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

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

Around the Network
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?



" 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. 



...

o_O.Q 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.

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?

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?



OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

"One can PERFORM science."

what does someone perform, when they perform science?

Atheism is a stance adopted by virtually all philosophers and logicians on the planet. 

Welp, you'd be surprised. Have any source for that?



Around the Network
Metallox said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Atheism is a stance adopted by virtually all philosophers and logicians on the planet. 

Welp, you'd be surprised. Have any source for that?

Virtually all is definitely an exaggeration, but for philosophers at least it's a pretty big majority. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i

Either way, it's an argument from authority.  Better off pointing to the actual arguments that the philosophers put forward.



Metallox said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Atheism is a stance adopted by virtually all philosophers and logicians on the planet. 

Welp, you'd be surprised. Have any source for that?

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl



That question is not relevant. What is relevant is the evolution of society and values towards forgiveness.



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?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

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.

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...