Sciense is a religion by itself.

[rantal]

On all points where you say science does nothing to create values or principles you are dead wrong, as you act as though science is separate from mankind, I hate to tell you this son,

Why have you used the denotation 'son' here?
Yes I was being just as nasty and condescending as you were when you called me arrogant, I apologize, for allowing you to get to me, I should have been the bigger man, again I'm sorry. Keep in mind that here and elsewhere you'll seldom get an apology, if you know what I mean.


all the best, urban

[/quote][/quote]

No, I think you called me 'son' because you felt your belief to be threatened.
Not at all, I know that I'm right no matter what you say,


No, don't believe you.

It would seem you didn't understand the passage I quoted from Britannica. It's apparently true for them as well. And I'll take them over OED any day. OED just eliminates all the other facts that pertain to a given word, so as to only mention those which they believe are the crowning differentiation, a matter of perspective. I mean, how much can be said in a sentence or two anyway. Encyclopaedia Britannica is a much different story, they include paragraph after paragraph of pertinent information. I especially like how that which I quoted, was in fact, their opening lines, perfect!

I was not being condescending when I called you arrogant merely factual, though perhaps presumptuous might have been a better word, since you presumed to know my belief
From where I sit, such a fact, as you call it, is a matter of perspective.

No, you cannot pretend that you knew what I believed, therefore it is necessarily true that it is a fact that you just presumed to know.

We might dispute whether that is arrogant or not but it is at very least presumptuous


And so as to enlighten you, as though you really don't know any better, many things can be said of calling someone arrogant, and condescending is one of them. The point is you picked the one thing that was easiest to argue, because it was hurtful to you,

Again, you make false assumptions, it was in no way hurtful
to me and I at a loss to imagine why you should think it to be

All the best, rantal

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB in blue

On all points where you say science does nothing to create values or principles you are dead wrong, as you act as though science is separate from mankind, I hate to tell you this son,

Why have you used the denotation 'son' here?
Yes I was being just as nasty and condescending as you were when you called me arrogant, I apologize, for allowing you to get to me, I should have been the bigger man, again I'm sorry. Keep in mind that here and elsewhere you'll seldom get an apology, if you know what I mean.


all the best, urban

SOB in purple

SOB in red
No, I think you called me 'son' because you felt your belief to be threatened.
Not at all, I know that I'm right no matter what you say,
No, don't believe you.
You can believe what you want to. "A fool believes the truth depends upon his belief, while a wise man knows the truth is independent of his knowledge.

It would seem you didn't understand the passage I quoted from Britannica. It's apparently true for them as well. And I'll take them over OED any day. OED just eliminates all the other facts that pertain to a given word, so as to only mention those which they believe are the crowning differentiation, a matter of perspective. I mean, how much can be said in a sentence or two anyway. Encyclopaedia Britannica is a much different story, they include paragraph after paragraph of pertinent information. I especially like how that which I quoted, was in fact, their opening lines, perfect!

I was not being condescending when I called you arrogant merely factual, though perhaps presumptuous might have been a better word, since you presumed to know my belief
From where I sit, such a fact, as you call it, is a matter of perspective.
No, you cannot pretend that you knew what I believed, therefore it is necessarily true that it is a fact that you just presumed to know.

We might dispute whether that is arrogant or not but it is at very least presumptuous
Obviously I saw your belief contained within your argument, but that's beside the original point.

And so as to enlighten you, as though you really don't know any better, many things can be said of calling someone arrogant, and condescending is one of them. The point is you picked the one thing that was easiest to argue, because it was hurtful to you,
Again, you make false assumptions, it was in no way hurtful
to me and I at a loss to imagine why you should think it to be
Then what could possibly be your 'reason' for the bait and switch?

All the best, rantal

You have failed to address my last argument as to Science being a religion of sorts and gone off on this sidebar as to the implications of our insulting one another. I have to wonder why...

PEACE, my friend!

[rantal]

It is my habit to deal with things one at a time and at no point have I intended to insult you, my purpose in drawing attension to your presumption was merely a logical one.

Since argument must start from agreed premises and since you had presumed something I believed, what followed from that was invalid reasoing

and

I did not consider you to have made any real argument further that needed dealing with but if you consider you have a valid point and can state it cogently I will respond but ask frist you disarm yourself, there is nothing here to get upset about

all the best, rantal

[SpheresOfBalance]

It is my habit to deal with things one at a time and at no point have I intended to insult you, my purpose in drawing attension to your presumption was merely a logical one.

Since argument must start from agreed premises and since you had presumed something I believed, what followed from that was invalid reasoing

and

I did not consider you to have made any real argument further that needed dealing with but if you consider you have a valid point and can state it cogently I will respond but ask frist you disarm yourself, there is nothing here to get upset about

all the best, rantal

Yeah that's what I thought, better luck next time.

PEACE, my friend!

[rantal]

So, still you have no cogent argument to suggest that science is a religion, therefore your original claim is degeated

all the best, rantal

[SpheresOfBalance]

So, still you have no cogent argument to suggest that science is a religion, therefore your original claim is degeated

all the best, rantal

Sure I do, and presented it, but you ignored it, I assumed because you had no way of refuting it, I see that you either lost, or forfeit, take your pick.

[rantal]

There is just nothing there of substance to refute

all the best, rantal

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is just nothing there of substance to refute

all the best, rantal

It's true, that one can only comment on that, which is in their own mind; that which they are capable of understanding.

Case in point:

Here's another, Encyclopaedia Britannica (opening statement in the micropaedia): "Religion, man's relation to that which he regards as holy. The "holy" need not be thought of as supernatural, much less as personal; and if the word god be defined in personal or supernatural terms, it follows that religion includes far more than the relation to God or a god."

Again, science fails to meet the criteria since it holds nothing holy

You obviously need to re-read.

Here, let me remind you:

(paraphrased) 'On all points where you say science does nothing to create/state values or principles, you are incorrect, as you act as though science is separate from mankind, the fact is that mankind's values and principles have everything to do with science, they are that which gave way to the scientific method in the first place, that they undertake such experiments, as they do, using the scientific method, taking care, in reporting their findings as knowledge, indicates a set of extremely high values and principles. All that have, true, intelligence, understand this fact, that, that which governs science, is naturally projected in it's results, or at least, that's the plan. It, in fact, is the reason you tout Science's 'godlike' power, these high values and principles.

Nothing that man has ever done has not come from a value or principle. Your argument is seemingly an attempt at building a deity, untouched by mans values and principles, in this megalith of a GOD 'you' call Science, attempting to detach it from mankind, as if it stands alone as a great unbiased machine, that shall keep on going, long after mankind is wiped from the earth. I can't understand how anyone could be so misled and stubborn to spout, such absurd notions, that anything man does, such as that, of Science's magnitude, could possibly be detached from, and not project, the extremely high set of 'his' values and principles, upon which it is based, which in this case, is that of, the truth of things.

The problem with some people is that they get lost in all the linguistics, using it to lie to themselves about the truth of an object, in this case to elevate it to godlike status, when it's simply man creating something that, 'he believes,' is the ultimate truth, based upon an extremely lofty set of values and principles (can you now see that you promote this within yourself, along with your argument?). Just the nature of science proves my point, why else do it, if not to help lead mankind's base of knowledge, a value by most, but some just refuse to see the forest for the trees, believing that, one in particular towers over everything, like some sort of GOD, even though he planted it with his own hands; an act born of his values and principles!

Just because you deny it, doesn't make it not so.'

Religion, originally sought to do the exact same thing, one of intellect has to remember that it's a captive of it's time, that it was part of the foundation that has led us to understand these lofty values and principles of science, without it's base, could we have ever known science? Mankind's current state, is a product of his legacy, in it's totality. Could we have come to know, what we believe we do, without any singular part, of what we thought we knew before?