Are you religious? Yes/No and Why

[Blademaster]

1,500 ago there was no science.Many people tried to figure things out in different ways, but the procedures weren't clearly defined, the scientific method was created a long time later.

It's REALLY hard for me to take anything you say seriously after reading this.

Modern science =/= science.

Mathematics is a form of science, and it has existed since the dawn of the Uni/Multi/Omni/Infini/Kerbumplyverse. One and one has ALWAYS been two.

Mechanical science has existed since the dawn of mankind, when the dumbest of slope-foreheaded grunting cavemen learned to operate the wheel and the practical application of the flame.

Agricultural science has been in practice since the earliest tribes of humans figured out how to irrigate, how and when to plant and harvest, what to hunt and what for (meat, bone for tools and weapons, skin and fur for clothing, etc.), and how the seasons operate.

Chemistry has been in practice since the ancient Mesopotamians and Sumerians learned that clay could be baked to make tools and weapons, that precious materials could be extracted from ore via metallurgy, that chemical mixture could be fermented into beverages or extracted from nature and used as medicine.

Physics have been known and theorized (albeit philosophically moreso than literally) since the first astrometric maps, the construction of Stonehenge and the ancient Chinese creation of the compass, and the coining of atomism - which indeed happened a bit over 1,500 years ago.

It may have been poorly understood to most, but those who DID understand it used their knowledge for centuries, and much of it - included everything I just listed - is still in use to this day.

Besides, what you state as the evolution of science are only different theories that have been formulated, it's not "what science says" because "science" is not a religion. It doesn't tell you what you're supposed to believe. The many existing sciences are methods to explore and construct, not dogmas.

See

At least scientists TRY to explain things. Their goal is to prove themselves wrong by making new discoveries that can in turn give them new knowledge so that they can later make a new discovery that disproves THAT older one in turn.

Which is why a scientist can have any religion, or none at all.

I never said a scientist couldn't have a religion. A religious scientist can still learn a lot, disproving old theories and formulating new ones about the world around him/her. This is helpful to the scientific community and to the world as a whole.

But if you flip the roles, what happens? A religious person can learn physics, math, chemistry, anthropology, whatever -ology, -ometry, or -ism you can throw at them. Their life belief is still always going to be "God made everything.," and it will rarely change. Which is fine with me.

Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts.