happydolphin on 17 December 2012
| Runa216 said: Take overpopulation as another example where Religion needs to back the hell off: Scientists agree, we're overpopulated. we CAN support ourselves at our current population and according to some theories could easily feed up to 9.3 billion people, but the fact is we still have over one billion people starving and/or in intense poverty. Plus, getting to that number would require basically the rest of the world to be null. The more people WE have, the less of everything else there is. most religions (and all of the major ones) say that we are above animals, and our needs and rights come before the environment. We hold dominion over them. In addition, some religions say that homosexuality is wrong, that contraceptives are wrong, and in some extremes any act that doesn't result in offspring is wrong. This is particularly true where I live, where almost every family has 8 or more children (they believe in having huge families to please God and don't believe in contraception.) So ask yourself this, which side would you chose? the one where we adhere to values that were relevant thousands of years ago but have since been made obsolete, or the side that gives real facts and figures and warns about real consequences for us and the world around us? Science 1 Religion 0 |
True, but in the meantime people practice sex in a different way than people did when the global consciousness was lower (say just 50 years ago), and there was more modesty, at least in America. What then, the moral state of the people has degraded (the religious opinion) but their ability to survive has increaced.
All it says is that the priorities of religion are in a different place than the priorities of naturalistic thinking.
