3391
Comments (148)
sorted by:
91
TheRealMaga 91 points ago +92 / -1

Good point! That they even force people to declare "I believe in climate change" says all you need.

27
brsmith77 27 points ago +28 / -1 (edited)

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!

That one always annoyed me. The whole point of science is it is never 'settled'.

And as for climate change, the earth's climate has always been changing, violently. In fact, the era of relative stability we are currently in is astonishingly, mind bogglingly rare in terms of the earth's history.

12
MaximumDistress 12 points ago +12 / -0

If we didn't question "settled science" we would still believe the sun goes around the earth

7
sackofwisdom 7 points ago +7 / -0

We have scientific "laws" which are about as close as you can get. Not a label used frivolously.

But our knowledge is limited and those ideas could get blown open in surprising ways still.

3
anon11111111 3 points ago +3 / -0

Newtons laws were correct, but they were not the whole picture.

5
CrimsonClown 5 points ago +6 / -1 (edited)

True, Earth’s seas were all red one time!

Edit: The seas turned red long ago when there was a high amount of iron in the seas. It was like that for a long time, relative to us, before the contents had changed enough that it shifted back to blue.

3
orange_dit 3 points ago +3 / -0

And the moon was on fire one time.

2
Gyrfalcon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Moon is made of green cheese. 🌛

1
CrimsonClown 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fire? Is this suppose to be the time period after it was formed when the Earth and moon were molten chunks of rock?

2
orange_dit 2 points ago +2 / -0

The moon was hit by a meteor shower many centuries ago. It looked like it was on fire. Many people freaked out. Some people deny it ever happened. But different people across the world independently wrote about it.

3
Grond999 3 points ago +3 / -0

On that note: Graph on Graph: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection graph (Figure 16-1 Total Acreage burned) vs ‘Heat Wave Magnitude Index Daily’ graph from the ‘2017 National Climate Assessment’ (US data). Overlay of two graphs thanks to Tony Heller. https://i.imgur.com/CBQp7zv.png

5
TrumpTrain 5 points ago +15 / -10 (edited)

The same applies to the age of the earth. There are many scientists that believe the age of the earth is significantly shorter than taught currently. Scientists from all backgrounds, biology, geology, astronomy... They all have valid evidence and theories, however, they are shunned and censored from the scientific community by people that hate God with a passion.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/

7
noPTSDforMePlease 7 points ago +8 / -1

So, not a biblical source, but it's true. The age of the earth is really hard to determine.

This is because of plate tectonics: after enough time, continental plates "recycle" and any rocks close enough to the surface for us to study eventually get replaced with newer rocks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks

5
AenAllAin 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't know how any of these "climate scientists" would know; since they all seem to have been born yesterday!

6
80960KA 6 points ago +6 / -0 (edited)

I'm not sold on the ~6k "biblical" age of the Earth, the methodology was sketchy at best and there's plenty of evidence that [a|the] Great Flood occurred around 10-12kya.

That said I think modern archeology's timelines are full of horseshit and civilization goes back at least twice as far as is commonly accepted, and one or more races of giants did exist.

I'm also Catholic, and while we pretty much invented Biblical Autism, we apply it in vastly different ways than the American protestant movements.

5
CrimsonClown 5 points ago +5 / -0

There a great German channel who proposed that civilizations goes back 60,000 years to the earliest temple ever recorded. It’s something like kurtzsgt in a nutshell.

3
HUNK 3 points ago +4 / -1

We've found objects that date further back than 60,000 years.

1
CrimsonClown 1 point ago +1 / -0

To be fair to the channel, it might have been 600,000 and not 60,000. It’s been more than a year since I saw their bit about it.

On another note, when you say objects what do you mean? Like a knife, spear or some other primitive tool? Kurtzgt uses the earliest temples as the marker for the beginning of civilization and I think that makes sense. I wouldn’t consider nomadic hunter-gatherers to be civilization, I consider permanent structures to be a basic part of civilization.

4
PurestEvil 4 points ago +6 / -2

You are free to question the "age" of Earth, but then you have to face the following questions:

  • How comes the theory is so tightly related to Christian belief? Does it not imply an inherent bias, given that there are many other religions with their own views?
  • What does "age" mean? Does it mean the Earth was created at that point or that it was became inhabitable by life forms, animals or humans?
  • What was Earth before his "age" began? Was it a "barren" planet? Or space dust, some mass in a star or nothing? What caused the shift from "before" to "after"?
  • How do you explain evolution that is a natural process that requires no intelligent planning and control, but only the survival & reproduction of life forms to optimize large scale adaptation, which spans from hundreds (for low level adaptation) to millions (for major forms of adaptation) of years?
  • What is the motivation to question the "age" of Earth and what would be the consequence? And given that the existing theory is quite logically plausible and indicates a long spanning shifting of conditions on Earth and no "sudden" emergence of species without necessitating any intelligent intervention, what is supposedly wrong with it?
2
TrumpTrain 2 points ago +2 / -0

There are endless books on the topics you are asking about which go into great detail on these subjects, more so than I'm able or willing to here. I will make these comments, and acknowledge that satisfactory responses to all of these questions are in the link above. Answers to these kinds of questions require individual determination and personal research, not a short reply from a stranger:

  • How comes the theory is so tightly related to Christian belief? Does it not imply an inherent bias, given that there are many other religions with their own views? On the same note, evolutionists also have an inherent bias which routinely & severely impacts their ability view evidence from different perspectives. They have an inherent bias that there is no creator and that the world and universe were created in natural ways. They will reject and shut out any alternate perspectives.
0
PurestEvil 0 points ago +1 / -1

They have an inherent bias that there is no creator and that the world and universe were created in natural ways.

But that would necessitate a belief as a premise, as the creation of God can never be proven or reproduced. That is not sufficient for a scientific basis.

And even then, why isn't it possible that God created the universe (or only the Earth) with the intent to create humans at the end of a process spanning billions of years? Assuming omniscience and omnipotence, that would be possible. The mere mechanism of genetics and evolution are exceptionally genius as it's a self-regulating system and ultimately created humans.

I think this is a more plausible approach.

2
TrumpTrain 2 points ago +2 / -0

Again, spend some time on these articles if you are interested in the subject, as these questions are all answered in ways better than I can explain.

But that would necessitate a belief as a premise

And this is what I just explained about evolutionists, that the have a belief as a premise. A belief that there is no creator and that the earth and universe are made in non-supernatural ways. It's preciously the same scenario that you are attacking.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4
3
dookiebot 3 points ago +3 / -0

That doctors are afraid to answer the question "What makes a man a and a woman a woman?" for fear of losing their jobs is all you need.

60
SpicyAmerican 60 points ago +60 / -0

There is no such thing as 'settled science.'

10
Miserable_company 10 points ago +12 / -2

I’m going to conduct a study of whether gravity is real with a hypothesis that it isn’t. It may be wasted effort if I support the established theory, but dang it, it’s my money and time to waste if I want to try.

22
wethedownvoted 22 points ago +22 / -0

You're joking but gravity the least understood force in nature. The greatest minds in history have grappled with it: Newton, Einstein, and what's his face.

15
ColbyP 15 points ago +16 / -1

Exactly. We know it exists, and that it has to do with mass, as all objects with mass exert a force on each other, but we still have no idea WHY. We can tell you perfectly HOW it works, but not why.

13
Bluestorm83 13 points ago +13 / -0

Isn't that great? I fucking love it. I want to die and ask God about that, and He says something like "Well, Space is actually five dimensional, and massive objects press 'down' on the surface of space itself in the fourth and fifth dimensions. I just made you guys deficient, not having the senses needed to see that clearly obvious truth. But it's really as simple as balls of different weights on a mattress or a trampoline. It's SO obvious, you guys are just stupid."

7
Shalomtoyou 7 points ago +8 / -1

If you're up for a mind twist, go to Youtube and watch a video called "the tenth dimension." Among the narrator's examples, he describes a two-dimensional creature that he calls "A flatlander" which is as flat as a playing card, and how confusing our three-dimensional world would look like to a two-dimensional creature. This provides the metaphor on how incomprehensible a fifth or sixth dimensional world would look to us. And you can further surmise that a creature that could exist and fully experience six or seven dimensions (let alone all ten) would be as omnipotent as G-d.

In fact, there's actually a scene in that movie.... what was it called, Minority Report? First guy rolls a ball down a table, the second guy catches it.

"Why'd you catch it?" "It was going to roll off the table." "How did you know?"

If we can see the table that the flatlander travels across and see his past, present, and future at a single glance....

Suppose G-d looks at our lives and sees our past, present, and future at a single glance, simply by existing beyond the dimension of Time?

All right, that's enough.

4
80960KA 4 points ago +4 / -0

The Flatland thought-experiment comes from a book called Flatland, written in the late 1800s.

You can read it here: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abbott/paper.pdf

2
Gyrfalcon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Love Flatland.

Geometry nerd.

4
Bluestorm83 4 points ago +4 / -0

I've actually seen that! Ever since, I've been annoyed when people can't think beyond basic momentary linearity. Later on, when I dabbled in writing, I'd liken the concept to the characters on the page. When someone opens my book, and reads page one, he encounters a farmer, on a farm, farming. If you were to ask the character who he is, he'd say he's a farmer. If you'd ask the reader who he is, he'd say the character is a farmer now, but may know that in the character's already-written future he may well become someone else. If you asked ME, who contains knowledge and godlike control over that character's entire existence, from his unwritten childhood to his unwritten latter years, I'd be able to give you at least 8 wildly different examples, all correct, depending on what point in his "time" I'm talking about, even though all of those instances of his timeline exist simultaneously for me, though many of them are still the unwritten "future" for the character as well as any readers.

Whenever I encounter a frothing, angry atheist, I always try to point out that their vehement, almost violent refusal in even the POSSIBILITY of a Deity is the absolute height of human hubris. They are loudly declaring "if I can not understand it, it can not exist," which is tantamount to saying "I am of supreme mind." Were I not the devout Christian that I am, I would hope I'd be at least intelligent enough to say "Well, I don't THINK so, but I lack absolute knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality, so I can not discount the possibility."

2
Shalomtoyou 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's right. The Atheist mindset is that /I/ am the ultimate intellect. /I/ am the arbiter of morality. Let's say /I/ don't see anything wrong with, oh, abortion or gay relationships. (Never mind that /I/ may have been influenced by propagandists and advertisers who wanted to plant just that belief in my head.). Since /I/ do not see it, therefore the Bible /must/ be wrong.

The crux of serious religious contemplation is that you hold G-d -- and his Bible, his message -- as the highest truth. You might say: "I do not understand this commandment as to the prohibition of gay sexual behavior. But even though I don't, it's still in the book, and it is my responsibility to study it and figure out why. And if I CAN'T figure out why, I'll just have to assume I lack access to the right information.

In other words, the religious person places the highest morality outside of himself. The atheist puts the highest morality IN himself. The Atheist wishes to be G-d. The Atheist wants to be the one to decide what is good and what is evil, and not give that honor to a force outside of himself.

Which is exactly what the serpent promised Eve she could have if she ate the fruit.

... continue reading thread?
2
wholesomekangz100 2 points ago +2 / -0

There can be temporal as well as spatial dimensions. A higher dimension doesn't necessarily imply time

2
Kweebecker 2 points ago +2 / -0

Indeed. A tesseract is a 4-dimensional dot/line/square/cube progression object. It does not need to be 2ft x 2ft x 2ft x 5 minutes, that last dimension can be "feet" too, just in a way we find hard to process.

We are 3Dx1D creatures, space x time-wise. Cuboid space, linear time. At least, last I checked we were still linear time, but there WAS that incident where the Left claimed Gamergate caused WW2...

1
Shalomtoyou 1 point ago +1 / -0

It could be, but Time is a really good illustration because we can't control it. We're all stuck in time like we're on one of those conveyer belts in an airport. It goes one way, and we can't step forward or back. And we don't even really recognize the motion, kind of like we don't feel the motion of the earth going around the sun.

5
Patriot_Z 5 points ago +5 / -0

Have we proven the existence of gravitons yet? Lol

4
jgardner 4 points ago +4 / -0

We don't even know if the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are the same thing, or just happen to be related by the constant 1.

When we try to apply the understanding of gravity in General Relativity to particle physics, we see things that make no sense at all, and vice-versa. We have two great theoretical frameworks that agree with each other perfectly except when it comes to gravity.

Gravity isn't just the least understood -- it is the ENIGMA that makes physics interesting.

1
Furaffinitydotnet 1 point ago +2 / -1

We don't know "HOW it works"

0
Poopenstein69 0 points ago +3 / -3

No universal law has an answer to why.

That's like asking why is there reality.

3
ColbyP 3 points ago +3 / -0

That doesn't mean we shouldn't ask why. What a silly assertion. There must be a why, the only question is are we capable of finding it.

1
Poopenstein69 1 point ago +2 / -1

Perhaps, but it would be beyond human comprehension.

You'd be breaching on metaphysics. Kant had some interesting thoughts on the matter https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/basicproblems002/2015/02/17/kants-universe/

1
Kweebecker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even if it is beyond human comprehension, there is good in pursuing it. Perhaps something after us, something more than us, could use our work, stand on the shoulders of our then-long-lost giants, to grasp it.

1
jeffreyepstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

It becomes something you’d have to be really high to say, no one would understand you and it would be a meta reference to some group of other metas.

Re: Galaxy seeds. Shit makes no sense, but also does at the same time

5
TheDonkeyPirate 5 points ago +5 / -0

Al Gore?

3
rossagesausage 3 points ago +3 / -0

Exactly this. Gravity isn't actually solved/fully understood which is fascinating.

3
jeffreyepstein 3 points ago +3 / -0

What’s his face? Oh yeah Burt reynolds

3
JeremiahKassin 3 points ago +3 / -0

For the record, what's his face is a moron who uses bad math. He's only famous because of his disability.

3
SpicyAmerican 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good for you! How come gravity on earth isn't always 9.8 m/s squared. And how does gravity fit into a unified field theory. Keep up the good work ;)

1
anon11111111 1 point ago +1 / -0

Different densities of material under your feet will change how much gravity you experience. Satellites can monitor the change in their orbits to work out how much water there is under any particular place.

1
Colonel_Dax 1 point ago +3 / -2

A realistic and quick way to test gravity is to climb out on the roof of a twenty story building and jump off.

Cheap, and easy. Take a stop watch with you, and it will stop when you get to the ground. This will help your further studies...

7
4more 7 points ago +7 / -0

Even better way is to take a communist in a helicopter and do the same test.

4
Shalomtoyou 4 points ago +4 / -0

Proud to be the first one to upvote this.

2
Deplorable_Yankee 2 points ago +2 / -0

2nd, still really proud

2
Ravenant 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is shitty science. Repeatability is key. We must use larger sets. Start with ten thousand communists for a baseline.

5
jigglyp33n 5 points ago +5 / -0

This would also be a really poor test of gravity lmao

REJECTED

2
TwoPlusTwoEqualsFour 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ok then. My hypothesis is 'Magnets do what how?'

It may take some funding but I need a magnet (+)suit and a magnet landing pad (+) and a testing tower for paid volunteers to descend from.

It will be 93% successful.

3
jigglyp33n 3 points ago +3 / -0

I volunteer but only if my dick is attached to a (-)

2
TwoPlusTwoEqualsFour 2 points ago +2 / -0

SCIENCE!

2
jeffreyepstein 2 points ago +2 / -0

Motherfuckas lying, and gettin’ me pissed

  • ICP
1
Despitetospite 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fake news+Clown world

3
Miserable_company 3 points ago +3 / -0

The death part is inconvenient. My wife disapproves. Something about wanting my bod. Can you test the jump and report back?

2
Deplorable_Yankee 2 points ago +2 / -0

haha

1
BananaWizard 1 point ago +2 / -1

Except hard sciences like chemistry or math. Climate and say psychology are soft sciences are impossible to settle. Oxygen and hydrogen make water and 1+1=2 but the patterns of weather being detected can change on a dime.

2
jeffreyepstein 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree, but there’s also possibility that Math has other dimensions to it that haven’t been fully exposed yet.

1
80960KA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Math is more a modeling framework than a science. Science requires the whole iterative experimentation and analysis thing to happen, with the goal of finding out more about how physical processes work, while in the domain of pure math you can come up with purely-virtual constructs that can't exist in the natural game-space.

This doesn't imply it's a lesser discipline than physical sciences, just that it's a fundamentally different animal with different methodologies.

2
Sumsuch 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

The thing I keep coming back to about math is that it has, thus far, proven to be incapable of bridging the gap between classical and quantum physics. I would only be willing to entertain the notion that math is "settled" once it is capable of fully bridging the uncertainty gap.

If you want to get really deep into it, and look to David Hume (one of the greatest philosophers to ever live), then there is absolutely nothing that we can be completely certain of, because you first require faith that it is even possible to know things.

Now, I recognize that I'm taking these things to the very farthest extremes, but my point is that there is not one single thing in this entire world that should be absolutely off limits to being questioned. That is what science is all about.

32
donald_zuramp 32 points ago +32 / -0

Critical Theory is not testable at all. It is psuedoscience, and barely even that.

The entire concept is based on an assumption that has never been the slightest bit substantiated, and that is simply that any time a group or organization of people does not reflect the distribution of demographics in the "general population", there must be institutionalized efforts to keep certain people out.

This is patently absurd. Different peoples self sort themselves all the time.

Look at basketball. Is it overwhelmingly black because of some institutionalized racism? Or are young black guys just tall and good jumpers?

The idea that you must force organizations to reflect not just the normal distribution of ethnicity and gender and religion and so on, but then go further and over represent minorities to "make up for historical white supremacy" is batshit insane. It will lead to poor hiring decisions, poor oversight, a culture of fear and less self policing and self reporting within industries.

It will, frankly, kill people if we're talking about food, drug or medical industries and a number of others.

It is a cancerous ideology by design, because it was never meant to make society better. It was meant to destroy the power structure of the west in order to destabilize it and force a crisis resulting in communist revolution. It was never well intentioned to begin with.

14
trump_is_john_galt 14 points ago +14 / -0

Beyond that, these retarded "ideas" are made up by total nitwits with absolutely no knowledge of the real world. They think giving someone a position and a title actually makes them equal to those who have earned it, and the price to get to the top of the pile is higher than most people are willing to pay.

At my company, regular employees work 40 hours, hardly ever have to work overtime, and have great job security if they stay with the company past the first year or two. Those that don't fit in usually leave. When I hear someone complain about how much the top management and executives earn, I point out that they all work 60-80 hours a week. Executives are expected to arrive an hour before everyone else, stay at least an hour later, and they rotate responsibility for being present on weekends when projects are going on. They also have to attend local charity events, sit on boards of other organizations, and travel to our various branches as well as on incentive vacation trips. So even their "free time" is devoted to the company.

When you have earned your way to the top with proven results and show that kind of dedication, it isn't about "privilege" or any other bullshit, it's about talent and desire. And to be frank, our top dogs have literally begged women and minorities to get on the path to the top and they privately express frustration that they can't get enough of them to buy in.

8
Shalomtoyou 8 points ago +9 / -1

Jordan Peterson has some talks on that, about how incredibly stressful the life of a CEO is, and women not wanting that might just be a sign of their own intelligence.

11
ElNugerino 11 points ago +11 / -0

I remember with perfect resentment having to learn and be tested on Peggy Macintosh's "Invisible knapsack of privileges" theory shortly after returning to school (having worked a blue collar technician/mechanic job for some years), and thinking to myself, "so...this is just someone's opinion. Not even a valid opinion, as even in the mid-80's as this BS was written it wasn't like they describe."

This junk is written for idiots. They can only pass it off on the very young and very stupid.

I mean, this is their gospel, and the instructors (who had entered the system 20-40 years prior) seemed to be stuck in the year they started college.

5
Shalomtoyou 5 points ago +5 / -0

When I was forced to listen to some Sociology "Science" it usually goes like this.

"Some people think sex is inborn... that biology makes men one way, and makes woman another way.

"But some theorists think that men are that way only because society pushes them to be that way, and women are their way only because society pushed them to be that way."

"Now that we know biological gender doesn't really exist and all sex roles are made by society...."

I swear. That was the train of thought. There was no argument why the second concept was proven and the first wasn't. Not even any evidence for to it. They just jumped to the third line on faith.

5
Marshall 5 points ago +6 / -1

I have no FAITH in any of the soft "sciences" like Psychology or Psychiatry or Sociology. They all seek to describe human nature without the essential element of sin against GOD.

3
donald_zuramp 3 points ago +3 / -0

Psychiatry is not a soft science. Psychiatrists are MDs. I know a lot of Psychiatrists are definitely quacks, but there is still a need for medicating very seriously mentally ill people.

4
Marshall 4 points ago +4 / -0

Soft doesn't mean easy. It is soft in that it isn't testable or repeatable. It's simply a belief system which changes with the whims of the group.

1
Kweebecker 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)

It's pretty repeatable as long as you don't care about racism or sexism or phobia-ism.

Brain scan, chemical assessment, hormone checks. Hey look, there's a divergence from a "normal" brain. In two sigma of population sampled, that divergence means "x". Testable. Repeatable. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be 43% memes, because there would be no testable or repeatable way to define the subject matter.

If I want to make someone saddened, should I give them a plush toy, or speak poorly of their deceased relatives? I bet I could make a repeatable, testable experiment that showcases how people's mental state is lowered more with insults than with gifts.

The problem isn't the science, it's the scientists.

1
Marshall 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's both.

1
80960KA 1 point ago +1 / -0

And on the whims of pharmaceutical marketing goals.

2
jeffreyepstein 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can confirm, meds were my last resort on numerous occasions and they definitely helped me out of bad situations I otherwise couldn’t have done myself

4
pmurTJdlanoD 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think this post refers to climate change and Wuflu but you’re completely correct.

17
banumerchantmarine 17 points ago +17 / -0

Science is a methodology. A system for gaining understanding of the physical world we live in.

That's it.

6
liberty4alll 6 points ago +6 / -0

Thank you! I constantly have to remind people that science is a METHOD, and not a system of beliefs.

And let’s not forget, science is built on inquiry. Any attempt to stifle inquiry is anti-science, and more characteristic of religion than science.

4
orange_dit 4 points ago +4 / -0

And it is maths all the way down.

1
anon11111111 1 point ago +1 / -0

Incorrect.

It's Turtles all the way down.

10
jsphere256 10 points ago +10 / -0

Science. Is Never. Settled.

Critiquing and debating scientific experiments in good faith requires agreement on a rational basis. But as long as people are born and people die, the argument is never over.

10
Marshall 10 points ago +10 / -0

90% of good science is setting up a test of a hypothesis which is objective and whose results are repeatable. That is increasingly lacking as "scientists" are funded by those who only care about manipulating both the questions and the testing to achieve the desired outcome. And "scientists have proven to be as financially oriented as the mob.

9
The_PhDeplorable 9 points ago +9 / -0

I am a scientist and I completely agree with you.

3
Spicy_maymay 3 points ago +3 / -0

PhD student in CS checking in! Can confirm.

2
The_PhDeplorable 2 points ago +2 / -0

Keep going and don't let the H1Bs take your job!

8
hillaryforprison 8 points ago +9 / -1

Most leftists hate God so they feel empty and want to replace with a substitute so they worship junk science, people, obama, sanders, diversity, celebrities, media, social justice. Disagree with anything they say and they get upset and try to cancel you. That's their religion.

7
CaptainAHab 7 points ago +7 / -0

What pisses me off more than anything about this new “it’s science” argument is 99% of the time when it is used, there is no substance or data driven logic to back it up. Just, “the science says so” and if you don’t believe science then you are an idiot. And there is no arguing with anyone who does this either. It’s infuriating.

6
litsy 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'm a pagan and I don't like people who worship science. They are the most dangerous people in America today.

The difference between a Christian and an atheist, for instance, is that a Christian must have faith in their belief system as there is no objective way to test their religion.

Because of this, a Christian's faith is frequently called in question throughout their life but, they can't look to someone else to answer the big questions. They must therefore forge a relationship with God themselves and use their personal lived experience to come to a decision. Is God real? Is Jesus the way?

In essence, every religious person must become a philosopher. Philosophy, by the way, is the foundation and origin of science.

A science worshipper doesn't participate in a relationship with science. Now to be clear, those who follow the cult of scientism are different from scientists in a particular field. A science worshipper is someone who follows pop science headlines and media propaganda. They believe what they're told, without question, and never engage in science experiments themselves.

This is why people who worship science are dangerous: they are useful idiots.

Globalists are using the "science is cool crowd" to co-opt scientific research to push their political propaganda. That's why communism finds religion so antagonistic to their authority: it allows individual people to question and engage in philosophical questions.

And philosophy is dangerous to authoritarian regimes.

EDIT: I should probably also clarify that an atheist isn't always a science worshipper, but like most pagans, they probably believe scientism propaganda to an absurd degree and it's easy to assume 99.99% of those you meet do.

5
tdwinner2020 5 points ago +5 / -0

Call it scientism, or more properly, marxism, or communism.

5
PENNY 5 points ago +5 / -0

Back in the day bloodletting and guzzling mercury potions was "science" until someone questioned it.

5
The_PhDeplorable 5 points ago +5 / -0

I am a scientist and I completely agree with you.

5
MythArcana 5 points ago +5 / -0

tH3 sCiEnC3 i5 s3tTl3d!

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
Clabber 4 points ago +4 / -0

I love this.

4
neverreddit 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes, Idiot Cuomo who tweeted that Science has answers just embarrassed himself. No one who really understands the never-finished nature of all science would ever say anything to basic.

4
HeavenlyTrumpets 4 points ago +4 / -0

I need a tshirt with this.

4
RufusPillula 4 points ago +4 / -0

Needs more upvotes.

4
remember1776 4 points ago +4 / -0

Critical thinking is incompatible with the NPC cult.

4
Midwestknowsbest 4 points ago +4 / -0

Woke is the new religion. It's based on faith and belief over facts and evidence. If you question it you will be shunned/shammed/fired/assaulted/killed. If you post evidence to the contrary it will be censored.

3
jeffreyepstein 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah it’s all about optics. Then there’s also the potential for the story of genesis to be an early example of the telephone game or trying to maintain the structure of a story via word of mouth, since there is no historically understood concept of time to measure exactly what happened in what timeframe/period.

It doesn’t make it wrong, but more of a summary of events.

Then again I believe that all miraculous events in the Bible have logical explanations with the exception of the story pieces together by the gospels.

3
HistoryInvestigator 3 points ago +3 / -0

Devil's Advocate: If science is never settled then it's OK to question whether there are more than 2 genders, right?

2
Kweebecker 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

Yup. While it does not exist on Earth, I could conceive of an alien species that has chromosome triplets, or one where the female has a full chain, but needs an M1 chain which supplies half the other side's genetics, and an M2 chain which supplies the other remaining half, 0.5+0.25+0.25 = 1, in a species with MASSIVE sexual dimorphism (or trimorphism, as it may be). Such a system would have both advantages and disadvantages to ours, and while highly unlikely from an anthropocentric viewpoint, I could see a situation in which it could occur on some alien planet. So yes, it is perfectly fine to question if there are more than two genders. Perhaps such an evolution may come to pass in humans quite suddenly, so question away.

Your findings will show otherwise, but you shouldn't be stopped from checking in on it as long as you follow proper ethics.

The "sin" is saying "There IS infinite sexes, no arguments allowed", not in saying "we could do a double-blind test to check that.". Likewise, we know what goes up must come down... Unless you throw it really far up. We have general acceptances of everyday-level knowledge, and investigate the fringe cases, but if you wanted to recreate an old gravity experiment and showcase a feather and a lead weight in a vaccuum falling at the same rate, it's always a science fair crowd-pleaser, no one will poo poo you for re-treading and re-proving "known" science. Re-prove two sexes exist, do it as many times as you want.

1
HistoryInvestigator 1 point ago +1 / -0

Love your answer, thank you!

3
FluffiPuff 3 points ago +3 / -0

DOGMA is not SCIENCE

3
magnokor 3 points ago +3 / -0

Overpopulation wrecks the climate.

Everyone who cries about "climate change" is also for Open Borders.

3
clrdark 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Top HHS official apologizes for saying scientists are politically motivated, considers medical leave."

Too funny! For speaking the truth he is forced to take medical leave. Is he being checked in to a psychiatric facility, perhaps at McGill University, for "treatment" of his "problem." Any chance he'll emerge intact or become someone like befuddled Biden.

1
orange_dit 1 point ago +1 / -0

He needs to be re-educated.

3
doodaddy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Science is Real! (Whatever that is supposed to mean)

2
LuckyOwl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not even a good religion either. For christianity there are literal centuries worth of literature vof self questioning, reasoning, and philosophizing.

What we're seeing today is a system of CONTROL, not belief. Most of the people involved dont believe what they say, they never think that far ahead. They're just operating on a basic animal level. Repeating phrases and actions learned by rote from training.

2
TheBehavingBeaver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Amen brother

2
you-know-im-right 2 points ago +2 / -0

Religion isn’t a pejorative.

2
Iridiue 2 points ago +2 / -0

They used to rule with religion. Now they rule with the religion of science.

2
fingerofkek 2 points ago +2 / -0

Test hypothesis.

2
streakybacon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Erm but the science is "settled" didn't you know?

2
Erikabodereka 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly. It’s not THE science. It’s just science and we learn new things all the time by constant questioning.

2
HiddenDekuScrub 2 points ago +2 / -0

Funny thing...

Christians will often say that questioning God is part of finding faith.

Kind of ironic, huh?

2
Sumsuch 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nullius in Verba

The motto of the Royal Society, the UK's national academy of sciences, means "Take nobody's word for it."

2
Pelayo 2 points ago +2 / -0

No ‘scientific method’, not science....period

2
H_Guderian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Science comes up with an idea, and they don't go around trying to prove it. They go around trying to DISPROVE it. If your theory is Gravity you try to find ways around it. Something like gravity at best breaks down at a universal or quantum scale, but it is our inability to disprove its existence that shows it is there. If you aren't trying to disprove our own theory, its not that solid.

2
Chestbras 2 points ago +2 / -0

The usual word in science for this is "dogma".
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Grimjakk 2 points ago +2 / -0

"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship." - Heinlein

2
WhiteLash 2 points ago +2 / -0

Leftism is a religion.

2
Shockrocks 2 points ago +4 / -2

To be fair, religion often encourages lots of questions and searching. This post seems to be lacking in understanding.

2
hubumoppet 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’ve been reprimanded for asking questions (or perhaps the “wrong” questions) in two places: church and school.

2
Shalomtoyou 2 points ago +2 / -0

I was going to some Chabad services and I tried to come up with some of the craziest questions for the Rabbi as a game. He had fun with it too.

2
GreyKnight 2 points ago +2 / -0

When they say science, they mean superstition...

2
Dictator_Bob 2 points ago +2 / -0

Science is a method. Stop taking shit from people that refuse to work within that boundary. Posting links on social media is not science, it is retardation.

2
Juicebusters 2 points ago +2 / -0

I tried telling some of those reddit teen atheist tards that the scientific method says you take your theory and you don't just question it - you try to disprove it, you assail it with every attack you can think of.

They just lost their goddamn minds and I think posted it in a 'Trumpies Hate Science' subreddit and screeeeeched at how i needed to take a 3rd grade science class.

Then again I was also deemed a 'Racist' for not believing in races of humans.

2
Shockrocks 2 points ago +2 / -0

What religion? Admittedly, not all of them are welcoming to questions.

2
siliconia 2 points ago +2 / -0

They don't mean science they mean their application of biased papers in a broken system.

2
orange_dit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Actually religious and non-religious people are allowed to question and debate religion. I love a bible study about a challenging verse or a sermon that shows a new angle. I wish the left did treat science more like religion and not a propaganda tool.

2
Deplorable_Yankee 2 points ago +2 / -0

Believe in science! Water is life! Those signs crack me up.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
JackAttack1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think most people have forgotten the definition of of the word "Theory" on both sides.

1
jgardner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Science is anti-belief. It is what happens when you challenge beliefs. It is what happens when you apply skepticism.

There is no faith in science, except in the scientific principle. There is no room for statements such as "I believe" in science, unless you are describing an idea you want to falsify.

Any statement is to be challenged in science, tested against reality and if it is found lacking, to be immediately discarded.

That is science.

1
trout007 1 point ago +1 / -0

Might want to read Aquinus if you think you can’t ask questions about religion.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
0
Hail_Milo 0 points ago +2 / -2

Only a few centuries ago everyone KNEW the Earth was flat.

2
orange_dit 2 points ago +2 / -0

This has actually been debunked.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4