By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

o_O.Q on 31 March 2020
OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

"One can PERFORM science."

what does someone perform, when they perform science?

"To your point about atheistic morality well I have to say that is perhaps the least intelligent phrase I've ever heard in quite some time."

can you expand on this? what exactly do you disagree with?

"Atheism isn't some philosophy with deep"

I agree, atheism isn't deep at all, its a philosophy mostly adopted by edgy teenagers rebelling against their parents, what does that tell you?

Can't be bothered to continue addressing your inability to comprehend basic English. Enroll in community college and get some help.

Those points go hand in hand, but I see you failed to grasp that.

Atheism isn't even a philosophy at all. It is what is known as a negative position, which is a stance contingent upon someone making a positive claim. No matter how absurdly stupid a claim may be, there is always a negative position.

Atheism is a stance adopted by virtually all philosophers and logicians on the planet. You know, people who study what is true for a living? What is it that you do for a living by the way?

"Can't be bothered to continue addressing your inability to comprehend basic English."

you mean with regards to whether science is a process of not? ok lol

what do you say to those scientists who describe science as an action I wonder

can you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism for me?

"What is it that you do for a living by the way?"

I sweap floors, what about you?

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 31 March 2020

o_O.Q on 31 March 2020
Torillian said:

" find the relevant literature to see why scientists in those fields have come to the conclusion that gender and sex are different"

you'll also see people operating of off the same ideology claim the exact opposite, that women are sexually assaulted under patriarchy, for example, because they are biologically weaker than men, and they can do this and be defended because there's no demand for logical consistency

its largely bullshit constructed to fuel narratives that spurn on revolutionary ideology, the end goal is almost always to deconstruct western civilisation 

one group can be biologically weaker than another while still having sex on a spectrum. 

That second sentence makes me think this is a discussion I should not put much effort into. 

Even if you can't define that group?

"A move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned."

well sorry you can but only when it suits you... only when its helping to build the necessary narrative to achieve the objective

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201902/when-men-attack-why-and-which-men-sexually-assault-women

" By biological lot, men are on average bigger and stronger than women and can overpower them physically"

"That second sentence makes me think this is a discussion I should not put much effort into. "

fair enough but I mean this stuff isn't exactly hidden

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/transphobia-lgbt-capitalism-feminism-trans-women-rights-prejudice-a9173021.html

"Just like so many other forms of prejudice, transphobia is rooted in dangerous capitalist ideals"

and let me make this clear, transphobia is now being used to describe anyone who does not follow along with this idiotic idea that there is no biological basis for gender in terms of appearance even if like me people think trans people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies

https://www.leftvoice.org/queer-oppression-is-etched-in-the-heart-of-capitalism

LGBTQ+ oppression is inscribed in capitalist production and reproduction. Only socialism can create the context for queer liberation and sexual liberation for all.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/want-to-dismantle-capitalism-abolish-the-family/

"Want to Dismantle Capitalism? Abolish the Family"

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children"

this is code for communism btw

This stuff is all very easy to find since these people know they don't even have to disguise their agenda anymore, since apparently the left has largely gone fucking insane

And yes to me it points to a far more delusional state of mind than thinking a man brandishing a staff parted a sea in two



Runa216 on 31 March 2020
EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Nothings perfect to sum it up.

then try explaining in great detail...because you haven't been doing that so far.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

o_O.Q on 31 March 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

1). Did science precisely predict this Covid outbreak? 2). Has is saved us all from it since?

If certain religion and it's one and only God's teachings aren't useful, then why should science and it's 3). "God particle" be the one and only that's useful?

1). Yes..depending on what level of precision you are inquiring about.  Virologists and coronavirus experts have long predicted these outbreaks.  It's not a matter of predicting if but predicting when.  And new coronaviruses show up every year. They've documented 500 coronaviruses in bats alone.

2). Scientific applications are not an immediate process.  It can take years to develop a vaccine.  But our scientific understanding of what the virus is, how it spreads, how it infects, how long it incubates, how long it survives on surfaces, etc....have saved millions.

3). You do know that nobody in the scientific community actually calls the Higgs-Boson the "God particle"?  That was the title of a 1993 book by physicist Leon Lederman.  He called it the "The God Particle" because it would help book sales and his publisher wouldn't allow the original title he wanted. - "The Goddamn Particle"

o_O.Q said:
Does anyone find it ironic that we are literally living in an era where some people are 1). claiming that it is impossible to distinguish what a male human is from what a female human is, but it is the religious people that are irrational?
2). I mean I could totally believe that Moses parted a sea with a stick before I believe someone in good faith is trying to argue that we cannot distinguish males from females

1). So you miss the point.  Male and female are genders.  Not sex.  Though they share a ton of overlap, one can be biologically male and have more qualities of being the female gender, vice versa, or both.

For example...is this person male or female?

2). Can you provide a rational explanation for how Moses parted the Red Sea?

"So you miss the point.  Male and female are genders.  Not sex."

Oh well that's interesting so what would you call man and woman?

" one can be biologically male and have more qualities of being the female gender"

which qualities are you referring to?

"For example...is this person male or female?"

This is to make what point? Why not just come out and state what your argument is? Which is supposedly that what? There is no meaningful difference between the sexes? Well yes that's what I've saying is a claim that is becoming normalised in the left, so why are you arguing with me since apparently we agree?

Within any rational philosophy I'd expect people to acknowledge that EXCEPTIONAL cases should not be used as a baseline... after all even though 10s or maybe even 100s of 1000s of people die each year from driving, we haven't banned that yet... but somehow that's not obvious when it comes to this issue

"Can you provide a rational explanation for how Moses parted the Red Sea?"

I said that I believe its possible that there is an unknown mechanism which exists within the universe that could have allowed Moses to part the red sea, since we do not know everything there is to know about the universe then the possibility exists for there to be unknown mechanisms

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 31 March 2020

OhNoYouDont on 31 March 2020
o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Can't be bothered to continue addressing your inability to comprehend basic English. Enroll in community college and get some help.

Those points go hand in hand, but I see you failed to grasp that.

Atheism isn't even a philosophy at all. It is what is known as a negative position, which is a stance contingent upon someone making a positive claim. No matter how absurdly stupid a claim may be, there is always a negative position.

Atheism is a stance adopted by virtually all philosophers and logicians on the planet. You know, people who study what is true for a living? What is it that you do for a living by the way?

"Can't be bothered to continue addressing your inability to comprehend basic English."

you mean with regards to whether science is a process of not? ok lol

what do you say to those scientists who describe science as an action I wonder

can you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism for me?

"What is it that you do for a living by the way?"

I sweap floors, what about you?

EricHiggin said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Yes I did and responded to them directly. The same cannot be said for your statements...

You continue to refer to science as some active phenomenon of the Universe. It isn't, so you're being entirely incoherent.

There are tons of examples of people continuing to go to church, defying orders from scientists, the president, etc.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/louisiana-church-defies-covid-19-order-holds-sunday-services

Uh, media naming conventions don't equate to scientific findings being misunderstood.

Science cannot end itself because again it isn't some sentient mechanism of the Universe. Humans perform an activity called science, just like they perform an activity called mathematics. These are, in fact, contingent upon humans to have any meaning or impact.

The ethical considerations behind scientific decisions are numerous. Just look at the field of automated vehicles. When programming the vehicles on what to do if the car is out of control and confronted with  either crashing into a bunch of kids walking home from school or killing the driver it has been determined that the job of the automobile is to protect the driver.

I noticed you ignored every single point about truth and reliability of epistemologies. That means to me you have conceded all of those points which I am pleased to see. Perhaps there is some hope for you.

You mean like the 'direct' response to, "religion doesn't have anyone "social distancing" themselves? All science is on hold and nobody part of science has contracted or spread COVID 19?"

-"There are tons of examples of people continuing to go to church, defying orders from scientists, the president, etc."

"Defying orders from scientists"...

One of the main news anchors from Toronto's Global News, after spending weeks telling the public to self quarantine due to how bad the illness was, then traveled with her family to go on vacation, and was doing the news from there. Her excuse was that she was also with friends who were doctors who weren't concerned about the illness. LOL. You can't make this stuff up. LOL.

---

Science explains physical phenomenon. Religion explains spiritual phenomenon.

Can a human end themselves, by simply holding their breath for example, or do they require something besides themselves to do it? Can science perform itself without humans? Can humans continue to perform science without the tools that have been created using science? Is your point that it's all about humans and not God or science, because humans perform both science and religion, and both have their positives and negatives?

---

What created those vehicles, and because those vehicles have led to negative things happening for a century now, should they be banned, or improved?

---

Epistemology?... So you chose to believe whatever you wanted, instead of using logic and rationality, like the scientific method, to undeniably ascertain the truth? Sounds more like...

Once again you have missed the boat on this one.

Religious people are actively defying orders from public officials in order to congregate and pray to an imaginary wizard which is something they can do at home anyway. This is a danger to society and I hope they will be held accountable if they spread the virus to others because of their malfeasance.

"spiritual phenomenon" - a made up phrase that is indistinguishable from nothingness.

My point is that science isn't self-aware or able to DO anything. Can a hammer do anything besides sit idly on the table without intervention from a human? Nope. Nor can science DO anything by itself because it's not a machine or sentient agent. Humans DO science. You're being incoherent with your liberal usage of language and it's very difficult to communicate with someone who is being incoherent all the time.

So despite my taking great care to not only explain what epistemology is, but to provide careful examples of why science is a reliable one and religion is not, you have either ignored all of that (again) or are mentally incapable of understanding it.

At no point did I say, nor imply I "believe whatever [you] wanted". How you could take that away from what I said is incredible.



o_O.Q on 31 March 2020
OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

"Can't be bothered to continue addressing your inability to comprehend basic English."

you mean with regards to whether science is a process of not? ok lol

what do you say to those scientists who describe science as an action I wonder

can you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism for me?

"What is it that you do for a living by the way?"

I sweap floors, what about you?

EricHiggin said:

You mean like the 'direct' response to, "religion doesn't have anyone "social distancing" themselves? All science is on hold and nobody part of science has contracted or spread COVID 19?"

-"There are tons of examples of people continuing to go to church, defying orders from scientists, the president, etc."

"Defying orders from scientists"...

One of the main news anchors from Toronto's Global News, after spending weeks telling the public to self quarantine due to how bad the illness was, then traveled with her family to go on vacation, and was doing the news from there. Her excuse was that she was also with friends who were doctors who weren't concerned about the illness. LOL. You can't make this stuff up. LOL.

---

Science explains physical phenomenon. Religion explains spiritual phenomenon.

Can a human end themselves, by simply holding their breath for example, or do they require something besides themselves to do it? Can science perform itself without humans? Can humans continue to perform science without the tools that have been created using science? Is your point that it's all about humans and not God or science, because humans perform both science and religion, and both have their positives and negatives?

---

What created those vehicles, and because those vehicles have led to negative things happening for a century now, should they be banned, or improved?

---

Epistemology?... So you chose to believe whatever you wanted, instead of using logic and rationality, like the scientific method, to undeniably ascertain the truth? Sounds more like...

Once again you have missed the boat on this one.

Religious people are actively defying orders from public officials in order to congregate and pray to an imaginary wizard which is something they can do at home anyway. This is a danger to society and I hope they will be held accountable if they spread the virus to others because of their malfeasance.

"spiritual phenomenon" - a made up phrase that is indistinguishable from nothingness.

My point is that science isn't self-aware or able to DO anything. Can a hammer do anything besides sit idly on the table without intervention from a human? Nope. Nor can science DO anything by itself because it's not a machine or sentient agent. Humans DO science. You're being incoherent with your liberal usage of language and it's very difficult to communicate with someone who is being incoherent all the time.

So despite my taking great care to not only explain what epistemology is, but to provide careful examples of why science is a reliable one and religion is not, you have either ignored all of that (again) or are mentally incapable of understanding it.

At no point did I say, nor imply I "believe whatever [you] wanted". How you could take that away from what I said is incredible.

you're laughing at me because i sweap floors for a living?



o_O.Q on 31 March 2020
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Can you provide a rational explanation for how Moses parted the Red Sea?"

I said that I believe its possible that there is an unknown mechanism which exists within the universe that could have allowed Moses to part the red sea, since we do not know everything there is to know about the universe then the possibility exists for there to be unknown mechanisms

I asked for a rational explanation and you bring back the most irrational possible. We hell, then.  Since we can just make up anything we want, I'm God and Moses never existed.  He was just a character in a few stories told about 2,600 years ago.

Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling.

"Hey Steve, can you science this artifact?"
"Sure Tom, right after I finish sciencing this specimen."
"Thanks, Steve.  I scienced 34 times today."
"After I science your artifact, I'm going to go home and math some data."
"Mathing is fun.  I mathed last night too."

" Since we can just make up anything we want"

well as I said its a possibility from my perspective, I can't rule it out since I am not omnipotent

and I think if we live in a world where we simply disregard categories like sex then we can at least entertain the idea of a man that can part a sea, in my opinion the latter is more realistic

"Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling."

more telling than you confusing sex with gender? anyway its context sensitive obviously, science can be applied as a method and it can also be regarded as a body of knowledge, the other user ironically given his behavior couldn't realise that 



EricHiggin on 31 March 2020
o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Once again you have missed the boat on this one.

Religious people are actively defying orders from public officials in order to congregate and pray to an imaginary wizard which is something they can do at home anyway. This is a danger to society and I hope they will be held accountable if they spread the virus to others because of their malfeasance.

"spiritual phenomenon" - a made up phrase that is indistinguishable from nothingness.

My point is that science isn't self-aware or able to DO anything. Can a hammer do anything besides sit idly on the table without intervention from a human? Nope. Nor can science DO anything by itself because it's not a machine or sentient agent. Humans DO science. You're being incoherent with your liberal usage of language and it's very difficult to communicate with someone who is being incoherent all the time.

So despite my taking great care to not only explain what epistemology is, but to provide careful examples of why science is a reliable one and religion is not, you have either ignored all of that (again) or are mentally incapable of understanding it.

At no point did I say, nor imply I "believe whatever [you] wanted". How you could take that away from what I said is incredible.

you're laughing at me because i sweap floors for a living?



EricHiggin on 31 March 2020
OhNoYouDont said:
EricHiggin said:

You mean like the 'direct' response to, "religion doesn't have anyone "social distancing" themselves? All science is on hold and nobody part of science has contracted or spread COVID 19?"

-"There are tons of examples of people continuing to go to church, defying orders from scientists, the president, etc."

"Defying orders from scientists"...

One of the main news anchors from Toronto's Global News, after spending weeks telling the public to self quarantine due to how bad the illness was, then traveled with her family to go on vacation, and was doing the news from there. Her excuse was that she was also with friends who were doctors who weren't concerned about the illness. LOL. You can't make this stuff up. LOL.

---

Science explains physical phenomenon. Religion explains spiritual phenomenon.

Can a human end themselves, by simply holding their breath for example, or do they require something besides themselves to do it? Can science perform itself without humans? Can humans continue to perform science without the tools that have been created using science? Is your point that it's all about humans and not God or science, because humans perform both science and religion, and both have their positives and negatives?

---

What created those vehicles, and because those vehicles have led to negative things happening for a century now, should they be banned, or improved?

---

Epistemology?... So you chose to believe whatever you wanted, instead of using logic and rationality, like the scientific method, to undeniably ascertain the truth? Sounds more like...

Once again you have missed the boat on this one.

Religious people are actively defying orders from public officials in order to congregate and pray to an imaginary wizard which is something they can do at home anyway. This is a danger to society and I hope they will be held accountable if they spread the virus to others because of their malfeasance.

"spiritual phenomenon" - a made up phrase that is indistinguishable from nothingness.

My point is that science isn't self-aware or able to DO anything. Can a hammer do anything besides sit idly on the table without intervention from a human? Nope. Nor can science DO anything by itself because it's not a machine or sentient agent. Humans DO science. You're being incoherent with your liberal usage of language and it's very difficult to communicate with someone who is being incoherent all the time.

So despite my taking great care to not only explain what epistemology is, but to provide careful examples of why science is a reliable one and religion is not, you have either ignored all of that (again) or are mentally incapable of understanding it.

At no point did I say, nor imply I "believe whatever [you] wanted". How you could take that away from what I said is incredible.

"Religion doesn't have anyone "social distancing" themselves? All science is on hold and nobody part of science has contracted or spread COVID 19?"



o_O.Q on 31 March 2020
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

" Since we can just make up anything we want"

well as I said its a possibility from my perspective, I can't rule it out since I am not omnipotent

and I think if we live in a world where 1). we simply disregard categories like sex then 2). we can at least entertain the idea of a man that can part a sea, 3). in my opinion the latter is more realistic

"Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling."

4). more telling than you confusing sex with gender? 5). anyway its context sensitive obviously, science can be applied as a method and it can also be regarded as a body of knowledge, the other user ironically given his behavior couldn't realise that 

1). We don't disregard sex.  If anything, we're more specific about it than ever before.

2). But what science is behind such a belief?  With regards to the sex being more than 2, that's at least based on scientific information.

3). Realistic...? How does the physics work to part a 5 mile segment (narrowest portion) of the Gulf of Suez?

4). I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are.  Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits.

5). It's not context sensitive.  I just wrote it out in dialog.  Did any of that sound contextually correct?  Go ahead, use science in a sentence as a verb.

"But what science is behind such a belief?  With regards to the sex being more than 2, that's at least based on scientific information."

"We don't disregard sex.  If anything, we're more specific about it than ever before."

I posted various authoritative sources that claim we should not make such classifications but ignoring that how are we more specific? can you detail that for me? give me your personal point of view on how we are more specific

"Realistic...?"

yes that's my opinion, that the stuff I've identified is to me more unrealistic than moses parting the sea

"I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are."

your initial reply was this

"Male and female are genders."

"It's not context sensitive."

as an example taken from google

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
  • a particular area of science.
    plural noun: sciences
    "veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."
google defines science initially as an activity and then as a body of knowledge because the two together are what science is
science is not only information but its also a method of collecting and evaluating information and I'm honestly surprised to see people attempting to claim otherwise
without making this distinction you'd have to also acknowledge the bible as science would you not? since that is itself a body of information... the distinction lies in processes science applies in gathering that information