Corona688

You think we are very wrong. Good for you! But unless you have any actual reason to think that then, as usual, your reasoning is a crock of shit. I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but it has to be done.
You think all of science is hijacked and out to suppress you. Good for you! But unless you have any actual reason to think this then, as usual, your reasoning is a crock of shit. I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but it has to be done.

ExtraSense

No. Religion is trying to get to the truth even if only in parable. Science limits itself to rigid forms and formality in general. Its attempt to become the only knowlege is a suicide.

es

Corona688

Apparently this involves killing a hell of a lot of people, since that's what religion's been most efficient at in general. religion wouldn't produce a digital computer given a million years, it's more interested in the control of people than the knowledge of how reality works. Religion doesn't even have any real contributions to the field of morality, except in that threatening people with divine retribution if they don't obey common sense can occasionally be effective on the gullible. and what's wrong with limiting itself to things that are real and demonstratable? non-sequitor.

ExtraSense

Here are few examples:
Quantum computing is a malignant pseudoscience.
So is fossil fuel pollution caused global warming.
So is NASA planetology pseudoscience.
So is Marxist pseudo-theory.
etc, etc, etc

Corona688

quamtum computing is potential pseudoscience. It hasn't gone either way at the moment. Try that line in 10 years when we should know one way or the other. How can you call a technology that works pseudoscience, polluting or not? Oh yeah, pseudoscience is just a word you call anything you don't like as opposed to the real word that actually means something. Get a dictionary. Please. Landed anything on mars lately, ES? Wait, no, you merely abuse their generosity in sharing their data to talk shit about them. Land your own damn mars probe, then you'll be qualified to say they aren't. I won't tread there, except that marx was not a scientist. Right, and they're all out to get you ES, because you're just that important.

Oh wait, no. No you're not. I'm very sorry.

LeeBuhrul

"during almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? more or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both superstition, bigotry and persecution"

James Madison, 1785
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

ExtraSense

The WRONG thing about it is that you DO NOT KNOW what is real and truthful. If you reject things that you can not prove, that can not be proven to you, you are bound to reject the truth at some point.

es

Sigma

so why have countless numbers of people been silenced or murdered by the monstrosity that is religion because they had a different opinion. If you are searching for the truth, why do you shut your ears (or eyes in this case) to peoples views and make horribly irrational comments entirely based on your sole opinion.

Corona688

I did not say "truthful". I said "demonstratable", and that is the key thing. Science limits itself to things that are demonstratable because things that cannot be demonstrated by definition either aren't real or aren't relevant. Reduce 'cannot prove' to 'cannot demonstrate'. Proof is extremely seldom 100%, it's usually provisional in one way or another. Unlike your mars website which pulls 99+% accuracy out of it's rear orfice somehow.

As for rejecting something that turns out to be correct, perhaps, but not for forever. Unlike religion which crams unchanging bullshit down people's throats for centuries because it's too holy to question.

ExtraSense

Many are enjoying the fruits of Christianity, and badmouth it for that. Those are filthy ungrates.

es