Scientism - The Belief System of Atheists

First of all, scientism is FULLY available to Christians. For example, scientism includes certain kinds of mistakes in the "soft" sciences of human behavior.

Beyond that, atheists don't necessariy rely on science in areas where science isn't the appropriate investigative tool.

And, the places where science IS appropriate aren't selected based on one's opinion of whether there is a god/supernatural. In fact, it should be LESS likely that I would make certain mistakes of "scientism" if in my opinion there is no supernatural: Why would I make the "scientism" mistake of attempting to apply science to the supernatural??? On the other hand, a Christian may well make that mistake, because for such a person the supernatural does exist.


SO, I would say your "box" theory is totally backwards.

Scientism is characterized by having NO box around science - applying science even to questions for which science isn't the appropriate tool.

 

More of the top shelf pile of neoatheist bullshit

Nothing was debunked, the long known differences between ID based in creationsim and scientism were simply put on the record, and the judge handed down the correct opinion, in as much as the constitution is concerned and their pretense that scientism is not a religion.

What the spin of the above poster is NOT saying is that the school board were a bunch of dumb asses to try to teach something that is clearly the ingredients of an unacceptable religion to the gubmint.

So it goes without saying the gubmint is going to rule in favor of ITS OWN RELIGION

The Religion of Scientism


Don Watson


Materialism holds a commanding position in science throughout the world today. The materialistic world-view has earned this position because it has been extremely fruitful for the scientific work of the last few centuries, not only in the physical sciences, but in biology, too. The "clock-work" model has created and reinforced the strong belief that, given enough time and money, materialistic science will eventually explain everything, including life and consciousness. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, wryly characterized this belief as "promissory materialism." Indeed, promissory materialism is a fundamental article of faith in Scientism.


Scientism has been characterized in many ways, some neutral and others pejorative. In this essay, I use neutral terminology, e.g., "The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists" (Random House Dictionary). In other words, Scientism is what the scientific community actually does and believes, regardless of what it claims to do and believe.


The scientific community formally adopted materialism as the basis of its belief system in 1667 when Thomas Sprat wrote a letter to King Charles II on behalf of the Royal Society. To protect English scientists from the persecutions that were rampaging in Europe, the Royal Society solemnly promised that its scientists would not "meddle . . . with Divine things," and would limit their studies of humans to "their bodies" and "the products of their hands." The Royal Society thus promised that, while scientists would avoid the subjects of God and the Soul, "in all the rest, [they] wander at their pleasure."


With this oath, Scientism became the religion of materialism, and the basic tenets of materialism became the Scientist's Creed.
https://hilgart.org/enformy/Religion_of_Scientism.htm

Only religions without deities are acceptable to the gubmint.

 

So, science as practiced by Christians, atheists and others bent in the face of religious persecution from the established government religion and you suggest that was a huge mistake??

Both religious and nonreligious scientists leave religion out of their science. And, both religious and nonreligious scientists make the mistakes of scientism - especially when it comes to the soft scienes.

So, suggesting that scientism belongs to atheists is ridiculous.

And, when it became so clear how bad it was for religion and government to mix, separation of religion and government became of increasing importance, leading to our own constitution.

 

first it led to the bill of rights not the constitution.
second please cite where WtP granted the gubmint the authority to tell the Mormons how they can [not] practice their religion? You know in the land of the FREE?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

??? The amendments are part of the constitution. They ammend the constitution. They do not stand alone, nor are they absolute unto themselves.

There are all sorts of things religious groups may want to do that are not allowed - everything from breaking zoning and tax law to carrying out human sacrifice.

 

citation

citation

They were not, the constitution would never have been ratified if the BoR was not included, yes it is part of the constitution, supposedly to protect our 'reserved rights'.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the gubmint inserts and enforces its own religion with disregard to WtP and our choice religion

 

Are you seriously unaware that the amendments are part of the constitution??

Supporting our laws is not a sign of our government having some sort of government religion.

It is HILARIOUS that you would post Carlin!

 

Where are those citations? Another drive by posting?

Gee thats a tough one! Ill get back to you on that.

Our Laws? WTF? I never got to vote on any such law.
I would never vote for any law that encroaches interferes, infringes or violates anyones religion, even the neoatheists religion.

It IS a gubmint religion when people are forced to obey the will of the gubmint against their chosen religion.

Yeh thought I would add a little humor since it describes your version of how this country handles the religious rights we 'thought' we had


Now, if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you’re at the computer, get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in “Japanese Americans 1942,” and you’ll find out all about your precious ****ing rights, okay? [applause] All right. You know about it. You know about it. Ya.


In 1942, there were a 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment [concentration] camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had, “right this way” – into the internment camps. [Hey, how about that - just like Hitler!]
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took ’em away. And rights aren’t rights if someone can take ’em away. They’re privileges, that’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter and shorter. [applause] You see what I was saying… George Carlin

Yes you agreed and that the gubmint enforces their religious overlay over WtP.


How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World| Pew ...

https://www.pewforum.org › 2019/07/15 › a-closer-look-at-how-religious-...
Jul 15, 2019 - Among the countries with the highest levels of limits on religion, myriad policies restricting religious activities are enforced

 

Oh, please.

This thread is NOT about religious freedom in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc. And, your study doesn't even MENTION the USA in any of its categories of behavior or region.

And, referencing our behavior toward Japanese Americans during WWII does not go to any argument concerning worsening conditions relating to religion in the US.

You are getting seriously desperate here.

 

no one considers 'proving a point' desperation, except of course neoatheists.

 

Once again, that doesn't point to the USA.

It points to two different continents and a significant number of countries.

You haven't even addressed the issue yet.

 

one of which includes the US

 

All we get is some sort of weird average of the numerous governments and societies of which the US is only one.

So, it doesn't even suggest that the US has changed at all!

 

What you cant click on a link?



Obviously part of Ohaha Care!

Thats what we get when liberal Neoatheists are at the helm, more violation of our rights.

Steady gubmint religious growth, steady decline of WtP's religions due to constant attacks by neoatheists promoting their secular based religion and enforcing it through gubmint stealthily disguised as nonreligious.

 

I would need to see what these restrictions are.

 

GIYF
Besides whether you agree or disagree is 100% irrelevant since the metrics of the study was globally uniform.

 

The issue here is what's going on in the US. If you want to broaden that, fine, but I think the major problems will be in other places than in the US.

Uniformity is good, of course, but that doesn't mean I would accept any change as being a hardship on religion.

For example, if a change they note is one of enforcing the long existing law that churches must follow the tax model of political organizations when they become political organizations, I would recognize that as a change, but one that can't be considerd unfair or harsh on religion.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...em-of-atheists.562760/page-14#post-1071118331
The issue started with someone posting 100% propaganda, hoping no one would look up the truth which was promptly debunked unlike the neoatheist side of the argument with citations no less!

Oil and water dont mix, you cant practice scientism and Christianity at the same time any more than you can be an atheist and a thiest at the same time. Why you posting this garbage or is this another one of those situations where neoatheists think they can be atheo-agno-theists all at the same time?

I went on to point out that religion along with all of our 'reserved rights' which are rights the gubmint has no authority to adjudicate, is purely part of the bill of rights, which was not originally in the constitution. and without it would not have been ratified.

This was the focus issue that you dodged answering, because we both know it is a flagrant violation of our religious rights then you went on to say:

I asked for citations you refused to post them because I know they do not exist and you went on to say.

and I thanked you for pointing out that the US gubmint suppresses our religion.

I went on to point out that you have no ****ing rights, they are imaginary, its all a big facade, puppy chow for the gullible.

So now you want to hide under the tax laws?
Seems to me even JC said pay ceasar what you owe ceasar which would flush your tax cover down the tubes.

But you already conceded the argument with the above statement by agreeing the gubmint does precisely what I said, violate our religious right under the name of commerce.

 

I think I may have bruised my head with the head-slapping historical ignorance of this post. The Constitution was ratified well before the BoR was included. Most Junior High civics and history classes cover this. How can an adult not know this?

 

oh man dont hurt yourself this is too much fun!

Massachusetts Compromise - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Massachusetts_Compromise
The Massachusetts Compromise was a solution reached in a controversy between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over ratification of the United States Constitution. ... They sought to amend the Constitution, particularly with a Bill of Rights as a condition before ratification.

As I said the constitution would have fallen flat on its ass if the states did not agree to add a BoR.

I dont know, you tell me? How can an adult not know this?

 

Our government does address commerce, but it addresses a lot more than that.

Our constitution is a living document - there is a defined process for amendment. The constitution we follow is the one that exists today, not the one that existed at some time in the past.

The US includes people of numerous beliefs about religion.

Suggesting that everyone who is religious should have the right to ignore all law is preposterous.

 

Our government is designed around commerce.
Ferengi inc

That makes no sense what are you talking about, nothing I said.

yes and they all have the 'reserved right' to exercise the religion of their choice, at least the constitution give them lip service, reality the US oppresses religion rights so they can insure iron grip power and control.

So then why are you suggesting it?

If you mean that the people in the US are denied the right to exercise their religion you are correct. You admitted it. We have no freedom of religion and we cannot exercise our religion any more than the US Japanese citizens could avoid being thrown in to the US concentration camps. The only religion we can 'freely' exercise are the state certified privileges.

 

I get the impression you do not understand what a reserved right is, nothing much takes higher precedence.

Can you tell us?

 

Yes, we're a plural society and claiming your religion says you can do X doesn't mean that X becomes legal.

But, America provides enormous religious freedom.

You're still having a hard time with our constitution.

 

I can tell by your posts you have not so much as a glimmer of a clue what reserved rights are, your failure to tell us caps it. Not that I blame you since it 'proves' your position wrong.

No they dont, hell the mormons cant exercise their religion, and christains are being attacked constantly by the same gubmint charters to protect them

WTF are you talking about? If its their religion its already legal, or are you going to continue to advertise wiping our asses with the constitution?

Already legal:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Do you understand what the words in red mean?