Obv s*** like Buddhism etc is more planted in reality and not as self aggrandizing as other religions but just as a general concept religion came to be bc humans dont know what/why/how/where they are and want to fill in the holes. If I'm wrong then why does 80% of the world population blindly believe in God without any physical evidence
80% of the world believes in the big bang without any physical evidence too so your point is moot
80% of the world believes in the big bang without any physical evidence too so your point is moot
But the big bang theory exists because we obviously lack the ability to go back in time and conduct those tests. It's the most rational scientific explanation based on what we know about the observable universe and physics. Many religious beliefs for how the world came to be are nonsensical and/or paradoxical
But the big bang theory exists because we obviously lack the ability to go back in time and conduct those tests. It's the most rational scientific explanation based on what we know about the observable universe and physics. Many religious beliefs for how the world came to be are nonsensical and/or paradoxical
rational to you maybe
its a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo to me
rational to you maybe
its a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo to me
do you even really know what the big bang theory is lol. and if so what makes your belief more rational
do you even really know what the big bang theory is lol. and if so what makes your belief more rational
physical or visual evidence, not some overpaid preacher with a labcoat on telling me i should believe him just because
physical or visual evidence, not some overpaid preacher with a labcoat on telling me i should believe him just because
what is your physical or visual evidence? also how are scientists overpaid lol thats just not true whatsoever
were those things motivated by religion or was religion used as an excuse to take more land, money, power etc just like is happening now but this time without the label of religion
How about both. Not everything is an either/or situation.
what is your physical or visual evidence? also how are scientists overpaid lol thats just not true whatsoever
they get big taxpayers money for writing fan fiction?
How about both. Not everything is an either/or situation.
stealing technology is also a reason for war
but i dont see noone opressing scientists tho
they get big taxpayers money for writing fan fiction?
the laptop you're s***posting on exists because of the way humans have grasped and utilized scientific knowledge
There are at least 8 states where the laws states you cannot hold office if you don't believe in God. Show me a law that says you can't hold office if you're christian.
People clowning you on the internet isn't oppression turn off your f***in wifi
A lot of religions are discriminatory to certain types
But also I find it dumb about the backlash over companies and schools choosing to celebrate Christmas themes
stealing technology is also a reason for war
but i dont see noone opressing scientists tho
I think you might be mistaking something. Religion and technology are two entirely different things you can't be comparing these. If you're gonna compare you should've used science, except that wouldn't have worked. Just to clarify, technology is a product of science.
What you're saying rn is:
Stealing technology -> war
Religion -> war
I hope you notice where these two are different. Technology by itself doesn't cause war because technology has no will. It can't do anything unless instructed.
Stealing technology can be a reason for war, but technology as a craft does not cause war and the stealing of land. That's a possible use/consequence and the one who should be held responsible for that are humans, not technology itself. I think you're viewing the consequences and technology itself as one when they aren't. Many religions on the other hand have discriminatory elements in their foundation and religion is inseparably linked to humans because religion inhabits humans. Religion becomes one with a person, while technology is simply something humans create entirely new things with.
And yea, scientists aren't oppressed, but the only one who oppresses religious people are other religious people. So you really shouldn't be trying to blame science here...
There are at least 8 states where the laws states you cannot hold office if you don't believe in God. Show me a law that says you can't hold office if you're christian.
The highest ideal you hold is basically your god.
Environmentalist are destroying the earth. Agenda 2030 and the green deal are the death of this world
I think you might be mistaking something. Religion and technology are two entirely different things you can't be comparing these. If you're gonna compare you should've used science, except that wouldn't have worked. Just to clarify, technology is a product of science.
What you're saying rn is:
Stealing technology -> war
Religion -> war
I hope you notice where these two are different. Technology by itself doesn't cause war because technology has no will. It can't do anything unless instructed.
Stealing technology can be a reason for war, but technology as a craft does not cause war and the stealing of land. That's a possible use/consequence and the one who should be held responsible for that are humans, not technology itself. I think you're viewing the consequences and technology itself as one when they aren't. Many religions on the other hand have discriminatory elements in their foundation and religion is inseparably linked to humans because religion inhabits humans. Religion becomes one with a person, while technology is simply something humans create entirely new things with.
And yea, scientists aren't oppressed, but the only one who oppresses religious people are other religious people. So you really shouldn't be trying to blame science here...
all i got from this post os that you dont really know much about religion
actions of men is different from what religions teach, but you wouldnt know because darwinists are known to be pretty close minded
all i got from this post os that you dont really know much about religion
actions of men is different from what religions teach, but you wouldnt know because darwinists are known to be pretty close minded
You say yourself that religion teaches. Is the point of teaching not to make man 'act' a certain way
You say yourself that religion teaches. Is the point of teaching not to make man 'act' a certain way
humans still have a free will you know, they choose their own actions
humans still have a free will you know, they choose their own actions
So what is the argument you're trying to make in this thread then. Do you mean people who oppress others in the name of the their religion are not really following the teachings? Because then you're just cherry picking what you do and don't like about religion.
80% of the world believes in the big bang without any physical evidence too so your point is moot
It's not that there's no physical evidence of the big bang, it's moreso that we don't have the understanding of astrophysics to understand the data and information that they use to prove the theory.
For it to become a credited theory though, it has to go through plenty of peer review and have solid grounds for it's basis or it would have been torn to shreds by other astrophysicists.
So what is the argument you're trying to make in this thread then. Do you mean people who oppress others in the name of the their religion are not really following the teachings? Because then you're just cherry picking what you do and don't like about religion.
its people without religion doing the most oppression
“noo you must like gays”
“noooooo you must believe in evolution”
lwhat do you mean the earth might be a disc its flat and you better believe me
”