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?

JWeinCom said:

"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?

You were part of a megaquote and were in the middle of a sea of proponents for religion.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Around the Network
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



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). 



...

Around the Network
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.



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?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

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?



OhNoYouDont said:
RolStoppable said:

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?

Follow-up question: Do you recognize when you are getting trolled?

So take a minute to think about the people who you've talked to and review it with the above question in mind.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

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