How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

It is interesting to consider the value of community that organized religion provides. The Pew Research Center in the United States, and the Angus Reid Foundation in Canada had both found, in their surveys of confessional adherence, that about 10% of self-reported adherents of various churches who attended worship services at least once a month did not in fact believe that there is a god. I don't know that anyone asked them why they attended church services in that case, but I suspect it is because of the oft-reported value of participation in a community. There was an outcry from the leadership of organized sects and a demand that the two institutions drop their question about a belief in god among self-reported adherents. I don't know if either of them responded or complied.

That’s what I call a consistent POV.

Trump's sexism. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

Persistent rather than consistent maybe, but always limited.
(Sherlock Holmes turned to opiates only when his brain was idle )

I thought he was into cocaine.

The unequality between you and a knife is that a Knife has a point. But at of all you observed i was a christian not a zen. One gold star for you and a check of plenty zeros.
Well i can command myself. Its another word for will power or self control if you have never heard of such term before, God help you.

All science is man made also. Both are seeking truth. Science is trying to physicsly explain how the universe works, and christianity is trying to physically and philosophically how and why the universe works by including the historical evidence of the who that designed it.

Religious people developed science for that reason. As science developed they decided to drop the history and philisophy of the designer out of the discussion. Why? Both are wrong and never will be perfectly right.

What utter tommy rot that is. Humanity developed a scientific view of the cosmos despite organized religion, not because of it. We need to add history to the list of subjects about which you don't know a damned thing, but about which you are willing to shoot off your mouth.

With what seems to be an open minded view, why do you so vigorously reject science, Setanta?

I stand corrected because I did not correctly Communicate what I was thinking. I meant to say The scientific method was developed by people trying to understand who created the universe and how it revealed the creator. That has nothing to do with organized religion. It just so happened that organized religion and folklore is how most people explained the world back then. Most of the people that developed the scientfic method believed what they were observing was created for a purpose. Scienctists requirement of a purely atheistic worldview is just the latest form of bigotry that is in vogue. Fortunately it is not a majority view in the general public.

It is interesting. believers in God develop the university system and the scientific method and were bigoted against any other point of you. They did not allow atheism to be expressed in the educational and research world. Then people with an atheistic point gained control of the universities and now they won't let the ID point of view be expressed in an educational or scientific research world. Why is it that the people running the universities are always the biggest bigots, both historically and today ?

I missed the persistent part.
He started with a metaphor saying everybody does the same thing (they follow the masses) then he described people with one meaning the opposite (everybody drinks their own poison). Left me wondering which he meant.

I must have way too much time on my hands...

They were, had been the subjects of an incredibly deviant form of brainwashing from religious leaders/the entire community. Look at what the god people's view of the universe was. These scientists stand as true heroes for ever even contesting the totally nutty religious views on science.



Rejecting something for which there is zero evidence isn't at all a hard thing to do for scientists or science minded people. There is no "requiremen"t to reject religion, it is rejected for sound scientific reasons, noted in my first sentence.

Historically, because religion, on pain of death, determined what was academia.

Today, specifically as regards ID and religion, they are rejected because they have zero scientific rigor.

But religion is still found within the university system. Who were/are the hypocrites?

Wrong again, as usual. The people who promoted inductive reasoning, such as Roger Bacon (13th century) were interested in logic and philosophy, and were not on some grand, devotional search for whoever created the universe. this is what comes of you taking a handful of names, and names of ideas, and just making sh*t up as you go along. Inductive reasoning from observation goes back to Aristotle, who was certainly no christian loon attempting to shoe-horn everything he observed into some goofy theology derived from bronze age fairy tales. Copernicus proposed a heliocentric model of the cosmos (naive, but better than the geocentric model the church promoted), but Aristarchus of Samos had proposed that more than 2000 years ago, once again, independently of all that old christian bullsh*t.

Once again, you consistently attempt to speak as though from authority, when, in fact, you are just making sh*t up as you go along.

Babble on, BJ, it's all you have to offer.

You're right, of course, Setanta, but you are also a stunning hypocrite, feigning that science is important to you.

You too, "consistently attempt to speak as though from authority, when, in fact, you are just making sh*t up as you go along".

You so frequently catch yourself out with your own words.

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Why would a god allow HIMself to be called by one name by one group of religious nuts and another name by another group of religious nuts, and so on and so on and so on?

Why wouldn't a real god demand/ensure that there was uniformity of what HER thoughts, teachings, commandments, laws are?

IDers are contesting the current view is that make them heroes?

Are you saying Galileo, Isaac newton Francis Bacon, maria Mitchell, Leonardo da Vinci, Christopher Columbus,Copernicus and Max Planck were all easily brainwashed.?

I don't think these men believed because they were brainwashed I think it they believed because they understood the evidence better than the average person. I do not believe in God on faith. I believe in God because I understand the evidence and the evidence reveals him and his nature. Then he stepped into the universe as Jesus Christ and confirmed the evidence.

You can have the view of the universe that you want. Just because people who had a view similar to you have control of the university system right now( just like the Catholic Church did when they were being bigots against Copernicus and Galileo )doesn't give elitist academics the right to be bigots today.

Columbus truly was scum--just the sort of person BJ would make out to be a hero.