Religion will prevail

[Luchito]

No matter how hard the non-believers work hard to debunk religion, no matter what... religion always prevails.

Religion appeared before science and while science is always in trial and error, changing its principles, changing its doctrines, changing and changing and never fully understanding the universe... on the other hand, religion always adds new information without changing any of its doctrines.

Religion is the sure winner, because is inspired, is taught and given by a higher source of knowledge.

Science is just human efforts, destined to failure as soon as a newer discovery becomes the new fade, and the trend continues generation after generation.

Religion foresees while science invents, religion gives hope while science only reaches comfort.

At the end of the day, religion will be the sure winner.

 

[kx000]

Bothness, despite what you think you know.

 

[Seattle]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well, my world view has been obliterated.

 

[billvon]

No matter how hard the non-believers work hard to debunk religion, no matter what... religion always prevails.

But it really doesn't.

The earliest pantheistic religions - gone.
Greek, Norse, Roman mythology - gone.

You might be able to claim relative success with Hinduism; that's been around for 17,000 years. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva have staying power. But Christianity? Pfft. 2000 years. The earliest religious icons (the Venus figurines) are 35,000 years old - way more than ten times older. That religion, of course, is gone too.

Religion appeared before science

Science started as soon as the first person tried to alter their environment, watched the results, and learned from it. The first technology was the stone hand axe - that goes back 1.6 million years. That's 1,600,000 years, almost five times older than the oldest religion, which in turn is over ten times older than Christianity.

and while science is always in trial and error, changing its principles, changing its doctrines, changing and changing and never fully understanding the universe... on the other hand, religion always adds new information without changing any of its doctrines.

Really? Christians really still put gay men to death? They still ban people with glasses from receiving communion? Maybe your church is different from mine.

Religion is the sure winner, because is inspired, is taught and given by a higher source of knowledge.

Then why have so many failed and disappeared?

Science is just human efforts, destined to failure as soon as a newer discovery becomes the new fade, and the trend continues generation after generation.

You say that. But when you start puking up blood, you are still going to go to a doctor and not a priest. Because although you talk a good game, when it matters, you will go with science every time.

 

[Michael 345]

Christianity

Arh but Christianity has theme parks (think Vatican) and a few franchises around

Some fell off the perch and few more close to doing the dead parrot dance

 

[Michael 345]

Religion is the sure winner, because is inspired, is taught and given by a higher source of knowledge.

Like you posted your post with

a mobile phone or computer?

OR

with Rosary Beads?


OR

with smoke signals?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

... or so they think

 

[Luchito]

Like you posted your post with

a mobile phone or computer?

OR

with Rosary Beads?

View attachment 4006
OR

with smoke signals?
View attachment 4007

Excuse me but pardon me, it appears you are confusing religion with the rituals of a certain religious denomination.

 

[Luchito]

But it really doesn't.

The earliest pantheistic religions - gone.
Greek, Norse, Roman mythology - gone.

A scrutiny can demonstrate you those ancient religions have survived thru masquerade methods.

You might be able to claim relative success with Hinduism; that's been around for 17,000 years. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva have staying power. But Christianity? Pfft. 2000 years. The earliest religious icons (the Venus figurines) are 35,000 years old - way more than ten times older. That religion, of course, is gone too.

Hinduism is not that old, you have received erroneous information. Hinduism comes from the junction of two religions, the religion of Abraham mixed with the Egiptian religion. When Sarah ordered the depart of her slave, the Egyptian Hagar, the servant carried her son Ishmael with her. From her son the Bible narrates 12 tribes, who were children of Ishmael. These children separated themselves to different directions. The ones reaching the zone of India, were Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hebrew names related to hearing, speaking and sighting, represented later as three monkeys never revealing the origin and identity of their religion, hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. (the Hebrew word refers to cloudy, as when you can't see thru fog).

The authority or excellency word "Rajah" in India is the mixture of the name of the two gods, the god "Yah" (or Jah) from Abraham, and the god "Ra" from Hagar. Also, the Hindu Brahma is a derivative of Abraham. In reality the Hindu religion is newest that what you think it is.

Science started as soon as the first person tried to alter their environment, watched the results, and learned from it. The first technology was the stone hand axe - that goes back 1.6 million years. That's 1,600,000 years, almost five times older than the oldest religion, which in turn is over ten times older than Christianity.

Whatever man invented first, his intention was for worship. Your absurdity of man living on earth for millions of years is laughable. If your theory was to be true, then you should dig a few inches on any ground and find human or primate fossils, because a million years means millions and millions of fossils, and mathematics definitively is not on your side.

Regardless of how old the universe and planet earth can be, living creatures are to be on earth just a few thousands of years. This is the fact.

Really? Christians really still put gay men to death? They still ban people with glasses from receiving communion? Maybe your church is different from mine.

You can't realize the difference between a kingdom ruled thru the laws from religion with a nation ruled thru the laws of laymen. Even so, up to the 60s you were in trouble if you were homosexual and caught in the act. Because human laws have changed, such won't be a failure to religion. Religious laws stand still and you like it or not, churches by lots keep them and no homosexuals, lesbians or effeminate men and etc.e are accepted in those assemblies.

Then why have so many failed and disappeared?

Failure of men is not the same as failure of religion.

You say that. But when you start puking up blood, you are still going to go to a doctor and not a priest.

As I said, science brings comfort.

Because although you talk a good game, when it matters, you will go with science every time.

False. An individual who is fired from his job and has debts to pay and family to feed won't go to a doctor or a biologist, but to social services and in many cases to God thru prayers for help.

 

[billvon]

A scrutiny can demonstrate you those ancient religions have survived thru masquerade methods.

Like becoming characters in superhero comics? Yes, they survive as carciatures.

Hinduism is not that old, you have received erroneous information.

You're kinda proving my point here.

Whatever man invented first, his intention was for worship.

What he DID was develop science first. You can claim any intent you like. But since you don't have both time travel and ESP, I will go with facts over your conjectures.

Regardless of how old the universe and planet earth can be, living creatures are to be on earth just a few thousands of years. This is the fact.

Ah, I see why you hate science now. Science is a threat to your entire belief system. No wonder you despise it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The authority or excellency word "Rajah" in India is the mixture of the name of the two gods, the god "Yah" (or Jah) from Abraham, and the god "Ra" from Hagar.

False.

Also, the Hindu Brahma is a derivative of Abraham.

False.

An individual who is fired from his job and has debts to pay and family to feed won't go to a doctor or a biologist, but to social services and in many cases to God thru prayers for help.

But prayer doesn't help. Except for, perhaps, emotionally.

 

[Sarkus]

I have heard it said (no links etc) that religion began through a mix of desire and scientific understanding... but effectively halting scientific understanding at the point the religion began. All subsequent scientific discovery was retrofitted to the religious belief.

Whether this view of religion is correct or not, or whether it has any value or not... I leave to others to judge for themselves.

 

[James R]

No matter how hard the non-believers work hard to debunk religion, no matter what... religion always prevails.

There are always plenty of people around who'll believe rubbish. You want to chalk that up as a win? Okay, then.

Religion appeared before science and while science is always in trial and error, changing its principles, changing its doctrines, changing and changing and never fully understanding the universe... on the other hand, religion always adds new information without changing any of its doctrines.

What new information has religion added lately, about anything?

Religion is the sure winner, because is inspired, is taught and given by a higher source of knowledge.

How do you know?

Science is just human efforts, destined to failure as soon as a newer discovery becomes the new fade, and the trend continues generation after generation.

You see science's ability to self-correct as a weakness, rather than the strength that it actually is. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't even self-correct when it is proved wrong about something.

 

[James R]

Your absurdity of man living on earth for millions of years is laughable. If your theory was to be true, then you should dig a few inches on any ground and find human or primate fossils, because a million years means millions and millions of fossils, and mathematics definitively is not on your side.

No. You should learn something about fossils. Fossilisation is very rare.

You make yourself look a bit silly when you post claims that are just wrong. You should do a little research into the subject before you make pronouncements about it.

Regardless of how old the universe and planet earth can be, living creatures are to be on earth just a few thousands of years. This is the fact.

Unfortunately, all the evidence says you're wrong.

Religious laws stand still and you like it or not, churches by lots keep them and no homosexuals, lesbians or effeminate men and etc.e are accepted in those assemblies.

You're telling us you're homophobic? You certainly seem to be fitting yourself right into stereotype there.

 

[Luchito]

There are always plenty of people around who'll believe rubbish. You want to chalk that up as a win? Okay, then.

You are correct. People believing COVID 19 is dangerous to healthy people is foolish. People believing Mary is the "mother of God, the creator of heavens and earth" is also foolish. People believing in black holes, dilatation of time, muiltiverses and several other pseudo science, of course are foolish as well.

It is hard to find people conserving sanity in these times is weird.

What new information has religion added lately, about anything?

Let me rephrase that part. Religion acquiring more information in the meaning of its doctrines.

You won't expect religion to provide new mathematical formulas or solutions in chemistry, or invent new theories of science.

My point is that whatever is new in religion, it will always make it better understood without changing its doctrines.

On the other hand, science theories change the primeval doctrines of their doctrines instead of upgrading them or updating.

A common example if the theory of evolution which is totally a different theory compared to the original one from Darwin era. The definition of "natural selection" has been changed so many times, that for sure next one will be a genetically modified definition of it.

Some yeas ago, with other two guys we were comparing those definitions thru the years and we were laughing all night long. Those dudes from evolution, have invented new words that sound so funny...

I strongly thing evolutionists are ignorant of their own language, they think "updating and upgrading" means to discard all the old and replace with new. They ignore that doing so they have created lots of new theories of evolution, but those dudes still think it is the same one from the beginning... lol.

How do you know?

Wisdom from man is not that great. Man can have intellect, can enjoy great intelligence, can be smart, but wisdom... ha ha ha ha

Religion is a master in wisdom.

You see science's ability to self-correct as a weakness, rather than the strength that it actually is. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't even self-correct when it is proved wrong about something.

Tell me, to start, how can you prove wrong a belief?

hmm?

 

[Luchito]

No. You should learn something about fossils. Fossilisation is very rare.

You make yourself look a bit silly when you post claims that are just wrong. You should do a little research into the subject before you make pronouncements about it.

Yes, it is rare. It happened a few thousands years ago, and was so recently that dinosaurs fossilized bones under acid have released fresh blood components.

Then, if we can find fossils of dinosaurs of barely 5000 to 6000 years ago, then when evolutionists talk of "millions of years ago" then we should be capable to find millions of fossils of very unknown species, because one million of years alone is a bunch of years... not joke about it... and if climate have change so radically in the few thousands years of the existence of man on earth, then climate changed the same thousands and thousands of times, and fossilization should have repeated thousands and thousands of times.

Unfortunately, all the evidence says you're wrong.

Naaahhh, there is no evidence proving millions of years of man on earth, such are fallacies. In this aspect you are on the wrong side, the dark side, the nonsense side. Look, in the 50's, the petroleum companies hired the inventor of the Carbon radiometric method to measure the age of hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico. The measures revealed 13,000 to 14,000 years. Nobody complained. It was even published in a science journal.

But, some loony came with the idea that ancient bacteria lived hundreds of millions of years ago, so such is the new age given to hydrocarbon, just because a loony invented a new age when 6 and 7 and more digits were involved. A total hoax.

You're telling us you're homophobic? You certainly seem to be fitting yourself right into stereotype there.

Interesting.

Discussing such word "homophobic", it comes that straight people who reject homosexual behavior, actually they do not feel fear of homosexuality and homosexuals, and totally the contrary, they feel refuse, which is totally different.

I don't know who invented that refusing homosexuality means feeling or having phobia, and such is a bad and mischievous propaganda.

To me, I don't care at all what people do with their bodies, such is privacy. However, I strongly are in disagreement to propagate a sexual behavior that surely is against nature. I respect and tolerate and I expect the same from others about my thoughts and my feelings.

To me, diversity in society is fine, and if thinking the way I think makes me different that you, such is also diversity.

 

[Michael 345]

Naaahhh, there is no evidence proving millions of years of man on earth, such are fallacies

You really do

 

[James R]

You are correct.

Yeah. It's a habit of mine.

People believing COVID 19 is dangerous to healthy people is foolish. People believing Mary is the "mother of God, the creator of heavens and earth" is also foolish. People believing in black holes, dilatation of time, muiltiverses and several other pseudo science, of course are foolish as well.

Well, you got one out of three. Next time you might get three out of three, if you try hard.

You won't expect religion to provide new mathematical formulas or solutions in chemistry, or invent new theories of science.

Yes. You won't find religion inventing computers, or your next mobile phone, or a solar panel. We need science for that stuff.

My point is that whatever is new in religion, it will always make it better understood without changing its doctrines.

I'm not so sure. Different interpretors of religion don't always make it better. It's more of a roller coaster, as the historical evidence suggests.

A common example if the theory of evolution which is totally a different theory compared to the original one from Darwin era. The definition of "natural selection" has been changed so many times, that for sure next one will be a genetically modified definition of it.

That's wrong. The definition of "natural selection" hasn't changed since Darwin.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Maybe you need to use a different source. The one you're relying on for information about evolution isn't doing you any favours. You keep getting basic facts about it wrong.

Wisdom from man is not that great. Man can have intellect, can enjoy great intelligence, can be smart, but wisdom... ha ha ha ha

Religion is a master in wisdom.

You didn't answer my question.

To remind you: you claimed that religion comes from a "higher source of knowledge". I asked you "How do you know?"

Want to try again?

Tell me, to start, how can you prove wrong a belief?

It depends on the belief.

If I believe that Godzilla is in my garage, you can prove me wrong by going and taking a look, for instance.

Some beliefs are harder to refute than others, of course.

But surely you already knew this?

 

[James R]

Then, if we can find fossils of dinosaurs of barely 5000 to 6000 years ago...

There are no dinosaur fossils from 5000 to 6000 years ago. The dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. We still have the birds, of course.

... then when evolutionists talk of "millions of years ago" then we should be capable to find millions of fossils of very unknown species, because one million of years alone is a bunch of years...

Yes, I agree. There probably are millions of fossils waiting to be found. Do you know how many have been found already? And how many fossil hunters are there?

... and if climate have change so radically in the few thousands years of the existence of man on earth, then climate changed the same thousands and thousands of times, and fossilization should have repeated thousands and thousands of times.

Fossilisation doesn't depend on climate change. You're correct that the climate has changed many times in the billions of years of Earth's history.

Naaahhh, there is no evidence proving millions of years of man on earth, such are fallacies.

Oh dear. Where are you getting your information on this? Answers in Genesis or some similarly unreliable source?

What makes you so confident, when you're so obviously and woefully uninformed on this subject?

I mean, you have to ignore the whole of geology, virtually, and lots of physics and chemistry, lines of evidence from things like ice cores and fossils, genetics, biology... The list just goes on and on.

What science education have you had, if I may ask?

Look, in the 50's, the petroleum companies hired the inventor of the Carbon radiometric method to measure the age of hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico. The measures revealed 13,000 to 14,000 years. Nobody complained. It was even published in a science journal.

Do you think that one measurement from the 1950s settles the matter of the age of the Earth? Is this what you rely on, primarily, for your belief?

You haven't told me how old you believe the Earth is, yet. Are you brave enough to tell?

Discussing such word "homophobic", it comes that straight people who reject homosexual behavior, actually they do not feel fear of homosexuality and homosexuals, and totally the contrary, they feel refuse, which is totally different.

Hmmm.... interesting.

What is "homosexual behaviour"? Can you please explain, or give some examples? And please explain why you consider these behaviours to be bad or wrong, if you can.

I don't know who invented that refusing homosexuality means feeling or having phobia, and such is a bad and mischievous propaganda.

What do you mean by "refusing homosexuality"? Do you think that your sexual orientation is a choice you made?

When did you decide to be heterosexual? Were you tempted to choose homosexuality? Or was it a coin flip for you?

To me, I don't care at all what people do with their bodies, such is privacy. However, I strongly are in disagreement to propagate a sexual behavior that surely is against nature.

You don't want to "propagate" homosexual behaviour. What does that mean, in practice? How do you want to stop it "propagating", while retaining your respect for the privacy of what people do with their bodies?

Is there some harm in allowing homosexuality to "propagate"? How does it "propagate", anyway? I'm interested to find out.

Also, you say homosexual behaviour is "against nature". What do you mean by that? Clearly, "nature" has developed in such a way that some people are same-sex attracted. Given that, I'm puzzled as to how it could be "against nature". What does that mean?

I respect and tolerate and I expect the same from others about my thoughts and my feelings.

Yeah, I've seen how you show respect to other people's thoughts and feelings. That really comes across clearly in your posts here. Hmm...

To me, diversity in society is fine, and if thinking the way I think makes me different that you, such is also diversity.

I'm glad we agree on the whole "live and let live" thing, and that we should celebrate diversity.[/quote]