understanding your dreadful "religion" is having to read the c bible that is the origin of your corruption that is best done with the circumspection your greed blinded you from -
more in tune w/ the bb as a cyclical event and the creation of metaphysical physiology wherever conditions are conducive for its development. and its relation to the heavens, physiologies spiritual content.
that's not true - when they hover over the city or appear on the screen you can make that claim otherwise its left to the individual to free their spirit and live past their physiological constraint after it perishes ... as may be the goal of evolution and what other species on earth may already know how to accomplish.
it's definitely not the desert religions - they are fabrications of the worst kind.
First, your usage of "it" and "they" make your response unresponsive to understand what and who you are talking about. Second, you didn't succeed on proving your first statement in your post. What's not true and why not? Are you claiming that religion isn't misused and that is what we see when in the name of their god they kill, rape and so on? Are you saying that a gun can jump up off the ground, drive a car to a school, get out of the car and shoot people without a human controlling the gun? What weird dimension do you live in where guns and religions control themselves without human intervention?
First, your usage of "it" and "they" make your response unresponsive to understand what and who you are talking about. Second, you didn't succeed on proving your first statement in your post. What's not true and why not? Are you claiming that religion isn't misused and that is what we see when in the name of their god they kill, rape and so on? Are you saying that a gun can jump up off the ground, drive a car to a school, get out of the car and shoot people without a human controlling the gun? What weird dimension do you live in where guns and religions control themselves without human intervention?
- when they hover over the city or appear on the screen you can make that claim otherwise its left to the individual to free their spirit and live past their physiological constraint after it perishes ...
Just as there is no conflict between basketball and cooking. They are two different fields. No one ever says that you have to be a great home chef to be a basketball player, or that a great basketball player cannot be a person who doesn't know how to make toast. If I described my best basketball moves, it would tell you nothing about how I pan fry chicken.
They are two different fields that never need bother each other.
All of the so-called "conflicts between religion and science," such as Galileo being put under house arrest for claiming that the Earth (and everything else in the universe) goes around the sun while the church taught that the sun (and everything else) goes around the Earth, are actually conflicts between either science or religion and authoritarianism falsely draping itself with either religion or science.
The church had every right to say that the universe revolves around the Earth, and Galileo never tried to stop them, AFAK. Galileo had ever right to say that they universe revolves around the sun, but the Church did not accept that and went authoritarian on him.
Maybe I'm missing an example. If you have an example in which actual religion and actual science conflict, let me know and we can debate.
The church had every right to say that the universe revolves around the Earth, and Galileo never tried to stop them, AFAK. Galileo had ever right to say that they universe revolves around the sun, but the Church did not accept that and went authoritarian on him.
Earthquakes the works of God, and tokens of his just displeasure by Thomas Prince, 1727, Printed for D. Henchman, over against the Brick Meeting House in Cornhill edition, Microform in English - The second edition corrected. [Four lines from Psalms].
You also have the conflict between
-Evidence vs miracles ( religion is nothing but a collection of assumptions about the unknown that disappear with the advancement of human knowledge. The only evidence a religionist possesses for a miracle is a lack of evidence to the contrary.)
-Big bang vs Genesis ( both give wildly different explanations for the beginning of the universe)
-Absolutism vs skepticism ( Science constantly questions itself, religion doesn't allow for questioning, after all the point is blind faith)
-Significance vs insignificance. ( in religion humanity is the center of the universe. In science humanity is an insignificant speck of dust in the context of the vastness of the universe.)
Saying there's no conflict between religion and science is like saying the sun won't rise. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Science constantly gives different explanations to our observable world because science doesn't accept God as an explanation when God isn't proven to exist. There can not be a more fundamental conflict.
Earthquakes the works of God, and tokens of his just displeasure by Thomas Prince, 1727, Printed for D. Henchman, over against the Brick Meeting House in Cornhill edition, Microform in English - The second edition corrected. [Four lines from Psalms].
That is not at all science vs. religion. That is authoritarianism draped in one quasi-scientific idea that happens to support certain religious beliefs conflicting with authoritarianism draped in another quasi-scientific idea that happens to support other religions beliefs.
For a federal court to step in and tell a local school district what they may teach is the rankest of authoritarian moves.
On the other hand, what is a school district but an authoritarian organization that forced people to pay taxes and forces parents to send their students in for seven and a half hours per day of state-selected re-education?
Another great example of authoritarianism in action. I can't put it any better than the plaintiffs did in the case (from your wiki link):
The parents argued that their right to free expression was null if the state could decide whatever topics it could teach children.
This is a hard to swallow concept for many. But if the state runs a school, the state will teach the student whatever topics it pleases. Welcome to authoritarian America.
Don't like it homeschool your kids. Don't like being taxed to pay for a school you don't want your kids to go to? Again, welcome to authoritarian America.
We will never change that until we understand that it is the authoritarianism that is the problem, not this example or that example of the authoritarianism manifesting.
Webster had no case. His employer directed him how to do his job, and he can either do it or quit. He was trying to use his position as a state employee to press his religious views on other people's children. Authoritarian no matter what those views are. Meanwhile, the state brooks no deviation from its authoritarian-mandated curriculum, not from parents and not from teachers.
You also have the conflict between
-Evidence vs miracles ( religion is nothing but a collection of assumptions about the unknown that disappear with the advancement of human knowledge. The only evidence a religionist possesses for a miracle is a lack of evidence to the contrary.)
-Big bang vs Genesis ( both give wildly different explanations for the beginning of the universe)
-Absolutism vs skepticism ( Science constantly questions itself, religion doesn't allow for questioning, after all the point is blind faith)
-Significance vs insignificance. ( in religion humanity is the center of the universe. In science humanity is an insignificant speck of dust in the context of the vastness of the universe.)
Saying there's no conflict between religion and science is like saying the sun won't rise. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Science constantly gives different explanations to our observable world because science doesn't accept God as an explanation when God isn't proven to exist. There can not be a more fundamental conflict.
while your waiting maybe you can locate the etched tablets from heaven with their 10 commandments - that never existed than in your c bible, book of forgeries and fallacies - and the other two desert religions.
There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.
-Two suspects have confessed to killing and dismembering British journalist Dom Phillips and indigenous expert Bruno Pereira, TV Globo reported on Wednesday, citing police sources, after the men went missing for over a week in Brazil's Amazon rainforest.
On Wednesday, Bolsonaro suggested that Phillips had made enemies by writing about environmental issues.
sure, the baby face and their desert religion, just like old times - if they wanted the environment saved they would have sent a message ... otherwise its non of their business, who needs conflict.
No, it was authoritarianism conflicting with science. If they church could have "agreed to disagree," there would have been no conflict.
I'll address them one at a time. If it gets too long for one post, I'll cut it off and continue after you've had a chance to digest my response.
Not sure how that is a conflict between religion and science. A disagreement, sure. But I don't see the conflict.
Great example!
That is not at all science vs. religion. That is authoritarianism draped in one quasi-scientific idea that happens to support certain religious beliefs conflicting with authoritarianism draped in another quasi-scientific idea that happens to support other religions beliefs.
For a federal court to step in and tell a local school district what they may teach is the rankest of authoritarian moves.
On the other hand, what is a school district but an authoritarian organization that forced people to pay taxes and forces parents to send their students in for seven and a half hours per day of state-selected re-education?
Another great example of authoritarianism in action. I can't put it any better than the plaintiffs did in the case (from your wiki link):
The parents argued that their right to free expression was null if the state could decide whatever topics it could teach children.
This is a hard to swallow concept for many. But if the state runs a school, the state will teach the student whatever topics it pleases. Welcome to authoritarian America.
Don't like it homeschool your kids. Don't like being taxed to pay for a school you don't want your kids to go to? Again, welcome to authoritarian America.
We will never change that until we understand that it is the authoritarianism that is the problem, not this example or that example of the authoritarianism manifesting.
Webster had no case. His employer directed him how to do his job, and he can either do it or quit. He was trying to use his position as a state employee to press his religious views on other people's children. Authoritarian no matter what those views are. Meanwhile, the state brooks no deviation from its authoritarian-mandated curriculum, not from parents and not from teachers.
You are not understanding the difference between disagreement and conflict.
I think I have a better grasp of the difference than you do. Insofar as there is a difference between disagreement and conflict, after all, they are listed as synonyms, it is a difference in outcome. A disagreement leaves room to talk and come to a mutual outcome. A conflict does not. Disagreement vs. Conflict - What's the difference? | Ask Difference
Kitzmiller vs Dover illustrates for instance that very thing. The reason the school board lost is that they couldn't defend intelligent design under cross-examination as anything but a religious belief because science requires the application of the scientific method. Intelligent design could not stand up to the scrutiny.
It is not because they disagree on the start of life that the judge ruled against the school board, it's because, in order to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science class, you have to be able to show that intelligent design can stand the same scrutiny as evolution when subjected to questioning. The fact that you equate the 2 illustrates why it is a conflict, because you can't seem to grasp the fundamental difference in methodology, and as such, you can not solve the disagreement.
There is NOTHING "quasi-scientific" about evolution. It has fulfilled ALL the requirements that science requires to be accepted as the most likely explanation of how life came to be.
To which the state replied. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from making a law related to "an establishment of religion," which means that it cannot endorse a certain religion or become entangled in religious activities.
As for "agreeing to disagree". That's another sign we are talking about a conflict and not simply a disagreement. Agreeing to disagree simply means that you are acknowledging that your difference of opinion is unreconcilable. That is the very definition of a conflict.
I’m pretty sure one’s bias - which prevents them from being objective - has nothing to do with other people. Unless of course you believe other people control you.
understanding your dreadful "religion" is having to read the c bible that is the origin of your corruption that is best done with the circumspection your greed blinded you from -
more in tune w/ the bb as a cyclical event and the creation of metaphysical physiology wherever conditions are conducive for its development. and its relation to the heavens, physiologies spiritual content.
When you say "The First Cause" you seem dangerously close to Aquinas' "First uncaused cause". I will submit to you that you have not actually come up with any explanation whatsoever. From whence did the "first cause" come?
Do you see how this end of philosophy often results in a dead-end?
Your attempt at explanation for the cause of the universe still requires a complete unknown. So I why is it superior to an explanation that just says what came before the big bang is unknown (and possibly unknowable)?
When you say "The First Cause" you seem dangerously close to Aquinas' "First uncaused cause". I will submit to you that you have not actually come up with any explanation whatsoever. From whence did the "first cause" come?
The only solution to the first cause conundrum is “something “ (which in reality is “no thing”) which has always existed. For “something “ (which in reality is “no thing”) to be eternal it must be unchanging for if it changes, by definition, it is not eternal. This eliminates matter/energy from being an eternal cause of creating existence or space and time. So whatever the first cause is it must be beyond matter/energy. So are there any examples or analogs for “something “ (which in reality is “no thing”) which are eternal and unchanging that aren’t energy/matter? It turns out there is. Truth is discovered. Once discovered it is known that it was always that way even when it was believed to be otherwise and will always be that way. In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging. So it is possible for “something” (which in reality is “no thing”) to be eternal and unchanging.
Your attempt at explanation for the cause of the universe still requires a complete unknown. So I why is it superior to an explanation that just says what came before the big bang is unknown (and possibly unknowable)?
openlibrary.org
en.wikipedia.org
