0 thoughts on “Remind me again how religion has had zero benefit to humanity…”
Not really. All the paper really states is that people who have things in common, tend to work better with each other. You could replace “religion” in this talk with “football teams” and get the same result. The difference with religion is that, liking a different football team will normally not get you killed. *cough**crusades**cough**salem witch trials**cough**spanish inquisition**cough*
Not really. All the paper really states is that people who have things in common, tend to work better with each other. You could replace “religion” in this talk with “football teams” and get the same result. The difference with religion is that, liking a different football team will normally not get you killed. *cough**crusades**cough**salem witch trials**cough**spanish inquisition**cough*
Not really. All the paper really states is that people who have things in common, tend to work better with each other. You could replace “religion” in this talk with “football teams” and get the same result. The difference with religion is that, liking a different football team will normally not get you killed. *cough**crusades**cough**salem witch trials**cough**spanish inquisition**cough*
If you mean by the definition of “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group,” then yeah, I’ll go with that. But that’s not what this paper was about, even though it’s kind of what it was describing.
If you mean by the definition of “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group,” then yeah, I’ll go with that. But that’s not what this paper was about, even though it’s kind of what it was describing.
If you mean by the definition of “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group,” then yeah, I’ll go with that. But that’s not what this paper was about, even though it’s kind of what it was describing.
The worldview that dictates one’s perception of reality. We all have one and we all experience dissonance when something enters our experience that breaks it.
The worldview that dictates one’s perception of reality. We all have one and we all experience dissonance when something enters our experience that breaks it.
The worldview that dictates one’s perception of reality. We all have one and we all experience dissonance when something enters our experience that breaks it.
Jason Cox that is key. Religion effectively CAN’T allow dissonance, by definition. It would tear down the walls of said religion. Science, on the other hand, is basically built on it…it’s set up, purposefully, to be questioned and doubted.
Jason Cox that is key. Religion effectively CAN’T allow dissonance, by definition. It would tear down the walls of said religion. Science, on the other hand, is basically built on it…it’s set up, purposefully, to be questioned and doubted.
Jason Cox that is key. Religion effectively CAN’T allow dissonance, by definition. It would tear down the walls of said religion. Science, on the other hand, is basically built on it…it’s set up, purposefully, to be questioned and doubted.
Dogma can’t allow dissent. That’s not necessarily true for the broader topic of religion. Much to the chagrin of the religious-right, religions themselves do indeed evolve. Or they die. As is the mandate of Nature.
Dogma can’t allow dissent. That’s not necessarily true for the broader topic of religion. Much to the chagrin of the religious-right, religions themselves do indeed evolve. Or they die. As is the mandate of Nature.
Dogma can’t allow dissent. That’s not necessarily true for the broader topic of religion. Much to the chagrin of the religious-right, religions themselves do indeed evolve. Or they die. As is the mandate of Nature.
Well, the religion itself doesn’t evolve…just the way some people interpret it. You could have Westboro Baptist Church on one side and Amy Grant on the other. But the book they both read and its inscribed tenants doesn’t change.
Well, the religion itself doesn’t evolve…just the way some people interpret it. You could have Westboro Baptist Church on one side and Amy Grant on the other. But the book they both read and its inscribed tenants doesn’t change.
Well, the religion itself doesn’t evolve…just the way some people interpret it. You could have Westboro Baptist Church on one side and Amy Grant on the other. But the book they both read and its inscribed tenants doesn’t change.
Not really. All the paper really states is that people who have things in common, tend to work better with each other. You could replace “religion” in this talk with “football teams” and get the same result. The difference with religion is that, liking a different football team will normally not get you killed. *cough**crusades**cough**salem witch trials**cough**spanish inquisition**cough*
]]>Not really. All the paper really states is that people who have things in common, tend to work better with each other. You could replace “religion” in this talk with “football teams” and get the same result. The difference with religion is that, liking a different football team will normally not get you killed. *cough**crusades**cough**salem witch trials**cough**spanish inquisition**cough*
]]>Not really. All the paper really states is that people who have things in common, tend to work better with each other. You could replace “religion” in this talk with “football teams” and get the same result. The difference with religion is that, liking a different football team will normally not get you killed. *cough**crusades**cough**salem witch trials**cough**spanish inquisition**cough*
]]>Really it’s tribalism. The reality is we all have a religion whether we choose to acknowledge it as such or not.
]]>Really it’s tribalism. The reality is we all have a religion whether we choose to acknowledge it as such or not.
]]>Really it’s tribalism. The reality is we all have a religion whether we choose to acknowledge it as such or not.
]]>If you mean by the definition of “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group,” then yeah, I’ll go with that. But that’s not what this paper was about, even though it’s kind of what it was describing.
]]>If you mean by the definition of “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group,” then yeah, I’ll go with that. But that’s not what this paper was about, even though it’s kind of what it was describing.
]]>If you mean by the definition of “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group,” then yeah, I’ll go with that. But that’s not what this paper was about, even though it’s kind of what it was describing.
]]>The worldview that dictates one’s perception of reality. We all have one and we all experience dissonance when something enters our experience that breaks it.
]]>The worldview that dictates one’s perception of reality. We all have one and we all experience dissonance when something enters our experience that breaks it.
]]>The worldview that dictates one’s perception of reality. We all have one and we all experience dissonance when something enters our experience that breaks it.
]]>It’s what one does after experiencing said dissonance that matters.
]]>It’s what one does after experiencing said dissonance that matters.
]]>It’s what one does after experiencing said dissonance that matters.
]]>Well, in so far as the rest of us are generally concerned anyway.
]]>Well, in so far as the rest of us are generally concerned anyway.
]]>Well, in so far as the rest of us are generally concerned anyway.
]]>Jason Cox that is key. Religion effectively CAN’T allow dissonance, by definition. It would tear down the walls of said religion. Science, on the other hand, is basically built on it…it’s set up, purposefully, to be questioned and doubted.
]]>Jason Cox that is key. Religion effectively CAN’T allow dissonance, by definition. It would tear down the walls of said religion. Science, on the other hand, is basically built on it…it’s set up, purposefully, to be questioned and doubted.
]]>Jason Cox that is key. Religion effectively CAN’T allow dissonance, by definition. It would tear down the walls of said religion. Science, on the other hand, is basically built on it…it’s set up, purposefully, to be questioned and doubted.
]]>Dogma can’t allow dissent. That’s not necessarily true for the broader topic of religion. Much to the chagrin of the religious-right, religions themselves do indeed evolve. Or they die. As is the mandate of Nature.
]]>Dogma can’t allow dissent. That’s not necessarily true for the broader topic of religion. Much to the chagrin of the religious-right, religions themselves do indeed evolve. Or they die. As is the mandate of Nature.
]]>Dogma can’t allow dissent. That’s not necessarily true for the broader topic of religion. Much to the chagrin of the religious-right, religions themselves do indeed evolve. Or they die. As is the mandate of Nature.
]]>Well, the religion itself doesn’t evolve…just the way some people interpret it. You could have Westboro Baptist Church on one side and Amy Grant on the other. But the book they both read and its inscribed tenants doesn’t change.
]]>Well, the religion itself doesn’t evolve…just the way some people interpret it. You could have Westboro Baptist Church on one side and Amy Grant on the other. But the book they both read and its inscribed tenants doesn’t change.
]]>Well, the religion itself doesn’t evolve…just the way some people interpret it. You could have Westboro Baptist Church on one side and Amy Grant on the other. But the book they both read and its inscribed tenants doesn’t change.
]]>Actually the bible has changed over the years.
]]>Actually the bible has changed over the years.
]]>Actually the bible has changed over the years.
]]>Religions, especially when they become ‘major religions’ are an complex as organism as you or I.
]]>Religions, especially when they become ‘major religions’ are an complex as organism as you or I.
]]>Religions, especially when they become ‘major religions’ are an complex as organism as you or I.
]]>Saĺ87hjjj
]]>Saĺ87hjjj
]]>Saĺ87hjjj
]]>