what i believe, and you're free to express what you feel, because our founding fathers gave you that undeniable right. Which ironically came from ideals set by a mix of sciences and religion. Go figure.
The founding fathers did not give us that right. The political philosophy they espoused explicitly goes against that idea. Rights are inherent, all they did was create a system of government that was supposed to be restrained from violating them.
And religion wasn't a part of it, sorry. Freedom of, yes. Religion itself? Nah.
You're right though, i did find a lot of non-sense...