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 said:
Torillian said:

I'd be curious to see what actual social scientists say on this subject. It sounds like you're conflating sex and gender because I haven't heard anyone make the exact claim you're stating. Could have missed it though. What I'd really like is scholarly work stating this rather than some dingus on twitter or reddit but I'll take what you can give me I suppose. 

"actual social scientists"

You're bringing up social science with regards to a claim about biology and you think I'm the one that's confused?

No I'm talking specifically about MALE and FEMALE, it has now become expected within leftist spaces to state that females can have penises and males can have vaginas and I've had that same conversation even on this very website and I'm pretty sure that you agreed with that proposition.

The thing is this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the stupidity I've seen festering in ATHEISTIC leftist spaces, you have claims like:

Competition and hierarchy are entirely social constructs and if we just dismantled western society then everyone would only cooperate

Working for someone is entirely exploitative and if we just dismantled western civilisation and took away all rights to private property exploitation would end( the same morons never realise though that this would have to be done by the state which would be for more oppressive and exploitative )

All behavior is a social construct, the way we behave is entirely determined by the culture we live in

and on and on and on, all of this is spurned on by this idiotic leftist idea that absolute equality does not exist because of the current social structures we have, so women have unequal pay not because they have children but because of patriarchy or society is heteronormative not because a population obvious has to be to stop it from disappearing, but because civilisation is created to oppress lgbt people

the levels of irrationality I've seen in these spaces has to me surpassed anything I've seen in religious spaces, which to me shows quite clearly that the problem has never been religion, it has always been people, which is why we came up with religion however flawed it may be to regulate our behavior

The statement I'm aware of is that men can have vaginas and women can have penises. This is, again, a statement about the difference between gender and sex. This is why I think social scientists are the ones I would consider experts on the subject. 

The idea that this is more befuddling than Moses parting the red sea because you don't agree with new definitions for words and context is ridiculous. 

edit: I've ignored your statements on socialism on purpose, that's outside of the discussion I am interested in. 



...

Around the Network

 



dark_gh0st_b0y said: 

they are evidence for those who witnessed them!! the fact that they are individual and cannot be repeated any time as science experiments does not necessarily make them fake



dark_gh0st_b0y said: 

You can explain colour to a blind person, the imagination doesn't stop you know, colour doesn't have to be visual.

explain it how? people born blind cannot even understand black! it's just not there

You are only looking at it from a visual perspective rather than an imaginative one.

You can apply a colour to the feel, smell, temperature of something to a blind person, I have cared for blind people before when I was working in the health industry, it's actually not that hard.

dark_gh0st_b0y said: 

why even bother if you are not religious? breaking one of the ten commandments such as murder would never be forgiven just by an apologize, one would have to truly realize the pain caused to others, go through the pain they caused and truly regret their actions in order to be forgiven

So they would still be forgiven? Got'cha.

dark_gh0st_b0y said: 

other than the flat earth thing which the bible never mentions for god's sake, and the crusade which was an unavoidable war, the rest witches/LGBTQIABCDEFG... thing was a part of human brutality, Jesus basic message is love and forgiveness, not kill those you don't agree with, but of course you only know how Christianity was used by psychopaths and not its true impact on the world, and trust me, it is not random the world's most civilized countries are the Christian ones

50,000-125,000 years human existed and that proves the Christian faith impact, we moved forward starting 2,000 years ago when Jesus came to show us how it's done, and it started from Christian countries, when people started to help and love and support each other rather than looking only their interests, and that led to real progress



dark_gh0st_b0y said:

carried out by muslims who read the Quran that says to kill non-believers, guess what will happen when Christianity falls, many people who need religion will become muslims instead :/

Bible's Old Testament says to kill non-believers.

No. That is a false narrative, just because we ditch Christianity, doesn't mean people will rush over to another rubbish religion like Islam, most western nations are becoming more Atheist as time goes on.

dark_gh0st_b0y said:

Lastly, did you know that the Catholic church is world's biggest non-governmental donor? how the heck would it be better without it? LOL as it should be, love and compassion, Jesus main message

focus on the true message, criticize those who try to abuse it for personal gain, not the faith itself

You think religion is a requirement for that?

o_O.Q said:

You cannot separate the two and to think you could shows a complete lack of understanding of what science actual is

Science as I have stated is a process carried out by people

The end result of that process is therefore dependent on the philosophies of those people

Science is the explanation of something, it explains how something functions, how it forms and more, it's not the result or cause of something.

Perhaps it's not I, who lacks an understanding of what science actually is?

o_O.Q said:

There's a kind of ridiculous notion that i think you are laboring under that all irrationality in humans can be tied back to religion and if we could just destroy religion people could become much more rational and that is such a wrong proposition that its absolutely incredible that anyone could entertain it

Well. They definitely couldn't hide behind religion to justify their crimes or use religious indoctrination to "fool" people into terrorism.
The issue that terrorists have is they believe they will go to some sort of "heaven" for a certain action like suicide bombing, that is religious indoctrination being put forth to an evil deed... The annoying part is, you can't convince these individuals of anything else... Because Religion teaches their followers that people will try and force them to stray from their path of "righteousness" - It's toxic circular logic... Which is another logical fallacy.



JWeinCom said:

While religion can also lead to benefits (community, charity), these are benefits that we can have without religion.  Studies done on religiosity and quality of life indicate that we can abandon religion without losing very much, and doing so would rid of a lot harm.

Charity doesn't need religion. Part of the issue here is due to systemic government support and assistance that leans towards religious charities being given tax-breaks, financial support and more rather than atheistic ones.

In saying that, I refuse to support religious charities anyway... If anything the Australian bushfires have shown is that they are selfish and incompetent in assisting the public at large when society went to back them with millions of dollars worth of donations... As they only put a fraction of the donations back into help those affected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-22/andrew-constance-attacks-red-cross-for-bushfire-donation-delays/11890538

The other issue is the bigotry... Salvation Army will never get my support due to their homophobic rhetoric years ago where an official stated that Gays deserve death.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/salvation-army-official-gays-deserve-death/321193/

Fuck religion.

EricHiggin said:

I'd like to see those cavemen's proofs. I can't imagine they would've suggested it to simply be "black magic".

Uh... What?

You might be a little confused or lost here, not sure.

EricHiggin said:

There never used to be scientific evidence that gravity existed either. Did gravity only come about more recently? Something was going on behind the scenes. Better figure out how to prove what it is? How long do we wait to prove something before we give up? Still waiting on undeniable proof of exactly how the universe came into being. Guess that means the universe doesn't exist, or is irrelevant?

The difference is... No one was proclaiming that gravity existed without a doubt before any evidence existed.

That is the difference between science and religion.

Someone rather took note of a specific set of cause and effect and went on to investigate using the scientific method.

It's a pretty basic concept and has proven to work time and again.

EricHiggin said:

Is Independence Day possible though? Seems like plenty of people aren't against other forms of intelligent life in the universe. If they do exist, could they be as powerful and hostile? Something we don't know for sure and can't say for certain as of now? Sounds sort of like...

Now you are delving into conspiracy theories... Then again, Religion can possibly fall into conspiracy theories as well.
Some individuals do tend to have a predisposition for conspiracy theories anyway I guess.

EricHiggin said:

If it's important to know that this entertainment is fictional, why isn't that made more clear to kids? Why do we allow kids to play fight based on these idea's and sometimes even hurt each other? Why do we sometimes use this 'insulting' fiction to teach kids a valuable lesson? Does what a youngster learn, mold who they eventually become?

That is the job of an Adult, parent, guardian, caregiver to teach and guide children through life.

EricHiggin said:

If you've spent much time around kids when their 'indoctrinating' parents aren't around, and they understand they can get away with more negative behavior, that's exactly what they do. You can literally watch their sympathy fade knowing they won't get in major trouble for not doing so. Now any good indoctrinated adult wouldn't let that go for long, but it doesn't change the fact that's what occurs as soon as you allow the rules to be bent or broken. Those rules are all part of the indoctrination process, and so why don't they happily and easily follow them? It's not natural, that's why.

I think you are trying to twist the narrative into something it's not.

EricHiggin said:

Based on that, climate change for example is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously whatsoever by the public. Until science can undeniably know all factors and what they lead to, exactly, then it should simply be scientific doctrine. No green energy projects, no subsidies for those projects, no green taxes.

Climate change is a scientific fact, it's got the functional models, it's had the research, Climatic change has been happening for millions of years and will continue to change indefinitely... Even past the point where this planet can no longer support the current life.

Climate change deniers are science deniers... And to put bluntly. Are idiots.

What is up for debate however is the extent of human-influenced climate change... And that is an entirely different discussion.

dark_gh0st_b0y said:

two different things that can co-exist, “Does God exist?” science cannot answer the question, nor can it teach us what to do with the physical well-being it provides, Jesus told us how to live - even though it is taken for-granted today, to the level that he is brutally attacked like he is the bad guy

Science cannot answer the question on whether the flying spaghetti monster exists, does that mean it actually exists?

What about the Tooth Fairy? Easter Bunny? Mudkips? Giant Enemy Crabs? Science can't prove they exist either, does that mean they actually exist?

This is why the burden of proof is such a requirement... Because it allows us to throw out all bullshit claims... But the religious wish to be the exception to the rule.

DraconianAC said:

Because the human species is a sinful, destructive, engulfing cancer that was set loose upon the world to run havoc and ultimately destroy itself. So Jesus Christ, forgives your sins, whether you like it or not, and will accept you when you're ultimately are ready to take god into your heart.

Please understand that God is not a picture, crucifix, or a religion. God is in your deeds, your faith, you words, and your actions. Men created the church, their rules, their games. Men will distort and shape information to fit their agenda. God will forgive and wait for your salvation.

I don't think we should be in the business of forgiving those who do detestable things and giving them a pass to ever-lasting luxury while a first responder who has spent years saving lives gets eternal damnation.

That's not good, that's not loving, that's not fair.








"While religion can also lead to benefits (community, charity), these are benefits that we can have without religion."

"Charity doesn't need religion."

Am I missing something, or are you arguing my point to me?



EricHiggin said:
OhNoYouDont said:

You did not comprehend a single point I made and proceeded to prove my emphasized statement.

Yes, science is saving tons of lives of those impacted by COVID 19. How many has religion saved? Oh right, people continued to have religious gatherings and now entire churches have COVID 19. 

No scientist refers to the Higgs boson as "god particle" - a media name only.

Discarding bad and unreliable epistemologies (methods to determine what is true) is what rational thinkers do. Only if a method works ought we retain it.

Prayer is equally as effective as tossing a coin in a wishing well, which is to say that it is no more effective than doing literally nothing at all.

Neither did you. Imagine that.

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

I realize it's not the proper scientific term. It was a play on words. Science knows that it's findings are being misunderstood and misrepresented, and yet does little about it. If you want to say that's fine because science doesn't care about how it's used, then you're indirectly saying if science is used to destroy the world and end mankind, that science doesn't care. What good is science whatsoever if there's no one alive to continue it's research? If science can end itself, due to lack of logic and morality, doesn't that go against what science is after? Exploring the universe and finding more truth's? I wonder why there's a problem with suicide? I wonder why it's said that suicidal people have mental issues and need help? If it's not ok for people to stop caring and end themselves, for whatever reason, why is it ok for science to not care and potentially end itself?

Again, is it rational to use science to create something that could potentially be used to end the human race? I think many would agree it would be more rational if science also used logic and morals to make sure it was only used for good, but if science doesn't care, well.

What about the poor starving person who eventually collects those coins and uses that to feed themselves?

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.

o_O.Q said:

Definition of science (noun)

Not really sure how you would confuse secular with atheistic either...

now can you actually make an argument and articulate how anything I said has been contradicted?

I mean you literally said that science is a verb. If posting a direct result from google identifying it as a noun isn't a contradiction then I do not know what a contradiction is. Here's some more dictionaries which say it's a noun for you I guess...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/science

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

I trust I don't need to post definitions for secular and atheistic. Or are you prepared to be wrong about that as well?

Why is it that the parties of god cannot simply acknowledge when they are incorrect, especially when it is so absurdly obvious?



Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

"actual social scientists"

You're bringing up social science with regards to a claim about biology and you think I'm the one that's confused?

No I'm talking specifically about MALE and FEMALE, it has now become expected within leftist spaces to state that females can have penises and males can have vaginas and I've had that same conversation even on this very website and I'm pretty sure that you agreed with that proposition.

The thing is this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the stupidity I've seen festering in ATHEISTIC leftist spaces, you have claims like:

Competition and hierarchy are entirely social constructs and if we just dismantled western society then everyone would only cooperate

Working for someone is entirely exploitative and if we just dismantled western civilisation and took away all rights to private property exploitation would end( the same morons never realise though that this would have to be done by the state which would be for more oppressive and exploitative )

All behavior is a social construct, the way we behave is entirely determined by the culture we live in

and on and on and on, all of this is spurned on by this idiotic leftist idea that absolute equality does not exist because of the current social structures we have, so women have unequal pay not because they have children but because of patriarchy or society is heteronormative not because a population obvious has to be to stop it from disappearing, but because civilisation is created to oppress lgbt people

the levels of irrationality I've seen in these spaces has to me surpassed anything I've seen in religious spaces, which to me shows quite clearly that the problem has never been religion, it has always been people, which is why we came up with religion however flawed it may be to regulate our behavior

The statement I'm aware of is that men can have vaginas and women can have penises. This is, again, a statement about the difference between gender and sex. This is why I think social scientists are the ones I would consider experts on the subject. 

The idea that this is more befuddling than Moses parting the red sea because you don't agree with new definitions for words and context is ridiculous. 

edit: I've ignored your statements on socialism on purpose, that's outside of the discussion I am interested in. 

Yeah its so fucking insane I couldn't believe it myself at first, especially considering these people are generally the first to jump down the throats of religious people, for how supposedly irrational they are

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

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

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/02/19/pose-indya-moore-trans-penises-biologically-female/

Pose star Indya Moore: Trans women’s penises are biologically female

Now granted this one is more weasily since what they argue here is that sex is simply a continuum

How they meaningfully differentiate out other sexes beyond male and female beyond  circumstances like XXY, XYY etc etc etc that ALL lead to defects like klinefelters is beyond me

https://www.evolutionsociety.org/news/display/2018/10/30/letter-re-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

Oh and btw given this definition of sex as a continuum the obviously logical conclusion is that males with larger penises are more male than males with smaller penises and females with Larger breasts are more female than females with smaller breasts

and of course there's thousands of lesser known activists who post stuff like this

https://ifunny.co/picture/stop-associating-female-with-vagina-transgender-women-are-female-if-wnwe5pOE5

"The idea that this is more befuddling than Moses parting the red sea"

I think its possible that Moses could have parted the red sea through some unknown mechanism since there is no way to determine that this could not have happened

Maybe the staff he carried was imbued with unicorn hair and hence had magic properties, which allowed for his various magical feats, I say that's a possibility

I think this to be far less irrational than denying the obvious reality in front of me that obviously people can functionally be separated into two sexes

Does that mean there are no exceptions? Does that mean that because of this idiocy we won't abandon our biology eventually through some transhuman experiment? Of course not

The thing is I totally get it, these people probably look at women for example and observe how they are held back by their biology in some ways and as a result seek to dismiss biology from reality, but that's the same type of process religious people use to come up with heaven - this world is corrupt and flawed and therefore we need to envision a heaven

There's a lot of overlap in motivation there ironically enough, given how the leftists for example scoff at the idea of heaven but seek to bring about utopia through dismissing reality



OhNoYouDont said:
EricHiggin said:

Neither did you. Imagine that.

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

I realize it's not the proper scientific term. It was a play on words. Science knows that it's findings are being misunderstood and misrepresented, and yet does little about it. If you want to say that's fine because science doesn't care about how it's used, then you're indirectly saying if science is used to destroy the world and end mankind, that science doesn't care. What good is science whatsoever if there's no one alive to continue it's research? If science can end itself, due to lack of logic and morality, doesn't that go against what science is after? Exploring the universe and finding more truth's? I wonder why there's a problem with suicide? I wonder why it's said that suicidal people have mental issues and need help? If it's not ok for people to stop caring and end themselves, for whatever reason, why is it ok for science to not care and potentially end itself?

Again, is it rational to use science to create something that could potentially be used to end the human race? I think many would agree it would be more rational if science also used logic and morals to make sure it was only used for good, but if science doesn't care, well.

What about the poor starving person who eventually collects those coins and uses that to feed themselves?

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.

o_O.Q said:

now can you actually make an argument and articulate how anything I said has been contradicted?

I mean you literally said that science is a verb. If posting a direct result from google identifying it as a noun isn't a contradiction then I do not know what a contradiction is. Here's some more dictionaries which say it's a noun for you I guess...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/science

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

I trust I don't need to post definitions for secular and atheistic. Or are you prepared to be wrong about that as well?

Why is it that the parties of god cannot simply acknowledge when they are incorrect, especially when it is so absurdly obvious?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

"a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/science

(knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behavior of the physical worldespecially by watchingmeasuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation

"I trust I don't need to post definitions for secular and atheistic."

I posted atheistic and not secular because that was my intent

"Why is it that the parties of god cannot simply acknowledge when they are incorrect, especially when it is so absurdly obvious?"

You should perform a study to find out



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

The statement I'm aware of is that men can have vaginas and women can have penises. This is, again, a statement about the difference between gender and sex. This is why I think social scientists are the ones I would consider experts on the subject. 

The idea that this is more befuddling than Moses parting the red sea because you don't agree with new definitions for words and context is ridiculous. 

edit: I've ignored your statements on socialism on purpose, that's outside of the discussion I am interested in. 

Yeah its so fucking insane I couldn't believe it myself at first, especially considering these people are generally the first to jump down the throats of religious people, for how supposedly irrational they are

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

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

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/02/19/pose-indya-moore-trans-penises-biologically-female/

Pose star Indya Moore: Trans women’s penises are biologically female

Now granted this one is more weasily since what they argue here is that sex is simply a continuum

How they meaningfully differentiate out other sexes beyond male and female beyond  circumstances like XXY, XYY etc etc etc that ALL lead to defects like klinefelters is beyond me

https://www.evolutionsociety.org/news/display/2018/10/30/letter-re-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

Oh and btw given this definition of sex as a continuum the obviously logical conclusion is that males with larger penises are more male than males with smaller penises and females with Larger breasts are more female than females with smaller breasts

and of course there's thousands of lesser known activists who post stuff like this

https://ifunny.co/picture/stop-associating-female-with-vagina-transgender-women-are-female-if-wnwe5pOE5

"The idea that this is more befuddling than Moses parting the red sea"

I think its possible that Moses could have parted the red sea through some unknown mechanism since there is no way to determine that this could not have happened

Maybe the staff he carried was imbued with unicorn hair and hence had magic properties, which allowed for his various magical feats, I say that's a possibility

I think this to be far less irrational than denying the obvious reality in front of me that obviously people can functionally be separated into two sexes

Does that mean there are no exceptions? Does that mean that because of this idiocy we won't abandon our biology eventually through some transhuman experiment? Of course not

The thing is I totally get it, these people probably look at women for example and observe how they are held back by their biology in some ways and as a result seek to dismiss biology from reality, but that's the same type of process religious people use to come up with heaven - this world is corrupt and flawed and therefore we need to envision a heaven

There's a lot of overlap in motivation there ironically enough, given how the leftists for example scoff at the idea of heaven but seek to bring about utopia through dismissing reality

Don't care about the blogs, but I read the nature article. Not my field, but I think it is understandable why scientists in the relevant field would be pushing for a more granular understanding of sex rather than as a simple binary. Such a model probably doesn't explain the range of phenotype differences seen. Just because something seems like "common sense" upon first observation doesn't make it true open further and deeper examination. 

A common sense approach would lead most to think the earth was flat, it just seems flat when you go outside and check. It takes a deeper understanding of geometry to determine that the earth is a sphere based on observations on the ground. 

That said, I'll have to try and take some time and find the relevant literature to see why scientists in those fields have come to the conclusion that gender and sex are different (something I have a reasonable understanding of) and why sex should be viewed as a spectrum (something I have heard but haven't really read about why). 



...

o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

I mean you literally said that science is a verb. If posting a direct result from google identifying it as a noun isn't a contradiction then I do not know what a contradiction is. Here's some more dictionaries which say it's a noun for you I guess...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/science

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

I trust I don't need to post definitions for secular and atheistic. Or are you prepared to be wrong about that as well?

Why is it that the parties of god cannot simply acknowledge when they are incorrect, especially when it is so absurdly obvious?

[Grave misunderstandings about verbs versus nouns]

"I trust I don't need to post definitions for secular and atheistic."

I posted atheistic and not secular because that was my intent

"Why is it that the parties of god cannot simply acknowledge when they are incorrect, especially when it is so absurdly obvious?"

You should perform a study to find out

When I thought you couldn't dig yourself any deeper, you went ahead and surpassed yourself: bravo.

Would you say basketball (sport) is also a verb then? You'd be profoundly incorrect for the same reason you're incorrect about science.

One can PLAY basketball.

One can PERFORM science.

One cannot basketball. One cannot science.

If you still don't understand then you're completely hopeless.

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. It's akin to saying aunicornistic morality.

Atheism isn't some philosophy with deep considerations for metaethics. It's a singular response to a singular position. Has nothing to do with anything outside the confines of a response to theism. You say there is a god, an atheist is simply saying they are not convinced. And...that's literally it.

Now secular morality there's a topic. But I see your confusion on terminology has led to you talking in circles to yourself.



RolStoppable said:
OhNoYouDont said:

When I thought you couldn't dig yourself any deeper, you went ahead and surpassed yourself: bravo.

Would you say basketball (sport) is also a verb then? You'd be profoundly incorrect for the same reason you're incorrect about science.

One can PLAY basketball.

One can PERFORM science.

One cannot basketball. One cannot science.

If you still don't understand then you're completely hopeless.

(...)

Nouns and verbs are not mutually exclusive. You can study science in a study, so one and the same word can be both a verb and a noun. Do you understand?

Except science isn't a verb in any dictionary on the entire planet. Neither is basketball. Do YOU understand?



Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

Yeah its so fucking insane I couldn't believe it myself at first, especially considering these people are generally the first to jump down the throats of religious people, for how supposedly irrational they are

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

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

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/02/19/pose-indya-moore-trans-penises-biologically-female/

Pose star Indya Moore: Trans women’s penises are biologically female

Now granted this one is more weasily since what they argue here is that sex is simply a continuum

How they meaningfully differentiate out other sexes beyond male and female beyond  circumstances like XXY, XYY etc etc etc that ALL lead to defects like klinefelters is beyond me

https://www.evolutionsociety.org/news/display/2018/10/30/letter-re-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

Oh and btw given this definition of sex as a continuum the obviously logical conclusion is that males with larger penises are more male than males with smaller penises and females with Larger breasts are more female than females with smaller breasts

and of course there's thousands of lesser known activists who post stuff like this

https://ifunny.co/picture/stop-associating-female-with-vagina-transgender-women-are-female-if-wnwe5pOE5

"The idea that this is more befuddling than Moses parting the red sea"

I think its possible that Moses could have parted the red sea through some unknown mechanism since there is no way to determine that this could not have happened

Maybe the staff he carried was imbued with unicorn hair and hence had magic properties, which allowed for his various magical feats, I say that's a possibility

I think this to be far less irrational than denying the obvious reality in front of me that obviously people can functionally be separated into two sexes

Does that mean there are no exceptions? Does that mean that because of this idiocy we won't abandon our biology eventually through some transhuman experiment? Of course not

The thing is I totally get it, these people probably look at women for example and observe how they are held back by their biology in some ways and as a result seek to dismiss biology from reality, but that's the same type of process religious people use to come up with heaven - this world is corrupt and flawed and therefore we need to envision a heaven

There's a lot of overlap in motivation there ironically enough, given how the leftists for example scoff at the idea of heaven but seek to bring about utopia through dismissing reality

Don't care about the blogs, but I read the nature article. Not my field, but I think it is understandable why scientists in the relevant field would be pushing for a more granular understanding of sex rather than as a simple binary. Such a model probably doesn't explain the range of phenotype differences seen. Just because something seems like "common sense" upon first observation doesn't make it true open further and deeper examination. 

A common sense approach would lead most to think the earth was flat, it just seems flat when you go outside and check. It takes a deeper understanding of geometry to determine that the earth is a sphere based on observations on the ground. 

That said, I'll have to try and take some time and find the relevant literature to see why scientists in those fields have come to the conclusion that gender and sex are different (something I have a reasonable understanding of) and why sex should be viewed as a spectrum (something I have heard but haven't really read about why). 

"Such a model probably doesn't explain the range of phenotype differences seen"

From the research I have seen the additional genotypes they are referring to are those like XXY, XYY etc which all appear to cause defects

"A common sense approach would lead most to think the earth was flat"

it would not since the sun sets everyday behind the horizon, since many objects are cut off at the bottom over large distances etc etc etc this is a dishonest talking point circulated around by flat earthers to soften people up to their nonsense

" 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 

"why sex should be viewed as a spectrum"

have fun with that

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 30 March 2020

OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

[Grave misunderstandings about verbs versus nouns]

"I trust I don't need to post definitions for secular and atheistic."

I posted atheistic and not secular because that was my intent

"Why is it that the parties of god cannot simply acknowledge when they are incorrect, especially when it is so absurdly obvious?"

You should perform a study to find out

When I thought you couldn't dig yourself any deeper, you went ahead and surpassed yourself: bravo.

Would you say basketball (sport) is also a verb then? You'd be profoundly incorrect for the same reason you're incorrect about science.

One can PLAY basketball.

One can PERFORM science.

One cannot basketball. One cannot science.

If you still don't understand then you're completely hopeless.

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. It's akin to saying aunicornistic morality.

Atheism isn't some philosophy with deep considerations for metaethics. It's a singular response to a singular position. Has nothing to do with anything outside the confines of a response to theism. You say there is a god, an atheist is simply saying they are not convinced. And...that's literally it.

Now secular morality there's a topic. But I see your confusion on terminology has led to you talking in circles to yourself.

"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?