| o_O.Q said:
religion caused the united states to bomb syria? which religion?
|
Syria's turmoil was largely caused by the uprising of extreme Islamism prior to the US's interventionist proxy war.
|
why don't you try to pray for yourself and see if it has any impact on your condition? |
This an ad hoc fallacy. Correlation =/= Causation.
|
the point i made is that climate change is caused as a result of science in terms of the current global warming trends... had religion been allowed to suppress science, then it would not have happened... do you disagree with that? |
This is an incorrect interpretation of what caused climate change. Climate change was caused as a result of the overuse of certain fruits of science. Currently, people are using science to figure out how to counter that. In addition, it is impossible to suppress science entirely by religion, so you're presenting a largely impractical scenario. This doesn't even put into the account the additional (negative) baggage religion brings to the table.
|
like the soviet union? and maoist china? beyond them i can't name another atheist nation... can you give an example? because the two i listed would be terrible examples |
Are they atheist nations or nations that happen to be atheist?
Actually, when it comes to the Soviet Union, they were not atheist as Stalin often promoted himself as the God figure like how the North Koreans often exalt their dictators as supernatural beings. Maoist China's problem was not atheism, but strict authoritarianism. Authoritarianism and religion have a lot more in common with each other than authoritarianism and atheism because for a religion to survive, it needs to impose authoritarian measures to keep followers in line. Atheism, on the other hand, is not a religion as it is an expression of skepticism. There is no "holy book" for atheism and as a result, atheism does not have a set of authoritarian rules to keep atheists in line.
|
the big bang is still considered a theory which is another way of saying proposition |
There's a large difference between the colloquial theory and the scientific theory. Just because there is "theory" in the Big Bang Theory, it doesn't mean it is a proposition. In other words, you're making a fallacious argument based on mere association. Physicists have shown that space has been expanding at a faster rate and we can see remnants of the Big Bang by observing the cosmic microwave background.
|
they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that? |
And to finish, this is Poisoning The Well. Who is "they" and are "they" representative of the entire scientific community? What kind of lies are you referring to? Were the lies pushed because of science, itself, or because the "scientists" improperly implemented the scientific method? Not only is this part of your "argument" a pre-emp ad hom, but it also lacks any specificity.
