| o_O.Q said: this was the initial event that justified the bombings but eventually it was discovered that assad was framed and it was actually rebels that the united states supported from the beginning these rebels sought to overthrown the government and put sharia law in place and the united states aided them knowingly |
And it still does not detract from the fact that the rebels' motives were religiously driven. The US exacerbated the conflict, but they did not initiate the conflict. Big difference.
|
i didn't say that i believe in prayer, i just made the suggestion that he should try it, what is wrong with being open minded? |
This is pivot and it's not fooling me. Prayers do not do anything because all you're doing is praying. Just because you pray for something to happen and that thing happens does not mean that the prayer caused that event. That would be an ad hoc fallacy.
|
yeah, i don't see how this is different to what i posted |
Then explain how it is not different. Your argument is that if religion was allowed to prohibit science, then climate change would not happen. You made the assumption that because of science, climate change exists. However, I rebutted that it is specifically the overuse of certain fruits of science that led to the conflict. My argument is different because it is more specific than yours.
|
but i think arguably it can suppress science to the point where it doesn't have a worldwide impact... science on a small scale doesn't have worldwide impact but it does on a very large scale like with most people engaging in activities which cause pollution for example and i concede the baggage religion brings but i'm putting that to the side just to look at this one aspect |
There are multiple flaws to this argument:
1. Your argument also seems to make the errant assumption that only religion can be the regulatory factor. Obviously, there are multiple ways to limit the influence of science. However...
2. Is it science or the overuse of specific fruits of science? Your argument is too dependent on generality and as soon as you are forced to be more specific, your points fall apart.
3. So now you narrowed the cause down, we must ask ourselves what is the cause of the overuse? In fact, there are multiple causes to that effect, ranging from people not being aware of the consequences to them being apathetic towards the environment to tech corporations adopting design-for-the-dump designs. And note these are only a few examples that contribute to the overuse, but as you can see, as we increase the metaphorical magnification, the specific causes are not "science".
|
"Under Khrushchev it became illegal to teach religion to your own children." |
Mandating illegality of practicing religion is not atheism because that is not what the definition of it. As a result, it is not a atheist policy which makes the Soviet Union not an atheist nation. In addition, you did not address my point where the Soviet Union basically had their own type of religion where Stalin was exalted as a "God figure" as propaganda. Just because Khrushchev made religion illegal, it did not make the Soviet Union immune to dogmatism, a characteristic that is abundant in religion. You could say that the Soviet Union prohibited the practice of the popular religions to push their own religion.
|
you can't prove without a doubt that it all came from a singularity |
And what evidence do you have that argues against the scientific theory of the singularity? The cosmic microwave background provides evidence that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion because the once high-energy radiation cooled down as the universe expanded. Energy of light is dependent on the frequency where the higher the frequency, the higher the energy. Microwaves have longer wavelengths and thus, lower frequencies which make them lower energy. Lastly, even if I were to grant you the argument, scarcity of evidence is not evidence of absence especially when you have provided no evidence that argues otherwise.
|
they refers to the practitioners of science at those time periods |
And how does this support your point? What time periods are you referring to? Your statements sorely lack any specificity.
|
these situations happened because humans are limited and they will continue to happen for the same reason |
This does not answer my questions. In my second question, I gave you two explanations to choose from and you chose neither. Also, when you gave your own alternative explanation, like your previous arguments, it suffers from the lack of specificity. In what way are humans limited? How does the limitation cause the situations to happen and how do you know?
