Calling All REAL animal lovers!!!
Replies
-
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Why bother anymore. If the "scientists" of this age are so close minded like this person and couple of others in this thread then I don't think science has any hope left.
They aren't scientists, they are self-righteous folks who don't want to explore other possibilities and are interested only in proving themselves right. Calling them scientists would be like calling PETA an animal caring society0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
You know how many people science has killed in the name of experimentation? There are numerous laws that come into play to protect people from science because if this.0 -
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
Once again you use the oppression of a few groups to use as an example to define EVERY religion on the planet, past and present.
Its like saying all christians are evil because Hitler was evil
Once again, shame on you for using the name of science0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
I am aware of that and I do not think anyone is denying that. But you are talking about the Catholic Church, for the majority of these issues, which was more interested in maintaining power through the Enlightenment. Before that, there were many places where the Catholic Church supported science and medicine.
I believe that the current problem between science and religion is that Religion teaches an absolute truth which leaves little room for experimentation and research. Some scientists now tend to be leaning toward an outlook where everything is in question (as it should be) BUT there is definitely no higher power. This is a reactionary shift that is a relatively modern development. I forget who said it but to paraphrase a scientist who said that "science does not deny the Creator, but rather shows how they did it."0 -
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
Once again you use the oppression of a few groups to use as an example to define EVERY religion on the planet, past and present.
Its like saying all christians are evil because Hitler was evil or
The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
I am aware of that and I do not think anyone is denying that. But you are talking about the Catholic Church, for the majority of these issues, which was more interested in maintaining power through the Enlightenment. Before that, there were many places where the Catholic Church supported science and medicine.
I believe that the current problem between science and religion is that Religion teaches an absolute truth which leaves little room for experimentation and research. Some scientists now tend to be leaning toward an outlook where everything is in question (as it should be) BUT there is definitely no higher power. This is a reactionary shift that is a relatively modern development. I forget who said it but to paraphrase a scientist who said that "science does not deny the Creator, but rather shows how they did it."
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.0 -
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
Once again you use the oppression of a few groups to use as an example to define EVERY religion on the planet, past and present.
Its like saying all christians are evil because Hitler was evil or
The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but people who follow a specific religion probably dont find themselves in control or oppressed. In fact, the only one sees the person 'missing out on life' is the person not in that religion. So opression and and control is all subjective to a person. A Christian woman isnt going to feel caged in by her husband if the husband leads her in a path that follows a Christian upbringing.
The only one who can say its a method of control is the person looking from the outside in.0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
I am aware of that and I do not think anyone is denying that. But you are talking about the Catholic Church, for the majority of these issues, which was more interested in maintaining power through the Enlightenment. Before that, there were many places where the Catholic Church supported science and medicine.
I believe that the current problem between science and religion is that Religion teaches an absolute truth which leaves little room for experimentation and research. Some scientists now tend to be leaning toward an outlook where everything is in question (as it should be) BUT there is definitely no higher power. This is a reactionary shift that is a relatively modern development. I forget who said it but to paraphrase a scientist who said that "science does not deny the Creator, but rather shows how they did it."
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
I am aware of that and I do not think anyone is denying that. But you are talking about the Catholic Church, for the majority of these issues, which was more interested in maintaining power through the Enlightenment. Before that, there were many places where the Catholic Church supported science and medicine.
I believe that the current problem between science and religion is that Religion teaches an absolute truth which leaves little room for experimentation and research. Some scientists now tend to be leaning toward an outlook where everything is in question (as it should be) BUT there is definitely no higher power. This is a reactionary shift that is a relatively modern development. I forget who said it but to paraphrase a scientist who said that "science does not deny the Creator, but rather shows how they did it."
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
Actually, a friend of mine who got his Ph. D in Chemical Engineering from MIT said he became religious while getting his doctorate because of what he saw the more he went into the building blocks of the universe. He said it was because he saw a definite language and language is one of the signs of intelligence.
How can you say that there is no creator even if there is no evidence? Is that not the same as saying that there is a creator with no evidence?0 -
My oh my O.P.
this turned into a real ****storm of Biblical proportions, didnt it?0 -
Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.
I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.
Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions
Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures
Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing
Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages
While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.
Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.
Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV
You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.
I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
I am aware of that and I do not think anyone is denying that. But you are talking about the Catholic Church, for the majority of these issues, which was more interested in maintaining power through the Enlightenment. Before that, there were many places where the Catholic Church supported science and medicine.
I believe that the current problem between science and religion is that Religion teaches an absolute truth which leaves little room for experimentation and research. Some scientists now tend to be leaning toward an outlook where everything is in question (as it should be) BUT there is definitely no higher power. This is a reactionary shift that is a relatively modern development. I forget who said it but to paraphrase a scientist who said that "science does not deny the Creator, but rather shows how they did it."
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
Actually, a friend of mine who got his Ph. D in Chemical Engineering from MIT said he became religious while getting his doctorate because of what he saw the more he went into the building blocks of the universe. He said it was because he saw a definite language and language is one of the signs of intelligence.
How can you say that there is no creator even if there is no evidence? Is that not the same as saying that there is a creator with no evidence?
I think she means0 -
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
Once again you use the oppression of a few groups to use as an example to define EVERY religion on the planet, past and present.
Its like saying all christians are evil because Hitler was evil or
The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but people who follow a specific religion probably dont find themselves in control or oppressed. In fact, the only one sees the person 'missing out on life' is the person not in that religion. So opression and and control is all subjective to a person. A Christian woman isnt going to feel caged in by her husband if the husband leads her in a path that follows a Christian upbringing.
The only one who can say its a method of control is the person looking from the outside in.
that is not necessarily true. Many of the reforms in religion have come from believers who were not happy with their life within the religion.0 -
oops. Thought I was in the Recipe Section.
Never Mind.0 -
Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.
Once again you use the oppression of a few groups to use as an example to define EVERY religion on the planet, past and present.
Its like saying all christians are evil because Hitler was evil or
The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but people who follow a specific religion probably dont find themselves in control or oppressed. In fact, the only one sees the person 'missing out on life' is the person not in that religion. So opression and and control is all subjective to a person. A Christian woman isnt going to feel caged in by her husband if the husband leads her in a path that follows a Christian upbringing.
The only one who can say its a method of control is the person looking from the outside in.
that is not necessarily true. Many of the reforms in religion have come from believers who were not happy with their life within the religion.
Ah, that is true. Touché hombre!0 -
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.0 -
oops. Thought I was in the Recipe Section.
Never Mind.
Its a recipe for DISASTAAAARRRR0 -
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.
I'm just speaking the truth about religion and why religion was created. Its only offensive because religion in itself has been offensive. Atheism is not a religion by the way. To be a religion you must have a higher power to worship, atheism does not have this, atheism is just a term that means without God. I have no religion and I'll never put a false label/answer to a question just because I do not know the answer, that is true science.0 -
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.
I'm just speaking the truth about religion and why religion was created. Its only offensive because religion in itself has been offensive. Atheism is not a religion by the way. To be a religion you must have a higher power to worship, atheism does not have this, atheism is just a term that means without God. I have no religion and I'll never put a false label/answer to a question just because I do not know the answer, that is true science.
Thank you for finally admitting you're close minded about everything that you donot believe in. Yeesh only took you so long0 -
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.
I'm just speaking the truth about religion and why religion was created. Its only offensive because religion in itself has been offensive. Atheism is not a religion by the way. To be a religion you must have a higher power to worship, atheism does not have this, atheism is just a term that means without God. I have no religion and I'll never put a false label/answer to a question just because I do not know the answer, that is true science.
Thank you for finally admitting you're close minded about everything that you donot believe in. Yeesh only took you so long
I think she just won the award for the most close minded person on MFP0 -
I never said animals weren't meant to be eaten, although I don't eat them. I am a science major. I know and love the circle of life. I am saying that Earth was not made for humans and animals were not made solely for the purpose of serving humans.
the simple fact that the earth was not specifically made for humans does not negate the fact that the earth's resources come in handy from time to time0 -
There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.
No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.
How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.
I'm just speaking the truth about religion and why religion was created. Its only offensive because religion in itself has been offensive. Atheism is not a religion by the way. To be a religion you must have a higher power to worship, atheism does not have this, atheism is just a term that means without God. I have no religion and I'll never put a false label/answer to a question just because I do not know the answer, that is true science.
Religion was not created to control. Religion was created in order to explain our surroundings. When it became involved in government is when it was used as a tool to control.
Atheism does have the trappings of a religion where it has a creation mythology, a clergy and doctrines.0 -
[/quote]
At least I can sleep a little better knowing someone else thinks the bible is a joke.
[/quote]
This entire thread is a joke!!0 -
Sweetie, you are never going to convince the vast majority of human beings to agree with anything you say. None of us will ever experience that. And it isn't worth your time or energy to do so.
I don't necessarily believe humans are better than animals or that animals exist to serve us. But at the same time, as long as the animals are treated humanely, I don't stress about it. Put your time and energy into making sure there are laws about humane treatment, education for the ignorant who abuse animals or don't believe in getting their pets spayed or neutered, and funding for the agencies that enforce the cruelty laws.0 -
Are you sure you want to pull at that thread? Domesticated animals depend on us. Animals in the wild have shorter life spans than those in "captivity". Animals are happy to be our companions. There is nothing that should drive you 'insane" or make you lose sleep over that. Treating animals like humans does them more harm than good. REAL animal lovers know that.0
-
I never said animals weren't meant to be eaten, although I don't eat them. I am a science major. I know and love the circle of life. I am saying that Earth was not made for humans and animals were not made solely for the purpose of serving humans.
the simple fact that the earth was not specifically made for humans does not negate the fact that the earth's resources come in handy from time to time
Here is a question to turn those gears.
Do you think that humans are a resource to Earth as well?0 -
They are when they die and decompose.I never said animals weren't meant to be eaten, although I don't eat them. I am a science major. I know and love the circle of life. I am saying that Earth was not made for humans and animals were not made solely for the purpose of serving humans.
the simple fact that the earth was not specifically made for humans does not negate the fact that the earth's resources come in handy from time to time
Here is a question to turn those gears.
Do you think that humans are a resource to Earth as well?0 -
I never said animals weren't meant to be eaten, although I don't eat them. I am a science major. I know and love the circle of life. I am saying that Earth was not made for humans and animals were not made solely for the purpose of serving humans.
the simple fact that the earth was not specifically made for humans does not negate the fact that the earth's resources come in handy from time to time
Here is a question to turn those gears.
Do you think that humans are a resource to Earth as well?
In a sense yes... but not in the way you are probably implying0 -
I never said animals weren't meant to be eaten, although I don't eat them. I am a science major. I know and love the circle of life. I am saying that Earth was not made for humans and animals were not made solely for the purpose of serving humans.
the simple fact that the earth was not specifically made for humans does not negate the fact that the earth's resources come in handy from time to time
Here is a question to turn those gears.
Do you think that humans are a resource to Earth as well?
Well played to you both.
I need to think on an answer to that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions