That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.
We also have a lot of evidence that snakes can't speak, people can't turn plain water into wine, walk on the water and so on.
But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God's existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn't exist.
Claiming something which can neither be proven or disproven is what constitutes a pseudoscience. By that logic I could claim that we are in fact giant pink elefants hopping around on the moon, while imagining our reality as we currently think to perceive it. Since you can't disprove that, I must be right. Or am I not?
As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.
No. A scientific theory can be proven or disproven, while the idea of a God, as interpreted in most religions, can not. Thereby constituting a pseudoscience. And thus, it's not a scientific theory.
On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God.
I suppose in the context of the parent comment the abrahamic God is meant, as interpreted by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Thank you. I was about to look for such a per population representation as well. Bonus points to you if you could also provide the sources of your numbers. :>
Well, you might be doing fine so far. How about others who walk into your poop-plumes? Hygiene is not always only beneficial for yourself. Some easy to implement practises can go a long way. I think it's a similar story to how we (should) regularly wash our hands, wash vegetables and fruits before eating and so on.
E scooter services are a nice example. They are not covered under state-run public transport. You see those in major cities. There, where they are not required as much due to more dense public transport systems. But there, where they would be really useful, in more rural areas, due to a much less dense public transport system, they are lacking. And why is that? Because profits.
In the end privatizing means maximizing for profits and not other quality factors though. It would be great if that would lead to increased value and quality of service, but that's not the reality in our current form of capitalism. Here, it leads to saving costs whereever possible, which finally implies loss of quality.
When it comes to infrastructure like train networks, telecommunication lines or postal services and critical services like hospitals, privatizing is the worst you can do from my point of view. Living in Germany, I see plenty of such examples. Our train service got incredibly worse since it was privatized, hospitals have severe issues on multiple fronts, and let's not forget how we are extremely sucking with the modernization and upkeep of our telecommunication infrastructure.
I'd say this is still up for debate. From the papers I skimmed it might be better to close the lid and open the windows. I discussed this in another comment here:
https://feddit.de/comment/5298414
Myth Busters are not a solid scientific source. I discussed the issue a bit, linking to some papers in another comment here:
https://feddit.de/comment/5298414
How to construct systems which are used for civil applications but can easily be turned into weapons.
Or the good old question of science and responsibility: do you use nuclear fission to create energy or to kill an enormous amount of people?