CileTheSane @ CileTheSane @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

3,120

Joined

2 yr. ago

"you don't need to tell us not to be anti-religious because of Science, you need to tell people not to be anti-Science because of religion."

My dude, I'm telling both. Which group is more common in this comment section?

Again, there are plenty of scientist who follow one religion or another:

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

It doesn't make sense to claim religion is by default anti-science when scientists are just as likely to be religious as not. If religion was as anti-Science as you claim then no scientists would be religious.

People who don't understand science or religion are anti-science, and they use religion as an excuse.

People who think Science and Religion are opposed to one another don't understand either one.

What is science? Observing how to world works and learning from that.

What is religion? Philosophy (Here how you should behave, and how to live a good life)

Science has no reason to argue with religion, because religion is not scientific. There is nothing that can be proven or disproven.

Religion has no reason to argue with science, because whatever religion believes about the origin of the world, science just seeks to better understand that world. Knowing how electrons move is not an affront to God.

Arguing Science vs Religion is like arguing Painting vs Music. Sure, they're both art but they are completely different and do not overlap. There are plenty of scientists who follow one religion or another.

ITT: people with firmly held personal beliefs that Religion is anti-Science, and refusing to listen to rational arguments or studies that say otherwise. Proving that you can't logic someone out of their personal beliefs and it's a waste of time to try.

FUCKING HOW?

He's a fucking idiot that's convinced he's smarter than everyone else.

"Whoops, the judge ordered us to release them because we did not actually charge them, but they're already in an El Salvador prison 🤷‍♀️"

I would pay a lot of money to see a journalist ask JD Vance if he approves of his mother-in-law's work in promoting DEI.

Why do we care what Randi's think about their mother in law's? It's not like this Vance guy is important or anything.

Desperate attempt from Vance to appear relevant, with the vain hope that there were enough people in Greenland stupid enough to support their bullshit (or desperate enough to be bribed) that they could lie about how much support they have.

And there was no one left to tell.

The people doing this don't care who you tell if nobody is going to do anything other than film from the sidelines and complain.

Oh noes!

So you're ignoring the entire point just to be pedantic?

Pretty sure Goodfaith was used in the past. The last 2 are a Simpsons reference.

Yes, my point is they are weird things to name a baby because of what they mean.

Chasity is an existing creepy one.

Prudence
Goodfaith
Temperance
Obedience
Sexwon't

It would be illegal for anyone else to step in with a firearm

It's also illegal for people in plain clothes to abduct women off the street.

First they came for those with student visas
And I filmed from the sidelines.

https://lemmy.ca/comment/15444806

Reminder that anyone can get some handcuffs and claim to be the police.

If you see someone bring abducted it is your responsibility to interfere.

Why would you respond to a question you have no interest in answering?

I replied asking you a specific question that you refused to answer. If you didn't want to answer the question I asked you shouldn't have replied to me instead of trying to dance around it. Simple as that.

So ignoring what's actually being discussed and just being pedantic. Got it.