What is Evangelism?

I know what real science is and it ain’t the BS that modern day science peddles ……..I’m not the one in the dark I can assure you……my lights are on…..modern day science is the one in the dark……….

How accurate is religion today?

Really...

Religion is a sham...

In Orwell’s classic novel, Oceania’s totalitarianism rests on compulsory atheism. Oceania is ruled by “the Party,” which forbids religion to its members. Religious belief is one of the “crimes” to which Winston Smith, the hero of 1984, confesses under torture—along with sexual perversion and admiration of capitalism. The Party has to forbid religious belief because atheism is both the moral and metaphysical basis of its absolute power.
Atheism is the moral basis of the Party’s unlimited hold on its own members because it makes them terrified of death as absolute nonexistence. Like any government, the Party in 1984 has the power to kill disobedient subjects. Party members, however, view death not just as the end of bodily life, but as a complete erasure of their being—their thoughts, their words, their affections, their deeds.

1984 thus confronts us with a radical and very significant suggestion: without God as the eternal, omnipotent observer, there is no objective reality. Many have argued that without God there can be no fixed moral principles. Orwell’s great work goes further, raising the possibility that without God there cannot even be “facts” in any meaningful, reliable sense.

Think about it. Suppose I spill some water on the pavement on a hot summer day. It is gone in just a few moments—evaporated. Can I insist that it was really there? Where is the evidence of it now? If there is no eternity, if there is nothing but ceaseless flux, then every human life—and, indeed, every human civilisation and the whole human past—is on the level of that quickly evaporated water. These things appear for a moment and, once gone, no longer exist. Thus we may claim them to be whatever we want, or even deny that they existed at all. Or, to be more accurate, those who have power can impose these claims and denials on the rest of us.

For decades—for centuries, in fact—many allegedly profound thinkers have proclaimed to the world that they were promoting enlightenment and the liberty of the mind by discrediting belief in God and the afterlife. Orwell’s 1984, however, invites us to consider whether such thinkers have really been destroying the basis of freedom and laying the groundwork for unprecedented despotism.

The problem is certainty.

Certainty of atheism or certainty of religion.

Each type of certainty can bring absolute rule and cruelty.

Agnosticism or secularism (freedom of and from religion) is the only rule of practice that allows for doubt in both cases.

So your religious fervor is just as narrow, constricting and devious as atheism and to point the finger only shows your obsession and blind allegiance to something that is equally if not more uncertain. That is foolishness.

You follow out of a sense of misplaced certainty.

You are so obsessed with religion and those who pedal the crap you don't even trust things that are fairly certain.

You have replaced common sense with radical obedience to a system that is mythological at best.

Certainty is for provable science, not religion.

You can be fairly certain that the earth is indeed round...

Instead your judgment is clouded and your perception warped.

Yes, it is.

However, having just talked to the "agnostic" that is Frank Apisa, I can honestly say that there is fraud going on even among so-called agnostics.

But here's the difference. I legit chose on my own to follow Jesus, whereas nearly every school in America (and I imagine other places) and many workplaces, they work hard on shifting your allegiance away from God and towards other idols.
That's six days a week that you put up with this unholy crap. Religion typically is a part of most people's lives one day a week, tops. Yet you think it is on the same level of con artistry. I dunno about you, but having to deal with the so-called con artistry of priests once a week, and having the secular world six days a week, somebody is trying alot harder to make me spiritually dead inside than they are to make me religious. I became religious in spite of secular programming, not because of religious.

...In this bogus narrative, Republicans are the bad guys because Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. For progressive Democrats, the civil rights movement is the canonical event of American history. It is even more important than the American Revolution. Progressive reasoning is: we did this, so it must be the greatest thing that was ever done in America. Republicans opposed it, which makes them the bad guys.

The only problem is that Republicans were instrumental—actually indispensable—in getting the Civil Rights Laws passed. While Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the backing of some northern Democrats, Republicans voted in far higher percentages for the bill than Democrats did. This was also true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed with just Democratic votes. Indeed, the main opposition to both bills came from Democrats.

Interestingly enough the GOP is not merely the party of minority rights but also of women’s rights. Republicans included women’s suffrage in the party’s platform as early as 1896. The first woman elected to Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. That year represented a major GOP push for suffrage, and after the GOP regained control of Congress, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was finally approved in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year.

The inclusion of women in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was, oddly enough, the work of group of racist, chauvinist Democrats. Led by Democratic Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, this group was looking to defeat the Civil Rights Act. Smith proposed to amend the legislation and add “sex” to “race” as a category protected against discrimination.

Smith’s Democratic buddies roared with laughter when he offered his one-word amendment. They thought it would make the whole civil rights thing so ridiculous that no sane person would go along with it. One scholar noted that Smith’s amendment “stimulated several hours of humorous debate” among racist, chauvinist Democrats. But to their amazement, the amended version of the bill passed. It bears repeating that Republicans provided the margin of victory that extended civil rights protection both to minorities and to women.