Is evolution a religion?

[ghoti]

The short answer is no. There are a couple of forumites who seem to have trouble grasping this concept, so I have posted some information here to clear up the subject:

The long response:

" 1. Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
* Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
* Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
* Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.

* Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
* Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
* Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
* Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.

5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).

Links:
VonRoeschlaub, Warren Kurt. 1998. God and evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
References:

1. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. 1982. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
2. Ruse, Michael. 2000. Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. National Post, 13 May 2000. http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/A/eyring_2_2.htm
3. Sober, Elliott and David Sloan Wilson. 1998. Unto Others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

[nocilah]

an evolutionist is someone who believes in the theory of evolution. i wouldn't call it a religion either.

[ghoti]

From the wiki link on evolutionism (and I suggest this time you read the whole article) so you understand where it came from (take note of the time period), and what it is today:


In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles. However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences; these terms are used to refer to theories about the development of cultures and civilisations.

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is a more preferable explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

[nocilah]

Back to you Mr Gravityism.

:rolleyes:

you remind me of douwdouw with your insistent zeal around what you believe.

[ghoti]

:rolleyes:

you remind me of douwdouw with your insistent zeal around what you believe.

I had actually removed that, but we can leave it in your quote. I remind you of dodo? Luckily coming from you that doesn't bother me. Im sorry if you have issues with me backing up science. I don't think you have the scope to understand its importance.

Just research what you say before you propagate misinformation. I am sure the truth should be important to you as well.

[noxibox]

Many religious fanatics like to claim that science is a religion.

[Neo]

Religious fanatics / fundamentalists are often called just that, as whatever you argue with them, they just stick their heads in the sand and refuse to argue the points under discussion. As we've seen prom and dodo are perfect examples of this, although dodo's / Mr TB's responses don't really count as arguments.

The fact that people who understand the theory of evolution keeps on trying to correct these people is not a sign that they believe and support a 'religion of evolution', rather they're just trying to do what anyone schooled in the scientific method would do; try and educate.

Calling evolution a religion is a typical attempt to tarnish by association. We defend the theory of gravity as strongly. Why not call it a religion?

[nocilah]

I had actually removed that, but we can leave it in your quote. I remind you of dodo? Luckily coming from you that doesn't bother me. Im sorry if you have issues with me backing up science. I don't think you have the scope to understand its importance.

i have no issues with science or your backing of science, however i think your personal feelings toward religion often gets in the way of what is sometimes a very valid point that you make in your threads which is ashame, because in most ways you act no better then the people you dislike, which leads me to think you actually post many things in a reactionary spirit as opposed to a proactive spirit.

if that is how you wish to 'back' science then you should be open to other people observing that and never really taking what you say as a serious stance but rather one of the reactive, angry, frothing at the mouth and bewildered evolutionist.


Just research what you say before you propagate misinformation. I am sure the truth should be important to you as well.

i did research the word evolutionist and came to the conclusion that it is a valid word to be used.

once again i will point you to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=evolutionist

and i hope you have the capacity to realise that when i use that word i use it in the definition as described by the above link and in no way was i saying it is your religion or anyones religion.

i use it to measure the difference between a person who believes in the theory and a person who does not.

i.e creationist vs evolutionist

the rest is your opinion getting in the way.

[noxibox]

Evolutionist is a word like ******. It is intended as a pejorative. The term is used almost exclusively by supporters of creation and not scientists.

[nocilah]

Evolutionist is a word like ******. It is intended as a pejorative. The term is used almost exclusively by supporters of creation and not scientists.

Om my God. for people who raise science as the be all and know all you certainly fall flat when it comes to increasing your knowledge and most certainly your vocabulary.

the term evolutionist means the following:

this time i will cut n paste it to save you the hassle.

1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

it is not a derogatory word, but an actual word that existed before the theory of evolution even existed.

ie: that person is a bit of an evolutionist when it comes to his work.

however it has donned a new term.

or he does believe in creation but he believes in evolution thus making him an evolutionist.

i would call myself an evolutionist because i believe very much in the theory.

[ghoti]

halicon, One day, when you have a clue on how science work, and how the english language works (ie, what gets an -ism or and -ist) then come talk to me, but right now I am getting absolutely nothing from you but insults, which while expected is tiresome. However if it makes you feel like, "the man" go for it. You have not contributed a single bit of useful information here so as I said. I take it from whence it comes.

Once again, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

Once again:
Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study

[nocilah]

halicon, One day, when you have a clue on how science work, and how the english language works (ie, what gets an -ism or and -ist) then come talk to me, but right now I am getting absolutely nothing from you but insults, which while expected is tiresome. However if it makes you feel like, "the man" go for it. You have not contributed a single bit of useful information here so as I said. I take it from whence it comes.

Once again, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

Once again:

and your anti christian/religion, naive statements are not expected and not tiresome.

and my information comes from the dictionary... i would rate that as pretty damn useful.

later

[Mr TB]

halicon, One day, when you have a clue on how science work, and how the english language works (ie, what gets an -ism or and -ist) then come talk to me, but right now I am getting absolutely nothing from you but insults, which while expected is tiresome. However if it makes you feel like, "the man" go for it. You have not contributed a single bit of useful information here so as I said. I take it from whence it comes.

Once again, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

Once again:

They can have their objection as long as they like,for the scientist who sees science as as a religion it called the religion of scientism...:D

[Xarog]

Until you can conclusively prove the existence of an objective reality without resorting to subjective perceptions, evolution will be a religion.

[nocilah]

Until you can conclusively prove the existence of an objective reality without resorting to subjective perceptions, evolution will be a religion.

or a theory?

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO THE FORUMITES:

"1 result for: evolutionism
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source

Main Entry: survival of the fittest
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: theory of evolution
Synonyms: adaptation, Darwinianism, Darwinism, evolution, evolutionism, law of the jungle, natural law, natural selection, Neo-Darwinism, organic evolution, phylogeny, punctuated equilibrium, social Darwinism, social evolution

3 results for: evolutionism
• [ Nearby Entries ]
evolutionarilyevolutionaryevolutionary algorit…evolutionary biologyevolutionary computa…evolutionary fitnessevolutionary medicin…evolutionary program…evolutionary psychol…evolutionary trendevolutionistevolutionisticevolutionisticallye volutionsevolutiveevolvableevolveevolvedevolvement evolvent View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ev•o•lu•tion•ist ˌɛv əˈlu ʃə nɪst or, especially Brit., ˌi və- - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective Also, ev•o•lu•tion•is•tic.
3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
________________________________________
[Origin: 1855–60; EVOLUTION + -IST ]

—Related forms
ev•o•lu•tion•ism, noun
ev•o•lu•tion•is•ti•cal•ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

I do not think the concept is that difficult to grasp. A person believing or supporting...

Once you are believing or supporting you must have faith , and in faith we find religion.
Call it theory and bluff yourselves, I know it is religion...:)

[ToxicBunny]

*sigh*... you don't need faith in evolution you complete troll, it has evidence which the theory is built upon....

How many times are intelligent human beings going to have to repeat this concept before it sinks for you to even begin grasping it?

[Mr TB]

In response to Toxibunny:

Evidence?....*sigh*..."Sanity is a state I do not ever wish to experience. It scares me. " Does it really scare you?

[ToxicBunny]

actually, what my signature says has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever......

[Nick333]

Until you can conclusively prove the existence of an objective reality without resorting to subjective perceptions, evolution will be a religion.


Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=define%3A%3Creligion%3E&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Thats the closest definition I can find that could be streeeeeeetched to include a belief in evolution.

You could define science as a whole as a belief system but only in the sense that it provides a set of criteria for what we should believe.

The theory of evolution is a theory based on the scientific "belief system".

[BCO]

Doesn't religion require the worship of something?

What's being worshipped when believeing in evolution?

[nthdimension]

it is not a derogatory word, but an actual word that existed before the theory of evolution even existed.
There is a k word that I believe was once quite popular here in South Africa. It pre-dates its South African use. Why not go out and give it a try?

[Xarog]

or a theory?
Creationism is also a theory.


*sigh*... you don't need faith in evolution you complete troll, it has evidence which the theory is built upon....

How many times are intelligent human beings going to have to repeat this concept before it sinks for you to even begin grasping it?
Yeah, evidence experienced through subjective senses. The same senses which are perfectly capable of experiencing God, with no way for the viewer to distinguish the difference.


http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=define%3A%3Creligion%3E&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Thats the closest definition I can find that could be streeeeeeetched to include a belief in evolution.

You could define science as a whole as a belief system but only in the sense that it provides a set of criteria for what we should believe.

The theory of evolution is a theory based on the scientific "belief system".
Science believes that there is an objective reality just like certain religions believe in an all powerful creator. Science cannot prove there is an objective reality, and religions can't prove the existence of an allpowerful creator. Two sides of the same coin in their nature if not their appearance.

[Nick333]

Science believes that there is an objective reality just like certain religions believe in an all powerful creator. Science cannot prove there is an objective reality, and religions can't prove the existence of an allpowerful creator. Two sides of the same coin in their nature if not their appearance.

No they are not. Do you seriously believe that the majority of Christians have had a mystical experience confirming every tenet of their belief system?
Besides which religious "spiritual" experience is interpreted according to conditioned religious beliefs, which is why Hindus don't experience Christ and Buddhists don't experience God.
I on the other hand didn't need to be taught how to interpret physical pain.

[Xarog]

No they are not. Do you seriously believe that the majority of Christians have had a mystical experience confirming every tenet of their belief system?
Besides which religious "spiritual" experience is interpreted according to conditioned religious beliefs, which is why Hindus don't experience Christ and Buddhists don't experience God.
I on the other hand didn't need to be taught how to interpret physical pain.
Of course you did. Did the idea of nerve impulses racing to your brain mystically pop into your head?

[nocilah]

There is a k word that I believe was once quite popular here in South Africa. It pre-dates its South African use. Why not go out and give it a try?

so is calling someone an evolutionist now comparative to the k word :rolleyes:

my word... and wait a minute wasnt it the religious folk who were meant to be censoring things and living a narrow minded path.

evolution is not a religion, but considering how vehemently some people are going off about the 'misuse' of a valid word it might as well be.

[Nick333]

Of course you did. Did the idea of nerve impulses racing to your brain mystically pop into your head?

I don't need to understand the mechanism through which I experience sensations to understand what the sensations mean. I can interpret what it means by actually looking at my toe deducing from its proximity to a hard object inhabiting the space where I had intended placing my toe just prior to experiencing the pain. The idea of nerve impulses racing to my head would only serve to confirm my theory. That is science.
The religious way of interpreting that same event would be to be told that if you walk around in a darkened room God will come along and cause pain in your toe thus confirming his existence and that he created the universe and sent his only son to die because we are hopeless sinners, stubbing my toe and thus believing what I was told.

I'm not questioning that we are capable of having mystical experiences by the way. I would question that religion is a valid model for interpreting them.

[Xarog]

I don't need to understand the mechanism through which I experience sensations to understand what the sensations mean.
And niether does someone who experiences God's love for them need to understand the mechanism of that love either.


I can interpret what it means by actually looking at my toe deducing from its proximity to a hard object inhabiting the space where I had intended placing my toe just prior to experiencing the pain. The idea of nerve impulses racing to my head would only serve to confirm my theory. That is science.
I never said it wasn't science.


The religious way of interpreting that same event would be to be told that if you walk around in a darkened room God will come along and cause pain in your toe thus confirming his existence and that he created the universe and sent his only son to die because we are hopeless sinners, stubbing my toe and thus believing what I was told.
And your point is?


I'm not questioning that we are capable of having mystical experiences by the way. I would question that religion is a valid model for interpreting them.
Well as an aside I'd be really curious to know what other model you would propose. But none of this really refutes my claim that the belief in the validity of science is a religion.

[Nick333]

And niether does someone who experiences God's love for them need to understand the mechanism of that love either.

I never said they did. You implied an understanding of the mechanism of an experience was important.



I never said it wasn't science.

No but you repeatedly say that science is religion. I'm pointing out the major differences.



And your point is?

My point is that, as a system of belief, religion and science are vastly different approaches. So much so that they can be classified differently. One system can be called science and one can be called religion. :)
Quite clearly one is better than the other or you wouldn't have had a model from which to criticize religion as you have in the past.


Well as an aside I'd be really curious to know what other model you would propose. But none of this really refutes my claim that the belief in the validity of science is a religion.

Well for a start MRIs of brain activity during "spiritual" experience of people of different religions. Honest accounts of physical and emotional sensations during the experiences. That sort of thing could go a long way in deducing what causes "spiritual" experience and if there is any actual difference in between religions and if so why.
Science may not be able to provide conclusive answers but it could certainly provide a better understanding of the phenomena.

[Xarog]

I never said they did. You implied an understanding of the mechanism of an experience was important.
Not true. Science claims to have an understanding of the mechanism, and that's where it's similar to religion.


No but you repeatedly say that science is religion. I'm pointing out the major differences.
But the differences you point out are arbitrary. It's like trying to say that Judaism can't be a religion because they don't worship Jesus.


My point is that, as a system of belief, religion and science are vastly different approaches. So much so that they can be classified differently. One system can be called science and one can be called religion.
A point which you have not yet proven, and which is actually disproven by the similarities in their nature. Most religions believe in supernatural beings, which in many cases are all powerful and created all of existence. Science believes that there is an objective reality. Niether religion nor Science can prove these beliefs and thus they are alike in that respect.


Well for a start MRIs of brain activity during "spiritual" experience of people of different religions. Honest accounts of physical and emotional sensations during the experiences. That sort of thing could go a long way in deducing what causes "spiritual" experience and if there is any actual difference in between religions and if so why.
Science may not be able to provide conclusive answers but it could certainly provide a better understanding of the phenomena.
This is just a personal value judgement which has absolutely no objective relevance.

[ghoti]

Creationism is also a theory.

No, its not.


Science believes that there is an objective reality just like certain religions believe in an all powerful creator. Science cannot prove there is an objective reality, and religions can't prove the existence of an allpowerful creator. Two sides of the same coin in their nature if not their appearance.

Through empirical means I can prove I am here.

[ghoti]

so is calling someone an evolutionist now comparative to the k word :rolleyes:

my word... and wait a minute wasnt it the religious folk who were meant to be censoring things and living a narrow minded path.

evolution is not a religion, but considering how vehemently some people are going off about the 'misuse' of a valid word it might as well be.

once again, I will post this here for you.


Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is a more preferable explanation.

Look at the histories of the word and its current meaning, now compare that to the K word. If you can not see the similarities well then, *shrug* we tried, but basically its like me going to a Christian and saying hello you "Jesus f*ker". Its not the right term for us to use, and I am sure it would offend you just like the term evolutionist offends scientists... for very real reasons.

Or how about we call all christians satanists? That would be a correct term, you lot believe in Satan, so therefore anyone who believes in Satan is a satanist. Therefore all christians are satanists.

I hope you can understand this.

[nocilah]

once again, I will post this here for you.



Look at the histories of the word and its current meaning, now compare that to the K word. If you can not see the similarities well then, *shrug* we tried, but basically its like me going to a Christian and saying hello you "Jesus f*ker". Its not the right term for us to use, and I am sure it would offend you just like the term evolutionist offends scientists... for very real reasons.

Or how about we call all christians satanists? That would be a correct term, you lot believe in Satan, so therefore anyone who believes in Satan is a satanist. Therefore all christians are satanists.

I hope you can understand this.

so what would be an appropriate word to use for someone who believes in evolution?

you are an evolutionist because even according to the paragraph an evolutionist is someone who believes in the theory however their complaint is that it is a scientific study.

so i can understand then why a scientist will object, especially if they are studying it.

however i somehow doubt you are studying in the field of evolution however you have expressed belief in the theory hence you are an evolutionist which is correct according to your paragraph and the dictionary.

Your intial claim was that the word did not exist however you quickly changed your tune when you realised it is a valid word.

I believe it is a valid term to use in this forum as no ONE here is studying evolution but many believe in it.

[Mr TB]

once again, I will post this here for you.



Look at the histories of the word and its current meaning, now compare that to the K word. If you can not see the similarities well then, *shrug* we tried, but basically its like me going to a Christian and saying hello you "Jesus f*ker". Its not the right term for us to use, and I am sure it would offend you just like the term evolutionist offends scientists... for very real reasons.

Or how about we call all christians satanists? That would be a correct term, you lot believe in Satan, so therefore anyone who believes in Satan is a satanist. Therefore all christians are satanists.

I hope you can understand this.

I know you wish me not to post in your threads but when you argue like a true "creationist" I have no option but to correct you...

Satanists believe in satan put their faith in him and worship him...
Christians believe in God put their faith in him and worship him...
Christians know that satan exist but don't put their believe or faith in him.
The Demons also know that God exist and they tremble...

[ghoti]

so what would be an appropriate word to use for someone who believes in evolution?

Normal, its not a belief structure.


you are an evolutionist because even according to the paragraph an evolutionist is someone who believes in the theory however their complaint is that it is a scientific study.

And by your logic you are a satanist


so i can understand then why a scientist will object, especially if they are studying it.

I dont think you do.


however i somehow doubt you are studying in the field of evolution

You would be wrong. While I do not study (the field is really called ) biology (not evolutionism) formally, I have studied it in great detail informally.


however you have expressed belief in the theory hence you are an evolutionist which is correct according to your paragraph and the dictionary.

Once again, you believe in Satan therefore you are a satanist.


Your intial claim was that the word did not exist however you quickly changed your tune when you realised it is a valid word.

Yes, it has become a word, just like I am sure I can find the K word in the dictionary. If you wanted an apology for that error to make you feel better you should have just asked. I didnt know your ego worked that way.


I believe it is a valid term to use in this forum as no ONE here is studying evolution but many believe in it.

Yes, I see your logic. Its what I should expect from a jesus <censored> satanist.

Once again I ask you to look into the historical meaning of the word and the context it is currently used in.

[Mr TB]

THE MEANING OF THE WORD EVOLUSIONIST:

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;ist ʃə və-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.

2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective Also, ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;is&#183;tic.

3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.

4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.

[Origin: 1855–60; evolution + -ist FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=" ]
—Related forms
ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;ism, noun
ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;is&#183;ti&#183;cal&#183;ly, adverb

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, &#169; Random House, Inc. 2006"

[nocilah]

And by your logic you are a satanist

wow! you certainly have no comprehension skills.

when did i become a christian?

and you can call me whatever you want. it has not real significance in my life.

trust me.

[redarrow]

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study
Lol.. did your scientists realise that the word "scientist" ends in "ist" :p

Scientists are just that: "scientists" not linguists .. they do not author the english dictionary.

What a funny notion anyway.. mostly people are simply using the word "evolutionist" to describe someone who believes in/supports the Theory of Eolution..

Like halicon said several times: if you don't want people to use this word or feel offended by it then please propose an alternative that we can use to refer to those who support the Theory of Evolution.. :)

[ghoti]

Like halicon said several times: if you don't want people to use this word or feel offended by it then please propose an alternative that we can use to refer to those who support the Theory of Evolution.. :)

Evolution does not require a word for people who support it. It is a scientific theory not a belief structure. Do you go around calling people who believe in the theory of gravity as gravitationists? Or people who believe in the germ theory of disease as germists?

People who study and work with the theory of evolution, are normally known as biologists. You can find them in the same university as your 'historyists'.

I wonder if people who believe/study the holocaust are called holcaustists... or are they called Historians? With all this jumble on word play I am getting very confused.

[nocilah]

Evolution does not require a word for people who support it. It is a scientific theory not a belief structure. Do you go around calling people who believe in the theory of gravity as gravitationists? Or people who believe in the germ theory of disease as germists?

People who study and work with the theory of evolution, are normally known as biologists. You can find them in the same university as your 'historyists'.

I wonder if people who believe/study the holocaust are called holcaustists... or are they called Historians? With all this jumble on word play I am getting very confused.

when will you realise no dictionary on earth has it listed as a derogatory term and their definition is inline to be used with this forum or anywhere else.

or are christians changing the english language too? :rolleyes:

[ghoti]

when will you realise no dictionary on earth has it listed as a derogatory term and their definition is inline to be used with this forum or anywhere else.

or are christians changing the english language too? :rolleyes:

I checked the dictionary.com definition of satanism. Its not a derogatory term either there. Hence calling you a satanist is completely acceptable.

However, if I researched Christianity, and found out the context it is used in I am sure I would find it as a negative term to call a Christian. Luckily we are using your logic so therefore it is okay, because dictionary.com does not list it as a defamatory name to call a Christian.

Ok, I understand your 'logic'.

[redarrow]

Evolution does not require a word for people who support it. It is a scientific theory not a belief structure. Do you go around calling people who believe in the theory of gravity as gravitationists? Or people who believe in the germ theory of disease as germists?
If I opposed the "Theory of Gravity" then yes, I might want a a word to distinguish between those who support it and those who don't. As it is I've yet to meet someone who opposes the "Theory of Gravity" therefore there is no need (at least not commonly) for a special word to describe them.

With Evolution we have basically two camps: Those who support the theory and those who don't. It's simply logical that we will want a word to describe at least one of the parties.. not so? - Especially as with the amount of debate on the topic.
Or what? Must each time we wish to refer to "evolutionists" ( :p ) say something like: "those people who support the theory of evolution" ? - That's just cumbersome and inefficient.

With the amount of debate and division on the subject, I would say yes we do need a word to describe those who support it.

[nocilah]

I checked the dictionary.com definition of satanism. Its not a derogatory term either there. Hence calling you a satanist is completely acceptable.

However, if I researched Christianity, and found out the context it is used in I am sure I would find it as a negative term to call a Christian. Luckily we are using your logic so therefore it is okay, because dictionary.com does not list it as a defamatory name to call a Christian.

Ok, I understand your 'logic'.

no what you have been trying to say is this:

someone who studies evolution is a scientist.

someone who believes in evolution is an evolutionist.

even the freaking quote you relentlessly use as your proof says this however you are too dim to see that.

the scientific community objects to a scientist being called an evolutionist if they study it as i can imagine this field gets split into other fields like paleo-anthropologist and socia-anthropologist ect, biologist.

this is not a scientific forum and you most certainly are not a scientist hence if you support and believe in evolution then you are an evolutionist.

[ghoti]

Snarky response removed.

[Nick333]

Not true. Science claims to have an understanding of the mechanism, and that's where it's similar to religion.

No they don't which is why we have phrases like "God works in mysterious ways".



But the differences you point out are arbitrary. It's like trying to say that Judaism can't be a religion because they don't worship Jesus.

No its like saying science is can't be a religion because it doesn't deal with the unknowable.



A point which you have not yet proven, and which is actually disproven by the similarities in their nature. Most religions believe in supernatural beings, which in many cases are all powerful and created all of existence. Science believes that there is an objective reality. Niether religion nor Science can prove these beliefs and thus they are alike in that respect.

All I have to prove is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural.


This is just a personal value judgement which has absolutely no objective relevance.

Yes if you insist that science needs to and can't prove an objective reality then all scientific endevour can only ever be accept as a value judgement.

We all accept that there is an objective reality everyday and thus we survive. Those who don't need taking care of.

It comes down to you either accept that we live in an objective reality on all levels or you drift through life arbitrarily picking and choosing what you feel comfortable believing.

I'll accept whatever theories conform best to the reality I am forced to accept for my continued existence. It may seem arbitrary to you but it keeps me from walking into walls so I may as well trust it for everything else.

[Mr TB]

In view of the barkings of our evolusion-supportive forumites:

All the obejections raised concerning -ism and -ist, then obviously Christianity can't be religion is must be fact?

[ToxicBunny]

You must be smoking something again Mr TB....

Christianity is a religion, nobody is denying that (unless you feel the need to do so now).
What is being denied is this bulldust assumption by some people that evolution is a religion, evolution is a theory with a rather large collection of evidence that it is built upon....

[Mr TB]

You must be smoking something again Mr TB....

Christianity is a religion, nobody is denying that (unless you feel the need to do so now).
What is being denied is this bulldust assumption by some people that evolution is a religion, evolution is a theory with a rather large collection of evidence that it is built upon....

Based on the arguments you follow trying to prove that -ism or -ist refer to a basis of religion, religion is actually a form of idolatory...

Christianity form not part of -ism or -ist, therefor is not religion but ...Christianity!

[texo]

Christianity form not part of -ism or -ist, therefor is not religion but ...Christianity!

Yup, in your world christianity probably isn't a religion. In the real world, however, it is.

[nocilah]

Yeah halicon, whatever you want. The ignorance was not argued into you, so I can not argue it out of you. Any further debate with you is pointless. You fill your arguments with retarded assumptions, and you think you know me because of your dialog with someone else. You have no idea who I am or what I study or do, or what I believe in.

You are right about one thing, this is not a science forum. That is very very evident. As for you, I suggest you stay out of science (until you are ready to respect it) or create more attention seeking posts. Either or is indifferent to me, I wont be responding to you again.

You are not worth the debate. Bye.

i was going to respond with snide remarks and blah blah, but lets face it... why should i? It is pointless and deconstructive.

no i don't know much about you, however i know enough about you to know you are a decent person, and i know you are well read and pretty intelligent. i know i can be pretty stubborn and i will stick to my view of the word however i can respect your view too.

so yeah perhaps other forumites can take up the debate or we can agree to disagree.

and trust me... beyond all of this drivel about a silly word i still have a tonne of respect for you.

peace Y.

[Xarog]

No they don't which is why we have phrases like "God works in mysterious ways".
I see, so because they don't have an explanation about everything, it's different from science?

Just one question though - exactly what is Dark Matter?



No its like saying science is can't be a religion because it doesn't deal with the unknowable.
Eh?


All I have to prove is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural.
Uhuh. And how are you going to do that without assuming that there's an objective reality?


Yes if you insist that science needs to and can't prove an objective reality then all scientific endevour can only ever be accept as a value judgement.
Thankyou.


We all accept that there is an objective reality everyday and thus we survive. Those who don't need taking care of.
Just like all Christians accept their is an allpowerful force watching over them. And we don't all accept that there is an objective reality - just because most do is no reason to generalise.


It comes down to you either accept that we live in an objective reality on all levels or you drift through life arbitrarily picking and choosing what you feel comfortable believing.
Sounds like you're asking someone to choose their religion.


I'll accept whatever theories conform best to the reality I am forced to accept for my continued existence. It may seem arbitrary to you but it keeps me from walking into walls so I may as well trust it for everything else.
I never said you can't believe what you want to.

[nocilah]

Based on the arguments you follow trying to prove that -ism or -ist refer to a basis of religion, religion is actually a form of idolatory...

Christianity form not part of -ism or -ist, therefor is not religion but ...Christianity!

wtf?

[Mr TB]

wtf?

WTH... :D

[ghoti]

i was going to respond with snide remarks and blah blah, but lets face it... why should i? It is pointless and deconstructive.

no i don't know much about you, however i know enough about you to know you are a decent person, and i know you are well read and pretty intelligent. i know i can be pretty stubborn and i will stick to my view of the word however i can respect your view too.

so yeah perhaps other forumites can take up the debate or we can agree to disagree.

and trust me... beyond all of this drivel about a silly word i still have a tonne of respect for you.

peace Y.

It was petty, you are right and I apologize for the tones in which I responded. I suppose the intolerance comes from having to deal with people like Mr TB (dodo) and Prom too often and it was not fair or reasonable to respond in the way I did.

You are correct, nothing constructive was coming out of our debate and I strongly suspect in a way we were both right.

I apologize for being a pleb, and I look forward to reading and responding your opinion. They are informed and correct and my stubborness is not worth loosing your respect.

Regards D.

[ghoti]

I see, so because they don't have an explanation about everything, it's different from science?

Just one question though - exactly what is Dark Matter?



Dark matter is matter with a negative light reflection. We have created minute amounts of it in labs.

[Nick333]

@ Xarog for the life of me I can't fault your argument try as I might.

But you're getting off on a technicality.

So any leap of the imagination is as valid as science. Christian creation myth should be taught in schools as an alternative to science. People should live in fear of hell because some sick fcck somewhere along the line imagined it. People should die of horrible diseases they may have had a shot of surviving with real medicine because some new age charlatan faith healer dreamt up some crap that is as valid as science because the stupid scientists can't prove objective reality. Freeing people from ignorance and delusion is wrong because we can't prove that anyone is delusional.

[Xarog]

Dark matter is matter with a negative light reflection. We have created minute amounts of it in labs.
And dark energy? And you know the stuff in the labs is the same as the stuff out there because...? Or are you just assuming its the same because that's convenient?


So any leap of the imagination is as valid as science. Christian creation myth should be taught in schools as an alternative to science. People should live in fear of hell because some sick fcck somewhere along the line imagined it. People should die of horrible diseases they may have had a shot of surviving with real medicine because some new age charlatan faith healer dreamt up some crap that is as valid as science because the stupid scientists can't prove objective reality. Freeing people from ignorance and delusion is wrong because we can't prove that anyone is delusional.
Well that's for every person to decide for themselves. Which is my main point. You don't like creationism? Fine, niether do I. But I do get annoyed when people start ridiculing it in favour of science for flaws which science itself contains.

[Dr Seuss]

Mr TB

Don't go away! We love you! Your comments are worth the confusion for their entertainment value!

[nocilah]

dark matter = In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter, not directly observed and of unknown composition, that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter <-- more info

dark energy = In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure.[1] According to the Theory of Relativity, the effect of such a negative pressure is qualitatively similar to a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales. Invoking such an effect is currently the most popular method for explaining recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, as well as accounting for a significant portion of the missing mass in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy <-- more info

according to wiki the universe is made up of 73&#37; dark energy, 23% dark matter, 3.6% intergalactic dust, 0.4% stars.ect (thats us too).

[Xarog]

dark matter = In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter, not directly observed and of unknown composition, that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter <-- more info
Bolded the relevant part.


dark energy = In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure.[1] According to the Theory of Relativity, the effect of such a negative pressure is qualitatively similar to a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales. Invoking such an effect is currently the most popular method for explaining recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, as well as accounting for a significant portion of the missing mass in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy <-- more info

Ditto.

Guess Science works in mysterious ways as well.

[ghoti]

And dark energy? And you know the stuff in the labs is the same as the stuff out there because...? Or are you just assuming its the same because that's convenient?


I was told it was dark matter by people a *****load smarter than you or me mate. Given a choice to trust them or you. Well according to you I dont even know you exist, therefore I will go with the guys who know what they are talking about.

Dark matter can be made of many different types of matter Xarog.

[nocilah]

Bolded the relevant part.


Ditto.

Guess Science works in mysterious ways as well.

if you go to the links you will find they have been able to prove the existence. What it is made from might still be unknown.

perhaps its the force that Yoda always go on about :/

[ghoti]

Midiclorians! :D Interesting point. There are more registered Jedi`s in the UK than Jews. lol

[Xarog]

I was told it was dark matter by people a *****load smarter than you or me mate. Given a choice to trust them or you. Well according to you I dont even know you exist, therefore I will go with the guys who know what they are talking about.

Dark matter can be made of many different types of matter Xarog.
Funny, I can just hear a creationist saying the exact same thing.


if you go to the links you will find they have been able to prove the existence. What it is made from might still be unknown.

perhaps its the force that Yoda always go on about :/
You mean they postulate their existence because their current models of the universe don't explain everything they observe... wait, where have I heard that before?

Hmm...

[jetpacman]

I am new to this thread and I must just say that I have given up caring about this subject a long time ago, we are wasting too much of our time debating stuff that can't solve our current problems. I am expecting a whole bunch of attacks now for saying this :D

[Mr TB]

Mr TB

Don't go away! We love you! Your comments are worth the confusion for their entertainment value!

Why must I go away? You don't need to love me to stay, I am married without children and if my comments confuse you it is your own fault.

Let me comment, there is physical torture and also spiritual torture. There is the first death, physical death... and the second death, spiritual death, evelasting death.

Everlasting death in my view is spiritual torture....

[PostmanPot]

.

[ghoti]

Funny, I can just hear a creationist saying the exact same thing.


Would you like a pair of glasses? First, cosmology is not a science accepted by creationists, which is where the theory of dark matter started. The wiki link on the subject has all the information you should need.

I also accept scientific opinion, something you and creationists do not seem to be able to do. About that kettle and pot.....

Empirical evidence says dark matter exists and has been created, I trust that over your interesting but obscure philosophy.

[Mr TB]

Would you like a pair of glasses? First, cosmology is not a science accepted by creationists, which is where the theory of dark matter started. The wiki link on the subject has all the information you should need.

I also accept scientific opinion, something you and creationists do not seem to be able to do. About that kettle and pot.....

Empirical evidence says dark matter exists and has been created, I trust that over your interesting but obscure philosophy.

Concerning the possible religion of evolution:
Quote:
"So does all this prove that God created the universe, and that the Bible is true? No; but we have seen here, that the humanist scientist–who so loudly proclaims that theory of evolution is a fact–really hasn’t got a clue as to how this universe began, or, how the first life-forms happened in the first place. And, if all you have are “theories” about how these things came to be, then it logically follows that you are not dealing with the fact of evolution at all. The question then becomes: How can you have a “fact” when you clearly don’t know how it happened?"

Something can only only be accepted as fact once we know how it happened at the beginning...


QUOTE:

"

[ghoti]

Concerning the possible religion of evolution:
Quote:
"So does all this prove that God created the universe, and that the Bible is true? No; but we have seen here, that the humanist scientist–who so loudly proclaims that theory of evolution is a fact–really hasn’t got a clue as to how this universe began, or, how the first life-forms happened in the first place. And, if all you have are “theories” about how these things came to be, then it logically follows that you are not dealing with the fact of evolution at all. The question then becomes: How can you have a “fact” when you clearly don’t know how it happened?"

Something can only only be accepted as fact once we know how it happened at the beginning...


QUOTE:

"

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=964864&postcount=518

[The Cosmos]

If something contradicts christianity, then that something is considered a belief system. And a belief system is a religion. Hence evolution.

[Claymore]

If something contradicts christianity, then that something is considered a belief system. And a belief system is a religion. Hence evolution.

Eh? How the hell does that follow?

[Tux]

If something contradicts christianity, then that something is considered a belief system. And a belief system is a religion. Hence evolution.

Ok, now that statement makes even Mr TB's posts seem lucid

[ghoti]

If something contradicts christianity, then that something is considered a belief system. And a belief system is a religion. Hence evolution.

Cows have hair, therefore all sheep eat grass. Yup, I follow your logic now.

[icyrus]

Cows have hair, therefore all sheep eat grass. Yup, I follow your logic now.

Yeah, I love it when people come out with new forms of the Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense)

[ghoti]

Yeah, I love it when people come out with new forms of the Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense)

Yeah, hehe, I was giggling when I read this:


Cochran: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski: Dammit!
Chef: What?
Gerald: He's using the Chewbacca Defense!
Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."[1]

[Mr TB]

Yeah, hehe, I was giggling when I read this:

Cochran? why does it ring a bell!? O yes that the guy that jumped onto the racist bandwagon to get a murderer of the hook!

Then by letting the murderer fit the bloodstained glove found on the murder scene in front of the Jury proved that the glove did not belong to the killer?

But Cochran is an accompliche to murder in my view and should be jailed...
The murderer was already wearing gloves when he tried to fit the bloodstained glove... They lied to the Jury... So you gigged about a rascist lying murderer... what is your attitude towards life?

[ghoti]

Dodo, look up the word. "satire", read the link, get a clue, then come back.

[The Cosmos]

Eh? How the hell does that follow?

The only thing that contradict a belief system is another belief system.

[ToxicBunny]

Or reality maybe?....

[Mr TB]

Dodo, look up the word. "satire", read the link, get a clue, then come back.

SATIRE:
"1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions. "

The defense rest... the simple method of satire used trying to prove someone did not murder an innocent girl. In doing so splitting the jury and earlier rather than sticking to the facts turning it into a racial... Making it political...
Can not win your case with fair tactics because the defendant is guilty...

[ToxicBunny]

I'm trying to decide if Mr TB is seriously deficient..... anyone have any clue?

[Dr Seuss]

I have seen no evidence of this. No evidence whatsoever. :D

[Mr TB]

I have seen no evidence of this. No evidence whatsoever. :D

LET US QUICKLY TAKE A CRACK AT HITLER, OUT OF LINE BUT WORTHWILE:



“The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity”

“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7) “


“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)”


“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119) “

NEO, insisted that Hitler was a christian because he claimed being one. The above prove once again that blind acceptance of the claims of people is very foolish indeed. Hopefully Neo will be humble enough to admit the holocaust was not the doing of christians as he directly/indirectly claimed in previous threads…

oh yes he was not an atheist either...

[ghoti]

I'm trying to decide if Mr TB is seriously deficient..... anyone have any clue?

40+ yr old mentally deficient person.

[ToxicBunny]

I'm guessing as much... quite sad really... I hope someone puts me out to pasture before I get like that...

[Xarog]

Would you like a pair of glasses? First, cosmology is not a science accepted by creationists, which is where the theory of dark matter started. The wiki link on the subject has all the information you should need.

I also accept scientific opinion, something you and creationists do not seem to be able to do. About that kettle and pot.....

Empirical evidence says dark matter exists and has been created, I trust that over your interesting but obscure philosophy.
Actually I was referring to the "Those guys said it was so, and they're more clever than me and so they must be right" rubbish.

Yeah, exactly, pot and kettle. You believe in scientific opinion, they believe in the passages of a single book. Thankyou for proving my point.

And the "empirical evidence" is only 'empirical' because you assume it to be so.

[ghoti]

Actually I was referring to the "Those guys said it was so, and they're more clever than me and so they must be right" rubbish.

mmmkay


Yeah, exactly, pot and kettle. You believe in scientific opinion, they believe in the passages of a single book. Thankyou for proving my point.

Which was?


And the "empirical evidence" is only 'empirical' because you assume it to be so.

Its empirical evidence not because I assume so. My assumptions have almost no bearing on anything.

[Claymore]

The only thing that contradict a belief system is another belief system.

On what basis do you say that?

[Tux]

I'm trying to decide if Mr TB is seriously deficient..... anyone have any clue?

I'll go with severe cranial trauma during his formative years

[ToxicBunny]

Very possibly, but I know some people who've been thru that who are very intelligent, and we wouldn't want to insult them at all now would we?

[Tux]

Very possibly, but I know some people who've been thru that who are very intelligent, and we wouldn't want to insult them at all now would we?

Like me? And I'm all normal and stuff. Even Elvis and the Aliens agree on that!

:D :D :D

[Xarog]

Which was?
That people have faith in science which in turn makes it a religion.


Its empirical evidence not because I assume so. My assumptions have almost no bearing on anything.
Your assumptions most certainly do have a bearing on this. You assume your sensations are real. That is a belief which you cannot prove, and thus everything that follows from it (namely science) is also a belief.

[Mr TB]

That people have faith in science which in turn makes it a religion.


Your assumptions most certainly do have a bearing on this. You assume your sensations are real. That is a belief which you cannot prove, and thus everything that follows from it (namely science) is also a belief.

Maybe you should remember a God should be worshipped... The living God should be worshipped he created us and the universe....

However pushing god to the side, denying his existence looking for the answers only through science is making science your god, your IDOL.

There is nothing wrong with science or biology but every thing wrong with it being your idols, the thing you worship...

[ToxicBunny]

So why is worshipping god any different then?...

it is an idol as well...

[Claymore]

That people have faith in science which in turn makes it a religion.

Faith in something does not make a religion. I have faith in my father. That does not mean I have turned my belief in him into a religion.

[Xarog]

Faith in something does not make a religion. I have faith in my father. That does not mean I have turned my belief in him into a religion.
Those are different kinds of faiths. For the purposes of this discussion, whether or not you have faith in your father has no bearing on your belief that he exists.

[Claymore]

Those are different kinds of faiths. For the purposes of this discussion, whether or not you have faith in your father has no bearing on your belief that he exists.

So why are you then saying that believing in something makes it into a religion?

[ghoti]

That people have faith in science which in turn makes it a religion.

Without you watering down the word.... do you know what faith means?



Your assumptions most certainly do have a bearing on this. You assume your sensations are real. That is a belief which you cannot prove, and thus everything that follows from it (namely science) is also a belief.

You are right, I cant even prove you are real or that you even wrote this, and since you are a figment of my imagination I dont have enough evidence to prove that you wrote this post so therefore I can not respond to you. I didnt even write that you were a batty boy. Its all a figment of your imagination.

[ghoti]

So why are you then saying that believing in something makes it into a religion?

He has an amazing ability to water down the meaning of a word. I think I am going to start a religion on stamps, because we know stamps exist! Therefore we believe!!!!!!!!!!

[Neo]

I think I am going to start a religion on stamps, because we know stamps exist! Therefore we believe!!!!!!!!!!

Actually not :)

You KNOW a stamp exists. Therefore you don't need to believe it, i.e. it requires no faith.

But you could start a religion of Peter Pan. There is a large amount of circumstantial evidence he exists but no concrete proof. I've read he can fly and walk on water.

Perfect for starting a religion.

[ToxicBunny]

Sorted...... I like that Idea....

Are we going to have high priests and stuff?

[ghoti]

Sorted...... I like that Idea....

Are we going to have high priests and stuff?

We can call the priests stampedians? and the ones that suck up to the almighty stamp the most we can call stampons.

[ToxicBunny]

Oh I'm more interested in the Peter Pan religion.... sounds like more fun..

And we can have some scripture about true adepts will get to be children forever and ever... now wouldn't that be cool :)

[ghoti]

I like stamps :( Samphad! My god is going to have to kill your God and stuff. Fear the almighty paper cut!

[ToxicBunny]

You forget the crocodile clock tower... he will devour your god... and my god will just fly around laughing....

[PostmanPot]

We can write scriptures in a way so that we can pwn people in 2000 years time :D

[ghoti]

You forget the crocodile clock tower... he will devour your god... and my god will just fly around laughing....

There is but one God you blasphemous pig! The Great Stamp shall judge you and find you not sticky enough, thought shalt forever spend your days on a government envelope!

[ghoti]

I just thought of something, since the revelation came from the Great Stampon Xarog, does that mean he is a prophet to stamps? hmmm.... I shall need to consult the book of Infinite Wisdom *searches for the stamp price guide book*

[ToxicBunny]

My god is just fun, yours is boring and sticky.....

I get to have great feasts and chase Captain Hook around... ahhhh the fun...

Well that there is a quandry you have with your religion my son, may the Great Stamp grant you guidance to find the answer... and I pity you if Xarog is your prophet...

[ghoti]

My god is just fun, yours is boring and sticky.....

I get to have great feasts and chase Captain Hook around... ahhhh the fun...

Well that there is a quandry you have with your religion my son, may the Great Stamp grant you guidance to find the answer... and I pity you if Xarog is your prophet...

Aaah, but your God does not offer you the benifits of free delivery. There is no competition. My God gives instant results, your God is but a false God, and the Great Stamp has decided to ask all Stampons and Stampedians to be led by the Great Prophet Xarog (though there is some debate as to if he really does exist), to defeat the Pan of Peter.

[The Cosmos]

On what basis do you say that?

The basis of religion. Only religion can contradict religion. Only the same type of things can contradict each other.

[ghoti]

The basis of religion. Only religion can contradict religion. Only the same type of things can contradict each other.

And only the Great Stamp has glue!

[Pr⊕phet]

lmao

[ToxicBunny]

Piffle on your Great Stamp

PeterPanism will triumph over all, it just the best choice ever in the whole entire world....

[Pr⊕phet]

...MR TB has his very own religion ;)

[Pr⊕phet]

in stamp or peterpanism - which one can i skate in its heaven ?


.... Great Stamp Delusion

.... Peterpanism Code ;)

[ToxicBunny]

You are free to do everything EXCEPT grow old in Peterpanisms heaven....

Quite a sweet deal if you ask me :D

[ShaunSA]

There is but one God you blasphemous pig! The Great Stamp shall judge you and find you not sticky enough, thought shalt forever spend your days on a government envelope!

Remember Commandment One w1z4rd!

Stamp Not! Lest yea be Stamped!

[Neo]

Aaah, but your God does not offer you the benifits of free delivery. There is no competition. My God gives instant results, your God is but a false God, and the Great Stamp has decided to ask all Stampons and Stampedians to be led by the Great Prophet Xarog (though there is some debate as to if he really does exist), to defeat the Pan of Peter.

Maybe, but we have Tinkerbell, (in a very short dress, nogal), as High Priestess. With but one sprinkling of divine dust, she can make mere mortals fly.

We spit on all you Stampons and Stampedians....

[noxibox]

Is the Great Stamp opposed by the Great Franker?

[noxibox]

Or perhaps the Big Lighter Fluid Dispenser, out to dissolve The Stamp's glue.

[ghoti]

Remember Commandment One w1z4rd!

Stamp Not! Lest yea be Stamped!

May the Great Stamp guide your way.

[ghoti]

Or perhaps the Big Lighter Fluid Dispenser, out to dissolve The Stamp's glue.

The Great Stamp is protected by federal law in the States... u better watch out.

[snoopy_inc]

ROFL, W1zard you and TIAL need to be NINJAED

I HEREBY NINJA YOU BOTH :P

[ghoti]

ROFL, W1zard you and TIAL need to be NINJAED

I HEREBY NINJA YOU BOTH :P

Was that blasphemy I detect? May all your mail be lost! :D

[Neo]

Was that blasphemy I detect? May all your mail be lost! :D

Can we take the current situation where all mail is guaranteed to get lost as a sign that the second coming already happened?

[Xarog]

So why are you then saying that believing in something makes it into a religion?


Without you watering down the word.... do you know what faith means?



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

You will note that there is a difference between the former and the latter. Understanding the different ways a word is used is hardly 'watering down' the meaning of a word - infact it's having good command of the english language.


You are right, I cant even prove you are real or that you even wrote this, and since you are a figment of my imagination I dont have enough evidence to prove that you wrote this post so therefore I can not respond to you. I didnt even write that you were a batty boy. Its all a figment of your imagination.
It does not follow that because you cannot prove my existence that I do not infact exist.

[The Cosmos]

The Great Stamp is protected by federal law in the States... u better watch out.

I'm going to report you and others for spamming in this thread. :mad:

[Pr⊕phet]

Stamp Not, Lest yea be Stamped !

[ToxicBunny]

Pan is not amused... and thats never a good thing, he gets very petulant.....

I just thought it prudent to warn your blasphemers...

[Tux]

Pan is not amused... and thats never a good thing, he gets very petulant.....

I just thought it prudent to warn your blasphemers...

Why? Did he have to go "polish" the captain's hook again? :D

[Pr⊕phet]

Why? Did he have to go "polish" the captain's hook again? :D

:D

[ToxicBunny]

Hook only WISHES that would happen, he's been hinting and trying for many years.. :D

[ghoti]

You will note that there is a difference between the former and the latter. Understanding the different ways a word is used is hardly 'watering down' the meaning of a word - infact it's having good command of the english language.

*hands xarog the watering can* Carry on, carry on! The Great Stamp appreciates your efforts, for without your watering down the meaning of important words he would not exist.

All hail the Great Stamp!


It does not follow that because you cannot prove my existence that I do not infact exist.

Prove it, and I am not trusting the information of my 5 senses... just like you suggested. So prove it without using any of the 5 senses.

[Tux]

Hook only WISHES that would happen, he's been hinting and trying for many years.. :D

well PAN(sy) does look a wee bit feminine.... Might have happened

[ghoti]

I'm going to report you and others for spamming in this thread. :mad:

The Great Stamp will forgive his stamp collection, so do what you want, just dont forget to pray for forgiveness afterwards. The Great Stamp works like other religions in that way. You can do anything you want, just remember to pray afterwards and pretend to show remorse. The Great Stamp says you can blame the Evil Envelope for all the bad acts you do.

[ToxicBunny]

Again, this is where Panism trumps all you wannabe religions...

There is no forgiveness in Panism cos followers can do no wrong

[Tux]

Again, this is where Panism trumps all you wannabe religions...

There is no forgiveness in Panism cos followers can do no wrong

Us Jedi have an advantage there. We get to do some smiting of our own

[ShaunSA]

Us Jedi have an advantage there. We get to do some smiting of our own

Ok I don't believe in The Great Stamp anymore! I wanna be a Jedi! Jedi's are more cool. Plus I get to use my Big Smiter!

[ghoti]

Ok I don't believe in The Great Stamp anymore! I wanna be a Jedi! Jedi's are more cool. Plus I get to use my Big Smiter!

The Great Stamp is about to 'immanently' release cooler light sabers than the Jedi`s. You might want to hold on there, oh, and "Accept the Great Stamp, and get a free PS3 or Xbox360" Deny the Great Stamp and you will receive corporal punishment with a light saber for the duration it takes for the South African postal service to deliver a letter (IE eternity)

[Xarog]

Prove it, and I am not trusting the information of my 5 senses... just like you suggested. So prove it without using any of the 5 senses.
Prove what? That I exist? I have no intention of doing so, and nor do I need to.

As for proving the logic of my argument, that can be proven without relying on the physical senses.

[ghoti]

Prove what? That I exist? I have no intention of doing so, and nor do I need to.

As for proving the logic of my argument, that can be proven without relying on the physical senses.

Ok, then prove it. Like I said, though I will not use any of my 5 senses to follow your proof. I will await your telapathetic link.

[Xarog]

You can read. You may not know that you are reading something that exists beyond your perception, but the perception certainly exists and from that perception you can piece together letters in such a way so as to gain some 'meaning' from them.

So, does not being able to prove something mean that the opposite is true? Yes or no?

[ghoti]

You can read. You may not know that you are reading something that exists beyond your perception,

Prove this.



but the perception certainly exists and from that perception you can piece together letters in such a way so as to gain some 'meaning' from them.

Prove this.


So, does not being able to prove something mean that the opposite is not true? Yes or no?

What is the opposite of prove?

[Xarog]

Prove this.
Self-evident.


Prove this.
Also self evident.


What is the opposite of prove?
Disprove.

[ghoti]

Self-evident.

Okay, so no proof offered.


Also self evident.

okay so no proof offered.


Disprove.

I cant prove the word prove exists so how do I know the word disprove exists? I mean, I only am using my 5 senses.

(for others reading this, I am doing this to show what I perceive to be the sillyness of Xarogs debate, and my argument is sarcastic.)

[ghoti]

For redarrow:

What I asked:

"I hear the religious folk bandy these words around a lot, and because of the strangeness I decided to try find out more about them.

What makes me wonder about these words are the following:

- Why should evolution and the theory around it have and ism or an ist?

For instance I have never heard of someone who believes in the theory of gravity to be known as a Gravitationist, or that someone who believes in the germ theory of disease called a Germist.

If someone disagree`s with say a field of study in the histories such as the Holocaust, they are known as a holocaust denialist. Someone who doesn't believe in the HIV theory for AIDS is normally known as an AIDS denialists. People who agree with the theories are not known as holocaustists or hivists.

Why should this apply to the theory of evolution?

- Lets have a look at the dictionary definition on the word:


View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;ist /ˌɛvəˈluʃənɪst or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective Also, ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;is&#183;tic.
3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
[Origin: 1855–60; evolution + -ist]

—Related forms
ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;ism, noun
ev&#183;o&#183;lu&#183;tion&#183;is&#183;ti&#183;cal&#183;ly, adverb

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist

Now why is this word in the dictionary? Is it the correct usage of the word?

The wikipedia article on Evolutionism gives you a much deeper insight into the history's of the word and the current usage of the word:


Evolutionism, from the Latin evolutio, unrolling, refers to theories that certain things develop or change as natural (unplanned) outgrowths of those that existed before, in contrast to beliefs that these things are fixed and immutable. An evolutionist is a proponent of such a theory. Theories of change have been developed across several fields of study.

In anthropology and biology, the term Evolutionism is nowadays used specifically for historical theories or beliefs of early sociocultural evolutionism developed in the 18th and 19th century that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves through progressive changes that are heritable. This idea was applied to cultures and societies as well as to living organisms. The term evolutionist is still used more widely and can refer to proponents of the theory of evolution through natural selection which has superseded the earlier biological theories, but particularly in the U.S.A. this term is used by opponents of the theory to bolster their claim that evolution theory is a belief, or ideology (compared with other ideological "isms"), rather than a scientific theory. The term is rarely used in the scientific community, as evolution is overwhelmingly accepted there. The terms are still used for theories about the development of cultures and civilisations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

I just get the feeling that the dictionary definition is inaccurate."


The response I got:





“

Originally Posted by w1z4rd
Why should evolution and the theory around it have and ism or an ist?
”
Don't fall into the trap of believing that the evolution of the English language follows a logical path. Words are coined, and if they achieve acceptance, they show up in the dictionary. It's as simple as that. "Bling" is in there and so is "evolutionist" because both words occur commonly in American language, if not British.
“

If someone disagrees with, say, a field of study in the histories such as the Holocaust, they are known as a holocaust denialist. Someone who doesn't believe in the HIV theory for AIDS is normally known as an AIDS denialist.
”
And it's all a matter of politics and fashion, isn't it? A person who doesn't believe in gravity would be called a gravity denialist, because "respectable" people all "know" that the "law" of gravity is true. On the other hand, a person who doesn't believe in the theory that white people are innately superior to other people is not a "white supremacy denialist." We don't have a word for that person at all, because it is assumed that it includes all "respectable" people and does not need to be pointed out.

Unfortunately over the past thirty years it has become fashionable and politically correct in America to know absolutely no science. People who are completely ignorant of science have positions as publishers of newspapers, directors of TV news, and leaders of the three branches of American government.

As a result, people who thirty years ago would have been called "evolution denialists" or simply "religious nuts" are now treated with respect and called "creationists."
“

People who agree with the theories are not known as holocaustists or hivists. Why should this apply to the theory of evolution?
”
Since what the now-respectable religious nuts believe is the "ism" of creationism, what they oppose also has to be an "ism" and it's evolutionism.
“

Now why is this word in the dictionary? Is it the correct usage of the word?
”
Once again, this needs to be made clear. A dictionary of the English language (or the American language as some of ours put it) is not a guide to proper usage. It makes no claim to sorting out a consistency in popular terminology. It is only a record of words that are regarded as "accepted usage" by some easily verified standards, primarly appearing in print in publications over a certain threshold of circulation or, I suppose now, being captured on recordings of conversations between people who have some claim to respectability such as newcasters, educators and politicians.

There is no such thing as "correct" usage of any English word, beyond that which the speakers of this language "accept" as being correct. Approval doesn't matter: the "N" word is in the dictionary. Coinage out of thin air doesn't matter: "humongous" is in the dictionary. Ranting and raving by people with good education doesn't matter: some dictionaries now list "dove" and "snuck" as alternates to the "preferred" forms, "dived" and "sneaked." Ignorance doesn't matter: "flammable" is now preferred over "inflammable" and one of the definitions of "buffalo" is "the American bison."
“

I just get the feeling that the dictionary definition is inaccurate.
”
A dictionary definition is only "inaccurate" if it inaccurately records the meaning of the word in common usage. Unfortunately, the definition of "evolutionism" in Wikipedia and all the online dictionaries I reviews is an accurate record of the way the word is used."


I hope we have some clarity on the words now redarrow.

[Xarog]

(for others reading this, I am doing this to show what I perceive to be the sillyness of Xarogs debate, and my argument is sarcastic.)
Actually you're failing rather miserably. I'm pointing out a valid weakness in subjective observation whereas you're flatout denying the existence of logic or rational thought.

[ghoti]

Actually you're failing rather miserably. I'm pointing out a valid weakness in subjective observation whereas you're flatout denying the existence of logic or rational thought.

Just remember you said these words. Thats all I want.

[Xarog]

My position is both logical and rational, and unlike any other position makes absolutely no assumptions whatsoever about the nature of reality.

[redarrow]

For redarrow:

What I asked:

"I hear the religious folk bandy these words around a lot, and because of the strangeness I decided to try find out more about them.

What makes me wonder about these words are the following:

- Why should evolution and the theory around it have and ism or an ist?

For instance I have never heard of someone who believes in the theory of gravity to be known as a Gravitationist, or that someone who believes in the germ theory of disease called a Germist.

If someone disagree`s with say a field of study in the histories such as the Holocaust, they are known as a holocaust denialist. Someone who doesn't believe in the HIV theory for AIDS is normally known as an AIDS denialists. People who agree with the theories are not known as holocaustists or hivists.

Why should this apply to the theory of evolution?

- Lets have a look at the dictionary definition on the word:



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist

Now why is this word in the dictionary? Is it the correct usage of the word?

The wikipedia article on Evolutionism gives you a much deeper insight into the history's of the word and the current usage of the word:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

I just get the feeling that the dictionary definition is inaccurate."


The response I got:





“

”
Don't fall into the trap of believing that the evolution of the English language follows a logical path. Words are coined, and if they achieve acceptance, they show up in the dictionary. It's as simple as that. "Bling" is in there and so is "evolutionist" because both words occur commonly in American language, if not British.
“

”
And it's all a matter of politics and fashion, isn't it? A person who doesn't believe in gravity would be called a gravity denialist, because "respectable" people all "know" that the "law" of gravity is true. On the other hand, a person who doesn't believe in the theory that white people are innately superior to other people is not a "white supremacy denialist." We don't have a word for that person at all, because it is assumed that it includes all "respectable" people and does not need to be pointed out.

Unfortunately over the past thirty years it has become fashionable and politically correct in America to know absolutely no science. People who are completely ignorant of science have positions as publishers of newspapers, directors of TV news, and leaders of the three branches of American government.

As a result, people who thirty years ago would have been called "evolution denialists" or simply "religious nuts" are now treated with respect and called "creationists."
“

”
Since what the now-respectable religious nuts believe is the "ism" of creationism, what they oppose also has to be an "ism" and it's evolutionism.
“

”
Once again, this needs to be made clear. A dictionary of the English language (or the American language as some of ours put it) is not a guide to proper usage. It makes no claim to sorting out a consistency in popular terminology. It is only a record of words that are regarded as "accepted usage" by some easily verified standards, primarly appearing in print in publications over a certain threshold of circulation or, I suppose now, being captured on recordings of conversations between people who have some claim to respectability such as newcasters, educators and politicians.

There is no such thing as "correct" usage of any English word, beyond that which the speakers of this language "accept" as being correct. Approval doesn't matter: the "N" word is in the dictionary. Coinage out of thin air doesn't matter: "humongous" is in the dictionary. Ranting and raving by people with good education doesn't matter: some dictionaries now list "dove" and "snuck" as alternates to the "preferred" forms, "dived" and "sneaked." Ignorance doesn't matter: "flammable" is now preferred over "inflammable" and one of the definitions of "buffalo" is "the American bison."
“

”
A dictionary definition is only "inaccurate" if it inaccurately records the meaning of the word in common usage. Unfortunately, the definition of "evolutionism" in Wikipedia and all the online dictionaries I reviews is an accurate record of the way the word is used."

I hope we have some clarity on the words now redarrow.
What the original poster is saying here is: Words are "invented" by the general public, a word that becomes popular enough is entered into the dictionary, thus there is no "pattern" to words entering the dictionary nor neccasary any logic. - I agree with this, this is the way in which language moves.. ultimately it means that if enough people start using the word "evolutionist" then it gets entered into the dictionary.. and thus it becomes an acceptable word.

I still don't quite follow the complaint... the public has spoken: "Evolutionist" is a word. What these scientists need to do is just stomach it - why should they be able to dictate what words may or may not be used. Just for the record, I dislike the term "creationist" .. but I don't go bananas if I'm called one... it's just a word, and if the general public want to describe it like that.. then it's just tough. - Of course I'm free to try and sway the masses if I want.. :)


Once again, this needs to be made clear. A dictionary of the English language (or the American language as some of ours put it) is not a guide to proper usage. It makes no claim to sorting out a consistency in popular terminology. It is only a record of words that are regarded as "accepted usage" by some easily verified standards, primarly appearing in print in publications over a certain threshold of circulation or, I suppose now, being captured on recordings of conversations between people who have some claim to respectability such as newcasters, educators and politicians.
This is the denial bit.. the poster appears to be denying the correctness of the dictionary.. English is inconsistent in it's structure.. everyone knows that, but whether you agree or not to the usage of a particular word, if that word in the dictionary then it's as "official" as it gets.. just ask a Scrabble player.. :)

[Mr TB]

Just remember you said these words. Thats all I want.

"Unfortunately over the past thirty years it has become fashionable and politically correct in America to know absolutely no science. People who are completely ignorant of science have positions as publishers of newspapers, directors of TV news, and leaders of the three branches of American government."


The statement made by WIZARD is actually in direct contradiction in what really happened in the USA. In the 80's the bible were dismissed from the classroom because it is not based on science...

Science actually became the amarican god through evolution, its Idol. To have no godly wisdom became politically correct over the past 30 yrs. God however in his mercy allowed to be leaders at certains branches in the USA to prevent the destruction of this world...

[Dr Seuss]

Mr TB, I realise that this goes without saying for most of your posts, but I'll say it anyway. That's the biggest load of bull s**t I've ever read in my life. Is it worth trying to make you realise it? No, no - what was I thinking...

[Prometheus]

Doesn't religion require the worship of something?

What's being worshipped when believeing in evolution?
No, there are religions who belief in the supernatural world and souls and reincarnation but not all of them worship something. They are merely a belief system by which to guide your life and your place in the universe. Religion does not require worshipping of any kind.

I am new to this thread and I must just say that I have given up caring about this subject a long time ago, we are wasting too much of our time debating stuff that can't solve our current problems. I am expecting a whole bunch of attacks now for saying this :D
No, I am not going to attack you but some of the intolerant might. Yes, I agree too much time is spent on proving what does not matter. The problem becomes significant when something unproven is claimed as fact, in the media and all over.

No they are not. Do you seriously believe that the majority of Christians have had a mystical experience confirming every tenet of their belief system?
Besides which religious "spiritual" experience is interpreted according to conditioned religious beliefs, which is why Hindus don't experience Christ and Buddhists don't experience God.
I on the other hand didn't need to be taught how to interpret physical pain.
You're missing the point entirely. Science believes in an objective reality it hasn't and never will prove. Religions believe in subjective realities they can never prove. Certainly two opposite sides of the same coin and anyone who can't see that is blinded by their own faith. A Hindu who experienced Christ can no longer be a Hindu and a Buddhist who experienced God can no longer be a Buddhist. We do have these conversions and it's not only mystical experiences that confirm a belief system.

My point is that, as a system of belief, religion and science are vastly different approaches. So much so that they can be classified differently. One system can be called science and one can be called religion. :)
Quite clearly one is better than the other or you wouldn't have had a model from which to criticize religion as you have in the past.
Unfortunately the lines have become blurred and people no longer know what is science and what is religion. And in terms of one being better than the other that is also a subjective view. In fact if they are so vastly different as you claim then you can't do a comparison to determine which one is better.

Well for a start MRIs of brain activity during "spiritual" experience of people of different religions. Honest accounts of physical and emotional sensations during the experiences. That sort of thing could go a long way in deducing what causes "spiritual" experience and if there is any actual difference in between religions and if so why.
Science may not be able to provide conclusive answers but it could certainly provide a better understanding of the phenomena.
Those mean absolutely nothing. To go back to the pain example. If you hit your toe against a chair nerve impulses would rush to your brain and there would be activity in a certain area of your brain. We can do a scan on your brain but that would not show us that you hit your toe or that there was a nerve impulse in the first place. You're not looking for answers but for excuses and you won't find any.

No its like saying science is can't be a religion because it doesn't deal with the unknowable.
Science does deal with the unknowable.

All I have to prove is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural.
It very much does. Something is only supernatural until it is understood which is what science aims to do very much like religion.