Gay Marriage the sign of religion dying?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

With some states in America and some countries deciding to legalize gay marriage, do you believe this is a sign of countries (or states) deciding to not follow religious law and accommodating for more modern times?

My view is that while there are some religious people who feel that gay marriage is "wrong" (so to speak), the fact that states and countries are now legalizing it show that many are moving away from the mind set of conservatism, and adjusting their idea to more set the modern times that we are in. I also believe that some religious laws should (at the very least) be changed to accommodate the times we are in.

What are your thoughts?

Oh I hope so.

dumbseizure:

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts on how gay marriage becoming legal means an end of religion?

Here is what I think about such an idea.

Every single person alive should have the right to choose their own religion and moral and ethical behaviour, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Do you have the right to believe that Gay marriage is wrong, yes. Do you therefore have the right to dictate to Gay people and disqualify them from marriage (and the legal and practical benefits it brings), never.
Im all for free speech and practicing your own ideology, what gets my back up is when other people think they have the right to tell me how I should live. Thats when I have a problem.
It should be the job of a government to represent the interests of all its citizens, that includes people of all races, orientations, cultures and religions. Again, as long as they dont infringe on the rights of anybody else.

The late great Chris Hitchens believed that ultra-religous conservatism was on its way out with one last, very loud, scream. I hope he was right, even though I doubt sometimes.

I have studied the history of religion in both the U.S and Canada, and I suspect that in 10, maybe 15, years a majority of churches that oppose gay marriage now will accept it in the future as the fervor over it dies down and more accepting minds get into positions of power.

Religion is parasitic in nature: it claims things (like moral values and practices) as it's own without creating anything. It is a tool for conservatism; keeping the status quo and enforcing the old power structure. Anything that threatens the status quo is resisted with full force, but once the change becomes invitable suddenly the church (a large number of them) change their tune. Despicably many churches not only change their "values" but also claim they were the ones who fought for the change to begin with (because, of course, their "values" demanded them to). I admit I am generalizing a lot here, but many of the older churches (close to 100 years old) in the U.S and Canada have changed a lot in terms of their accepted "moral values" over the years- more than most would want to admit.

While I was studying I had the pleasure of going through documents from several old Protestant churches in the southern states. These same churches stand today, and at the time I was studying one of them was celebrating the fact that several of their old members were part of the Underground Railroad in the 1900s. They went on and on about how their Christian values motivated these long gone members to particpate in this risky and (at the time) criminal rebellion against slavery. What was interesting is that my classmates and I found documents that clearly stated that the same people the church were praising today were excommunicated from the church when their involvement in the Railroad was discovered. The church even helped get them arrested and carted off to jail. Why? Because back then this church supported slavery and denounced anyone who was for the freeing of slaves. Many churches were. Over time the churches values changed to more popular and current to draw in worshippers. The church is question never answered our queries into the truth; they were more than happy to pretend that it never happened and that they were "always right."

So that's why I think that is several years time as homosexuals become normalized in American society and bashing them becomes more taboo, many of the churches will probably go into full denial mode to desperately appear to be more current and reasonable. It is a pattern that has happened way too often.

No, I believe it's a sign that strict religious conservatism is dying, something that I consider to be a good thing, and a new breed of religious Liberalism is being born.

With the bible now commonly available in most languages, most people are better acquainted with the word of Jesus and realize... All that old Testament stuff makes absolutely no sense at all.

I like to consider myself a Religious Liberal, and I believe we all share these common views on Christianity. We're followers of Christ first, his word is above all the other prophets. Christ asked us to love our enemies and treat all people fairly and happily, not a certain religion, not a certain race, and not a certain sexuality, all people. If Jesus asked us to love all people and treat them all equally, than any other prophet coming before or after him saying that a certain group of people are "abominations" should be ignored in favor of Jesus Christ. God wouldn't create a group of people if they were ugly or "wrong" in his sight. Anyone born the way they are, even if it goes against societal norms, should not be seen as "evil" in his sight.

The conservative branch is dying, and hopefully the Liberal one can flourish. I just hope I'll see the day when all people can go to a church and feel at peace, regardless of their personal beliefs.

The more it ties itself to lost battles, the more it'll lose respect and ideological credibility in the civilized world.

It won't ever die though, far too many idiots[1] looking for the answers they want/need to be there, rather than the ones reality will give. Its followers will just learn that it's not something sacred that's beyond criticism and contempt when committing to evil. We'll see how many sky scrapers they fly into before that sinks in.

[1] Which would be none of my business if they weren't creating/reinforcing oppressive ideologies in the process that are harming innocents: Making them worthless filth entirely unworthy of hope or happiness.

Large, large gulf between the question in the title and the question in the OP.
Yeah, if such developments continue (and aren't endlessly impeded by countermeasures), it does show that religious people move away from the archaic doctrines. But I don't think that's a sign of religion dying, it's a sign of religion changing and adapting to modern sensibilities.
People in the USA often talk about "Atheist Europe", but Europe is still overwhelmingly a Christian continent (with, of course, vast regional differences, but still). It's just that religion plays much less of a role in politics and religious people are (generally) more moderate, so issues like gay marriage or civil unions, evolution, abortion, contraception etc. are not handled according to Biblical Literalism. That's not equivalent to religions dying, though (even if some Evangelicals may deem it so, due to their own extremism).

dumbseizure:
I also believe that some religious laws should (at the very least) be changed to accommodate the times we are in.

I don't know much about laws, but which laws are you referring too?

As for the original topic. While I'm glad the legality of gay-marriage has changed I do not think it marks the end of religion anymore than the end of jim crow laws or ban on interracial marriage.

Nor did the theory of evolution which had/has far greater implications about religion than gay marriage. Evolution is accepted by a large majority of the population, yet the majority believe in God(s) or the possibility at least.

Still religion, as in the institution, has changed dramatically. However, change is not death... though I suppose death is a change.

aPod:
Evolution is accepted by a large majority of the population, yet the majority believe in God(s) or the possibility at least.

Source? Because the stats I'm aware of put the USA pretty low in that regard at around 40% for both Theistic and Atheistic Evolution combined. To be fair, my source is 6 years old, so it may have changed by now.

image

aPod:

dumbseizure:
I also believe that some religious laws should (at the very least) be changed to accommodate the times we are in.

I don't know much about laws, but which laws are you referring too?

As for the original topic. While I'm glad the legality of gay-marriage has changed I do not think it marks the end of religion anymore than the end of jim crow laws or ban on interracial marriage.

Nor did the theory of evolution which had/has far greater implications about religion than gay marriage. Evolution is accepted by a large majority of the population, yet the majority believe in God(s) or the possibility at least.

Still religion, as in the institution, has changed dramatically. However, change is not death... though I suppose death is a change.

Sorry, tired and incorrectly worded what I meant, I mean laws in relation to religions and beliefs.

I personally believe that even if it is not the death of religion, it is a start to (hopefully) loosening the grasp that religion seems to have on laws and other areas of the government.

Witty Name Here:
No, I believe it's a sign that strict religious conservatism is dying, something that I consider to be a good thing, and a new breed of religious Liberalism is being born.

With the bible now commonly available in most languages, most people are better acquainted with the word of Jesus and realize... All that old Testament stuff makes absolutely no sense at all.

I like to consider myself a Religious Liberal, and I believe we all share these common views on Christianity. We're followers of Christ first, his word is above all the other prophets. Christ asked us to love our enemies and treat all people fairly and happily, not a certain religion, not a certain race, and not a certain sexuality, all people. If Jesus asked us to love all people and treat them all equally, than any other prophet coming before or after him saying that a certain group of people are "abominations" should be ignored in favor of Jesus Christ. God wouldn't create a group of people if they were ugly or "wrong" in his sight. Anyone born the way they are, even if it goes against societal norms, should not be seen as "evil" in his sight.

The conservative branch is dying, and hopefully the Liberal one can flourish. I just hope I'll see the day when all people can go to a church and feel at peace, regardless of their personal beliefs.

I am glad to see that there are people who follow the overall meaning of gods word, which is to treat others as you would treat yourself. While I personally am atheist, it has always confused me how people can be a christian, follow the word of god, and yet still discriminate against others just because of their sexual orientation.

I would say that the acceptance of gays and the tolerance of non-orthodox lifestyles are not indications that religion on its way out, but rather a sign that those who subscribe to a religion (as well as those who preach) are significantly realigning their priorities to less divisive areas such as aiding the sick and poor (which are major tenants of all three Abrahamic religions while things like homosexuality is barely mentioned at all).

Contrary to many of us who subscribe as being non-religious, I do believe that religion does some good for people, providing them a clear way to interpret the world and the support and comfort of others in times of need. Not everyone can handle the idea of a meaningless universe or the idea that there is no divine guidance for the workings of the world, and for them there are religions to help them cope with existence. And, yes, this doesn't always work out to promote tolerance and acceptance, but religions, like society as a whole, change and evolve as necessary, and what is damned yesterday is accepted today or tomorrow and the role of religion will once again return to comforting those who need it the most...

Considering that North Carolina passed an amendment to their state constitution just two weeks ago that oulaws all forms of civil unions for homosexual couples, do you really think this is the case?

Ever since the turn of the century we've been seeing an increase in conservativ religious activity in the USA. In the last few years the conservative free churches have been getting immense political power through their lobbying (do I need to remind you that Mitt Romney is a mormon and is running for president?) which has effectively impeded or, in the worst cases, actually rolled back the progress for GLBTQ rights.

So while many churches in Europe are progressive enough to adapt (just look at the swedish church, where marrying homosexuals is allowed and homosexuals can be priests), the same can not be said for many states in the USA or other countries in Europe and the world. This is for certain though: Hardcore conservative religion is not dying.

Skeleon:

aPod:
Evolution is accepted by a large majority of the population, yet the majority believe in God(s) or the possibility at least.

Source? Because the stats I'm aware of put the USA pretty low in that regard at around 40% for both Theistic and Atheistic Evolution combined. To be fair, my source is 6 years old, so it may have changed by now.

image

Can you tell us where you got that and how it was done?

If it was a strict "did god have anything to do with the development with life on Earth, yes or no" would get a very different result than "do you believe in evolution" since a lot of people here in the US believe in a hybrid system.

Not G. Ivingname:

Skeleon:
[quote="aPod" post="528.376051.14621324"]Evolution is accepted by a large majority of the population, yet the majority believe in God(s) or the possibility at least.

Source? Because the stats I'm aware of put the USA pretty low in that regard at around 40% for both Theistic and Atheistic Evolution combined. To be fair, my source is 6 years old, so it may have changed by now.

image

Can you tell us where you got that and how it was done?

If it was a strict "did god have anything to do with the development with life on Earth, yes or no" would get a very different result than "do you believe in evolution" since a lot of people here in the US believe in a hybrid system. Also the state and city it was done in could also have a huge effect on the poll.

Not G. Ivingname:

-snip-

Can you tell us where you got that and how it was done?

If it was a strict "did god have anything to do with the development with life on Earth, yes or no" would get a very different result than "do you believe in evolution" since a lot of people here in the US believe in a hybrid system. Also the state and city it was done in could also have a huge effect on the poll.

There is no hybrid. Evolution is a theory that dictates how life evolved over the years, stressing that by random mutation and then the survival of the fittest races of animals and the race of men were created. If you think god was somewhere in the middle, you think wrong.

Not G. Ivingname:
Can you tell us where you got that and how it was done?

If it was a strict "did god have anything to do with the development with life on Earth, yes or no" would get a very different result than "do you believe in evolution" since a lot of people here in the US believe in a hybrid system. Also the state and city it was done in could also have a huge effect on the poll.

The question asked was: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," is true or false, or whether the respondent is not sure or does not know.

So there's no mention of gods. It was about evolution in general and its applicability to humanity specifically, regardless of intervention. There is room for Theistic Evolution in that question, obviously, which, by the way, is one of the reasons other countries scored so high!

Luckily, Dawkins put a copy of the paper on his page, as other sources require you to log in.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/706-public-acceptance-of-evolution

EDIT:

TheIronRuler:
There is no hybrid. Evolution is a theory that dictates how life evolved over the years, stressing that by random mutation and then the survival of the fittest races of animals and the race of men were created. If you think god was somewhere in the middle, you think wrong.

To be fair, many religious people believe that their god kickstarted evolution, knowing that humans would be the result. It's not exactly contradictory to science (at least until we know exactly how abiogenesis happened) as it makes no claims regarding the evolutionary processes.
There are plenty of other problems with that view, but that isn't it, I'd say. More things like it still being an argument from ignorance (by the way, if abiogenesis is explained, the next retreat will obviously be that god created the universe so that abiogenesis and evolution could take place), why a god would use such a cruel and wasteful process and so on.

TheIronRuler:

Not G. Ivingname:

-snip-

Can you tell us where you got that and how it was done?

If it was a strict "did god have anything to do with the development with life on Earth, yes or no" would get a very different result than "do you believe in evolution" since a lot of people here in the US believe in a hybrid system. Also the state and city it was done in could also have a huge effect on the poll.

There is no hybrid. Evolution is a theory that dictates how life evolved over the years, stressing that by random mutation and then the survival of the fittest races of animals and the race of men were created. If you think god was somewhere in the middle, you think wrong.

I don't think that.

I was other people believe that evolution was influenced by God, directed by God. It doesn't go with the theory very well, but that is religion in a nutshell and it is better view point than outright creationism.

I am an ATHEIST, I was just inquiring if the way they got those polls was either intentionally or unintentionally skewed the numbers in one way or another.

Skeleon:

Not G. Ivingname:
Can you tell us where you got that and how it was done?

If it was a strict "did god have anything to do with the development with life on Earth, yes or no" would get a very different result than "do you believe in evolution" since a lot of people here in the US believe in a hybrid system. Also the state and city it was done in could also have a huge effect on the poll.

The question asked was: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," is true or false, or whether the respondent is not sure or does not know.

Ok, thank you for clarifying that.

I am just always suspicious of any poll or statistics I see, since I know from my statistics class how easily those are to manipulate.

Religion dying? Hardly. Revelations like child abuse in the catholic church will kill religion. The death of religion will only be be signified by the collapse of theological power blocks.

I've heard that in Israel there is a growth of followers of fundamentalist Jewish practices with increasingly vitriolic rhetoric against women and Israeli arabs and I'm sure we're all aware of the Islamist movements following the Arab Spring. To me, this appears to be evidence of religious power blocks growing, increasing in stature.

If the question really is "Is gay marriage the sign of religion dying in America" then that may be different. Maybe.

Skeleon:

EDIT:

TheIronRuler:
There is no hybrid. Evolution is a theory that dictates how life evolved over the years, stressing that by random mutation and then the survival of the fittest races of animals and the race of men were created. If you think god was somewhere in the middle, you think wrong.

To be fair, many religious people believe that their god kickstarted evolution, knowing that humans would be the result. It's not exactly contradictory to science (at least until we know exactly how abiogenesis happened) as it makes no claims regarding the evolutionary processes.
There are plenty of other problems with that view, but that isn't it, I'd say. More things like it still being an argument from ignorance (by the way, if abiogenesis is explained, the next retreat will obviously be that god created the universe so that abiogenesis and evolution could take place), why a god would use such a cruel and wasteful process and so on.

.
That isn't involving God in evolution, that's involving God in the creation of matter and biological materials. That isn't the science of Evolution, evolution doesn't dwell much into how organic materials were created and then developed into living beings.

Not G. Ivingname:

TheIronRuler:

Not G. Ivingname:

-snip-

Can you tell us where you got that and how it was done?

If it was a strict "did god have anything to do with the development with life on Earth, yes or no" would get a very different result than "do you believe in evolution" since a lot of people here in the US believe in a hybrid system. Also the state and city it was done in could also have a huge effect on the poll.

There is no hybrid. Evolution is a theory that dictates how life evolved over the years, stressing that by random mutation and then the survival of the fittest races of animals and the race of men were created. If you think god was somewhere in the middle, you think wrong.

I don't think that.

I was other people believe that evolution was influenced by God, directed by God. It doesn't go with the theory very well, but that is religion in a nutshell and it is better view point than outright creationism.

I am an ATHEIST, I was just inquiring if the way they got those polls was either intentionally or unintentionally skewed the numbers in one way or another.

.
Did you understand my response? If they consider God to be an active participant in the process of Evolution then it is not Evolution nor a hybrid, it's their theory that God did it.
Whoever thinks that way doesn't understand Evolution nor does he accept it.

TheIronRuler:
That isn't involving God in evolution, that's involving God in the creation of matter and biological materials. That isn't the science of Evolution, evolution doesn't dwell much into how organic materials were created and then developed into living beings.

Right, but it's a view hybridizing science and religion, Theistic Evolution. If their god is omniscient, then he foresaw that human beings would come about. According to that view, evolution was planned and put into motion by their god. Some also believe that god intervened at specific points (for instance giving human beings souls when they developed but not animals).

TheIronRuler:

Skeleon:

EDIT:

TheIronRuler:
There is no hybrid. Evolution is a theory that dictates how life evolved over the years, stressing that by random mutation and then the survival of the fittest races of animals and the race of men were created. If you think god was somewhere in the middle, you think wrong.

To be fair, many religious people believe that their god kickstarted evolution, knowing that humans would be the result. It's not exactly contradictory to science (at least until we know exactly how abiogenesis happened) as it makes no claims regarding the evolutionary processes.
There are plenty of other problems with that view, but that isn't it, I'd say. More things like it still being an argument from ignorance (by the way, if abiogenesis is explained, the next retreat will obviously be that god created the universe so that abiogenesis and evolution could take place), why a god would use such a cruel and wasteful process and so on.

.
That isn't involving God in evolution, that's involving God in the creation of matter and biological materials. That isn't the science of Evolution, evolution doesn't dwell much into how organic materials were created and then developed into living beings.

thats what the guy meant by hybrid theory though. i think your just misinterpreting him fairly badly.

Witty Name Here:
No, I believe it's a sign that strict religious conservatism is dying, something that I consider to be a good thing, and a new breed of religious Liberalism is being born.

With the bible now commonly available in most languages, most people are better acquainted with the word of Jesus and realize... All that old Testament stuff makes absolutely no sense at all.

I like to consider myself a Religious Liberal, and I believe we all share these common views on Christianity. We're followers of Christ first, his word is above all the other prophets. Christ asked us to love our enemies and treat all people fairly and happily, not a certain religion, not a certain race, and not a certain sexuality, all people. If Jesus asked us to love all people and treat them all equally, than any other prophet coming before or after him saying that a certain group of people are "abominations" should be ignored in favor of Jesus Christ. God wouldn't create a group of people if they were ugly or "wrong" in his sight. Anyone born the way they are, even if it goes against societal norms, should not be seen as "evil" in his sight.

The conservative branch is dying, and hopefully the Liberal one can flourish. I just hope I'll see the day when all people can go to a church and feel at peace, regardless of their personal beliefs.

I'm not religious, at all, but if we had more people like you the world would be a better place indeed.

If only.

Religion has a stranglehold on the world, and it's grip is strong. It's been slowly dying for centuries, and will still cling to life for many centuries more, no doubt.

Skeleon:

TheIronRuler:
That isn't involving God in evolution, that's involving God in the creation of matter and biological materials. That isn't the science of Evolution, evolution doesn't dwell much into how organic materials were created and then developed into living beings.

Right, but it's a view hybridizing science and religion, Theistic Evolution. If their god is omniscient, then he foresaw that human beings would come about. According to that view, evolution was planned and put into motion by their god. Some also believe that god intervened at specific points (for instance giving human beings souls when they developed but not animals).

That is the bastardization of the theory of evolution, it is not really a scientific theory if you involve unproven factors in it.
.

keiskay:

-snip-
thats what the guy meant by hybrid theory though. i think your just misinterpreting him fairly badly.

How am I misinterpreting him?

TheIronRuler:

Skeleon:

TheIronRuler:
That isn't involving God in evolution, that's involving God in the creation of matter and biological materials. That isn't the science of Evolution, evolution doesn't dwell much into how organic materials were created and then developed into living beings.

Right, but it's a view hybridizing science and religion, Theistic Evolution. If their god is omniscient, then he foresaw that human beings would come about. According to that view, evolution was planned and put into motion by their god. Some also believe that god intervened at specific points (for instance giving human beings souls when they developed but not animals).

That is the bastardization of the theory of evolution, it is not really a scientific theory if you involve unproven factors in it.
.

keiskay:

-snip-
thats what the guy meant by hybrid theory though. i think your just misinterpreting him fairly badly.

How am I misinterpreting him?

by your misunderstanding of the context on how he is using the term hybrid. when you you hear hybrid car you dont think of a car mixed with a fucking plane do you? no you think of a car that uses a hybridized motor system (electric and gas). so when he said hybrid ideas on evolution he was talking about theistic and deistic evolution.

TheIronRuler:
That is the bastardization of the theory of evolution, it is not really a scientific theory if you involve unproven factors in it.

I never claimed Theistic Evolution is scientific, I certainly don't think it is. But it is a hybrid of scientific and religious views, an attempt to reconcile the two, however successful or unsuccessful it may be.

Ranorak:

Witty Name Here:
No, I believe it's a sign that strict religious conservatism is dying, something that I consider to be a good thing, and a new breed of religious Liberalism is being born.

With the bible now commonly available in most languages, most people are better acquainted with the word of Jesus and realize... All that old Testament stuff makes absolutely no sense at all.

I like to consider myself a Religious Liberal, and I believe we all share these common views on Christianity. We're followers of Christ first, his word is above all the other prophets. Christ asked us to love our enemies and treat all people fairly and happily, not a certain religion, not a certain race, and not a certain sexuality, all people. If Jesus asked us to love all people and treat them all equally, than any other prophet coming before or after him saying that a certain group of people are "abominations" should be ignored in favor of Jesus Christ. God wouldn't create a group of people if they were ugly or "wrong" in his sight. Anyone born the way they are, even if it goes against societal norms, should not be seen as "evil" in his sight.

The conservative branch is dying, and hopefully the Liberal one can flourish. I just hope I'll see the day when all people can go to a church and feel at peace, regardless of their personal beliefs.

I'm not religious, at all, but if we had more people like you the world would be a better place indeed.

I know, I wish people of all religions could see through the lens that this person is looking through.

I doubt all religions will be affected by the improvement of gay rights, and those that are affected will probably undergo some creative reinterpretation. Add some No True Scotsman fallacies liberally to account for so many adherents fucking up spectacularly and you're back in business.

It's not a sign of religion dying, but it is a sign that it is becoming more irrelevant. As the reality gets unraveled and demystified, so does religion and that means it's loosing power.

Ignorance was always religions greatest ally.

keiskay:

TheIronRuler:

Skeleon:

Right, but it's a view hybridizing science and religion, Theistic Evolution. If their god is omniscient, then he foresaw that human beings would come about. According to that view, evolution was planned and put into motion by their god. Some also believe that god intervened at specific points (for instance giving human beings souls when they developed but not animals).

That is the bastardization of the theory of evolution, it is not really a scientific theory if you involve unproven factors in it.
.

keiskay:

-snip-
thats what the guy meant by hybrid theory though. i think your just misinterpreting him fairly badly.

How am I misinterpreting him?

by your misunderstanding of the context on how he is using the term hybrid. when you you hear hybrid car you dont think of a car mixed with a fucking plane do you? no you think of a car that uses a hybridized motor system (electric and gas). so when he said hybrid ideas on evolution he was talking about theistic and deistic evolution.

And you're entirely missing his (correct)point that "theistic evolution" is a contradiction in terms.

If the assertion is that a god or gods set up the "starting conditions" for evolution and then left it alone, then you are talking about evolution. Not theistic evolution, not deistic evolution, not whooberdybooberdy-lution, just evolution as described through the scientific method, because the Theory of Evolution does not pertain to the conditions which existed prior to its mechanisms beginning to function.

If the assertion is that a god or gods acted as some form of "guiding hand" or "cosmic gardener" and had influence over the evolutionary process, then the assertion is fucking wrong. Or at least, what you are asserting is no longer evolution, it is creationism. It's not Literalist 6-Day Ken-fucking-Ham Creatardism, but it certainly isn't evolution.

It's another change or die situation. Either the religion must change or it will die out. Some forms of it will die and likely die the hard way, in some conspiracy-like enclave somewhere in each countries version of the outback who will slowly lose members from desertions, be classified as a cult and in 100 years will kill some tourist for "trespassing" and the remaining members die in a long armed stand off.

Have a look at Sweeden and Denmark as that's where we are heading in terms of progression.

Magichead:
Or at least, what you are asserting is no longer evolution, it is creationism.

Creationism is: We were created 6000 years ago 'poof' magic.
Evolution: Through the mechanics of natural selection we evolved and are descendants of the Ape.

The guiding hand idea, that God specifically guided us humans up is that of Intelligent Design which recognises the history of evolution and to a certain extent the mechanics of natural selection but believe we were guided by God specifically.
Or in other words, they see what is infront of them but they are in denial xD

Even the Jews believe in evolution and they are meant to be the precursor to Christianity.

Imperator_DK:
The more it ties itself to lost battles, the more it'll lose respect and ideological credibility in the civilized world.

It won't ever die though, far too many idiots[1] looking for the answers they want/need to be there, rather than the ones reality will give. Its followers will just learn that it's not something sacred that's beyond criticism and contempt when committing to evil. We'll see how many sky scrapers they fly into before that sinks in.

So mean religious people hurt you once, didn't they?

[1] Which would be none of my business if they weren't creating/reinforcing oppressive ideologies in the process that are harming innocents: Making them worthless filth entirely unworthy of hope or happiness.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked