Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

[bdbdbd]

Chrizum said:

o_O.Q said:

i'll repeat it again... i don't understand how a qualified social scientist is saying the nonsense you are saying in this thread

 

you're literally siding with someone who for one denies the meaning of the word practitioner

and secondly who denies that greed and ignorance are qualities that all people possess including the subsection that actively practice science (which i said originally)

 

i mean your refutation is like me saying humans give birth to live young and then you saying that because i didn't say mammals then what i said isn't true

its mindbogglingly nonsensical

 

in fact, lets test this - is the statement "humans give birth to live young" false or not?

I, and Hedra42 for that matter, didn't say any of these things. I'm not letting myself get dragged into your swamp of lies and twisted words. You know you are backed into a corner, that's why you try to (unsuccessfully) weasel yourself out of all the moronic things you said. That's the whole reason this non-discussion is about semantics now instead of the potentially interesting but ultimately pointless and vacant topic.

Rol, who you should know is the mental coach of each and everyone around here, tells me to keep fighting but I'm getting tired of it. It's pointless. You  probably just enjoy to see how far you can go acting like a dimwit. You may lack any kind of debating or intellectual skills, but I am impressed with your persistence to make a fool out of yourself. You do have more stamina than me, I'll give you that.

Bye bye now!

I see you're not that experienced in debating over religion (or any other ideology, for that matter) in the internet. Basically their tactics is to debate ad nauseum over something, or the argument is reducted to a level where the the topic at hand loses it's meaning.

In the first example, a "philosophist X" said that because chocolate looks like shit, it tastes like shit. And this is what you debate about: you stick into the X's argument and demand everyone else to disprove it.

In the second example, you debate over the taste of candy by making an argument,  that candy consists mostly of carbohydrates, and all carbohydrates consists of chains of simple sugars (only the length of a chain of sugar differs), so all candy must taste the same. And you demand everyone else to disprove what you said about the sugar chain.