Originally Posted by
AerialPerspective
Don't know why any criticism has to be limited to Islam. The Bible commands that people who plant two crops side-by-side be stoned (not in the good way) and wearing clothes of two different threads attracts the penalty of being set fire to (doesn't state whether the clothes remain on or not). My favourite one when I poke the Christian bear is "Stoning a girl to death at the door of her father's house if she fails to exhibit the tokens of a damsel" (i.e. not a virgin).
Christians jump up and down and say "But we don't follow the Old Testament". Then when someone mentions the words homosexual, gay or their other synonyms the same people that 'don't follow the OT because they're Christians' reach straight for Leviticus which of course is in the OT.
I don't care who's studied what religious texts for how long, they are meaningless nonsense. Those who claim to have studied them respond with "Well, it doesn't say to stone a woman, you need to know how to see the hidden meaning" - straight-out gaslighting and BS - someone who believes in invisible friends in the sky is telling me that I don't understand?
The difference with climate scientists in my view is that they actually use the scientific method, there is some sort of empirical research and study whether you agree with their data or conclusions or not. Studying religious texts by comparison is analogous to predicting the weather by turning around three times licking your finger and holding it up to the wind.
I’m an atheist. I could have picked an example from any ‘religion’.. including the latest religion of climate hysteria..
Just because a ‘scientist’ uses a ‘scientific method’ do not mean they get a correct or useful conclusion or finding. Also, one do not need to be a university educated scientist to utilise a scientific method. Nor do you need to be a ‘scientist’ to debunk so-called scientific research.
