Copernicus' major work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, which advocated the heliocentric system, was banned by the church and placed on the index of forbidden books from 1616 to 1758. What makes someone a science follower then, in your opinion?
different strokes for different folks. IMHO though most followers lack knowledge of what they follow. be it science/religion/athiesm whatever
also my undertsaning is that De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium wasnt 'banned'. It was taken out of circulation, then subject to some changes was allowed to be read. But the book was never reprinted with the changes and the original was available to suitably qualified scholars
It was the idea of heliocentrism and not the author. I'm sure there are examples of theistic censorship of science in most faiths. The action of censorship has to be decreed by the organisation itself though, by definition. You didn't answer my question. You accept various theories that science has put forward. What makes someone else a follower of science, but you not one? Atheism doesn't have to require any knowledge at all. If you don't believe in a god/gods, then you're an atheist.
It was taken out of circulation, edited and then only allowed to be read by certain people. That's banned, for the vast majority, isn't it and nobody was allowed to read it unedited?
i am not arguing that there is no incidences of censorship. There clearly are and exist today. theistic and otherwise My argument is that you cant label religion as censoring, some religions at one time or another, no issue. The main argument from me again being that its not the religion necessarily that censors it. In the example of celibacy I gave, I have found no argument from the bible to say that this should be the case, but it clearly has been in the catholic church. The reasons IMO being non religious but about wealth In respect to your question I guess in the context of the conversation I would say authority would decide between a follower and an acceptor. as for the athiesm bit, we had this discussion before, and IMO, although the definition you give is certainly one I would choose for (lets say 'true' athiests) in my opinion and experience most people claiming to be athiest dont fit that description. They are more anti-god than dont believe the entity exists and i do think knowledge is required. people who claim to be something without an understanding CANNOT be imo I will use muslims as an example. there are people born into muslim families, claim to be mulim but know nothing of what it means, in some instances i would say they are bad muslims and in some not at all.
