{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/9/2014 11:52:52 PM
5
I don't believe it should be required however I think that science should only include stuff that is it contradicting religion. I mean I'm a huge atheist but it pisses me off when they talk about science and include stuff that religion says is wrong. In my eyes religion is wrong but I'm not forced to learn their belief so why should religious people be required to learn something that goes against what they believe.
English
-
Science never serves to disprove religion if it is taken figuratively like it should. Christianity for example; Translated multiple times before being translated to English. Written 2,000 years ago. Altered multiple times. 5,000 years after the first religion. How do you expect to read it literally and get the actual message?
-
Well some believe it to the bone. And I'm not an idiot nor did I ever say the goal of science is to disprove religion it's just some stuff they teach in school nowadays is contradicting religion or trying to say god doesn't exist.
-
What it is contradicting? When does it try to disprove God? I'm saying when religion is taken, how it logically should be taken, nothing contradicts it.
-
Well in science they talk about how old the Earth is and how it was made. Now these two things are vastly different when it comes to science and religious belief. Also a lot can contradict religion.
-
Yes, but that doesn't contradict a figurative taking of the bible. I assume you mean Christianity, and are referring to the Book of Genesis. Read the rest of the Old Testaments, and you'll see how much it is contradicted by taking it literally. It's just illogical to do so. Im saying that Christianity is based on the bible. This bible is figurative literature. Something like math is literal literature.
