Granted, the difference is semantics.
That was my point, the difference isn't semantics. It is the equal of the claim that every religion is unscientific. This is positive instead of a negative but it is more argumentative than simply stating that you are apposed to the beliefs of all religions (i.e athiest) and leaving it at that. In the same way that telling your boss "I can't do that vital report" is better than saying "I can spend the whole day surfing the net instead of doing that vital report". Positive's aren't always better.[/quote]
I disagree. Yes, saying you believe in science over religion is clearly anti-religion. But you have ot DIG into it to find the insult to religion. Being athiest and proud is right there in your face.
To take an example you hinted at, if I said I was "Muslim and proud" you wouldn't get offended. Even though JUST by being Muslim my belief system directly opposes your own on several issues.
However, if I said I was "anti-Jesus and proud!" I think you might want to fight about it.
That would be fine if you replace the word "Pro-science" with Muslim or Hindu. But science isn't a personal belief it's the practice of observing reality for the purpose of discovering and formulating truths. In the context of this poll any "pro-science" answer is the equal of saying that all other religions have no basis in reality. That's more argumentative to my mind (not that arguments are a bad thing)
I disagree. I think science IS a belief system in this conversation because science cannot DISPROVE the existance of God. Therefore, using science as a basis for saying "God does not exist" is just having faith in the idea that "if God existed, science would have found him or her by now." Therefore, using science as an argument against God is a matter of faith.
Of course, if by science you mean an atheistic (not requiring God) belief systems such as Evolution, then none of my points are relevant and it's just terrible misuse of the word science on your part ;-)
Evolution is a matter of science. I fail to see how using the word "science" to encompass different scientific theories is a misuse of the word "science". Perhaps we are confusing "science" vs "scientific method." Science, to me, with no context or connotation, is a collection of theories and explanations about our surroundings. The scientific PROCESS is the way those theories were formed. Therefore, Science (as a NOUN) tries to explain the same things as religion.
I thought it was pretty obvious when I said "pro-science" in this context (since we are talking about religion....) I was giving a short form of saying "a science based belief in how the universe came about that does not require a god or gods as a source of creation." If that wasn't obvious, than maybe I should have phrased it differently.
Poll