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?

OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

"Can't be bothered to continue addressing your inability to comprehend basic English."

you mean with regards to whether science is a process of not? ok lol

what do you say to those scientists who describe science as an action I wonder

can you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism for me?

"What is it that you do for a living by the way?"

I sweap floors, what about you?

EricHiggin said:

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...

Once again you have missed the boat on this one.

Religious people are actively defying orders from public officials in order to congregate and pray to an imaginary wizard which is something they can do at home anyway. This is a danger to society and I hope they will be held accountable if they spread the virus to others because of their malfeasance.

"spiritual phenomenon" - a made up phrase that is indistinguishable from nothingness.

My point is that science isn't self-aware or able to DO anything. Can a hammer do anything besides sit idly on the table without intervention from a human? Nope. Nor can science DO anything by itself because it's not a machine or sentient agent. Humans DO science. You're being incoherent with your liberal usage of language and it's very difficult to communicate with someone who is being incoherent all the time.

So despite my taking great care to not only explain what epistemology is, but to provide careful examples of why science is a reliable one and religion is not, you have either ignored all of that (again) or are mentally incapable of understanding it.

At no point did I say, nor imply I "believe whatever [you] wanted". How you could take that away from what I said is incredible.

you're laughing at me because i sweap floors for a living?



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:

"Can you provide a rational explanation for how Moses parted the Red Sea?"

I said that I believe its possible that there is an unknown mechanism which exists within the universe that could have allowed Moses to part the red sea, since we do not know everything there is to know about the universe then the possibility exists for there to be unknown mechanisms

I asked for a rational explanation and you bring back the most irrational possible. We hell, then.  Since we can just make up anything we want, I'm God and Moses never existed.  He was just a character in a few stories told about 2,600 years ago.

Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling.

"Hey Steve, can you science this artifact?"
"Sure Tom, right after I finish sciencing this specimen."
"Thanks, Steve.  I scienced 34 times today."
"After I science your artifact, I'm going to go home and math some data."
"Mathing is fun.  I mathed last night too."



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Can you provide a rational explanation for how Moses parted the Red Sea?"

I said that I believe its possible that there is an unknown mechanism which exists within the universe that could have allowed Moses to part the red sea, since we do not know everything there is to know about the universe then the possibility exists for there to be unknown mechanisms

I asked for a rational explanation and you bring back the most irrational possible. We hell, then.  Since we can just make up anything we want, I'm God and Moses never existed.  He was just a character in a few stories told about 2,600 years ago.

Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling.

"Hey Steve, can you science this artifact?"
"Sure Tom, right after I finish sciencing this specimen."
"Thanks, Steve.  I scienced 34 times today."
"After I science your artifact, I'm going to go home and math some data."
"Mathing is fun.  I mathed last night too."

" Since we can just make up anything we want"

well as I said its a possibility from my perspective, I can't rule it out since I am not omnipotent

and I think if we live in a world where we simply disregard categories like sex then we can at least entertain the idea of a man that can part a sea, in my opinion the latter is more realistic

"Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling."

more telling than you confusing sex with gender? anyway its context sensitive obviously, science can be applied as a method and it can also be regarded as a body of knowledge, the other user ironically given his behavior couldn't realise that 



o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Once again you have missed the boat on this one.

Religious people are actively defying orders from public officials in order to congregate and pray to an imaginary wizard which is something they can do at home anyway. This is a danger to society and I hope they will be held accountable if they spread the virus to others because of their malfeasance.

"spiritual phenomenon" - a made up phrase that is indistinguishable from nothingness.

My point is that science isn't self-aware or able to DO anything. Can a hammer do anything besides sit idly on the table without intervention from a human? Nope. Nor can science DO anything by itself because it's not a machine or sentient agent. Humans DO science. You're being incoherent with your liberal usage of language and it's very difficult to communicate with someone who is being incoherent all the time.

So despite my taking great care to not only explain what epistemology is, but to provide careful examples of why science is a reliable one and religion is not, you have either ignored all of that (again) or are mentally incapable of understanding it.

At no point did I say, nor imply I "believe whatever [you] wanted". How you could take that away from what I said is incredible.

you're laughing at me because i sweap floors for a living?



OhNoYouDont said:
EricHiggin said:

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...

Once again you have missed the boat on this one.

Religious people are actively defying orders from public officials in order to congregate and pray to an imaginary wizard which is something they can do at home anyway. This is a danger to society and I hope they will be held accountable if they spread the virus to others because of their malfeasance.

"spiritual phenomenon" - a made up phrase that is indistinguishable from nothingness.

My point is that science isn't self-aware or able to DO anything. Can a hammer do anything besides sit idly on the table without intervention from a human? Nope. Nor can science DO anything by itself because it's not a machine or sentient agent. Humans DO science. You're being incoherent with your liberal usage of language and it's very difficult to communicate with someone who is being incoherent all the time.

So despite my taking great care to not only explain what epistemology is, but to provide careful examples of why science is a reliable one and religion is not, you have either ignored all of that (again) or are mentally incapable of understanding it.

At no point did I say, nor imply I "believe whatever [you] wanted". How you could take that away from what I said is incredible.

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



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

I asked for a rational explanation and you bring back the most irrational possible. We hell, then.  Since we can just make up anything we want, I'm God and Moses never existed.  He was just a character in a few stories told about 2,600 years ago.

Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling.

"Hey Steve, can you science this artifact?"
"Sure Tom, right after I finish sciencing this specimen."
"Thanks, Steve.  I scienced 34 times today."
"After I science your artifact, I'm going to go home and math some data."
"Mathing is fun.  I mathed last night too."

" Since we can just make up anything we want"

well as I said its a possibility from my perspective, I can't rule it out since I am not omnipotent

and I think if we live in a world where 1). we simply disregard categories like sex then 2). we can at least entertain the idea of a man that can part a sea, 3). in my opinion the latter is more realistic

"Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling."

4). more telling than you confusing sex with gender? 5). anyway its context sensitive obviously, science can be applied as a method and it can also be regarded as a body of knowledge, the other user ironically given his behavior couldn't realise that 

1). We don't disregard sex.  If anything, we're more specific about it than ever before.

2). But what science is behind such a belief?  With regards to the sex being more than 2, that's at least based on scientific information.

3). Realistic...? How does the physics work to part a 5 mile segment (narrowest portion) of the Gulf of Suez?

4). I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are.  Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits.

5). It's not context sensitive.  I just wrote it out in dialog.  Did any of that sound contextually correct?  Go ahead, use science in a sentence as a verb.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

(...)  Go ahead, use science in a sentence as a verb.

That's easy. People take the liberty to type "since" as "sense" or vice versa, so the same can be done here.

I am sciencing a malicious presence.

Now we only need someone to create a website that claims that 'science' is a verb and we have our backup proof. True story: I once got linked to a website that explained why 'of' is a verb. I could have went there and read it all, but then it hit me that blue collar English is rubbish and should only be used to make a joke.



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:
SpokenTruth said:

(...)  Go ahead, use science in a sentence as a verb.

That's easy. People take the liberty to type "since" as "sense" or vice versa, so the same can be done here.

I am sciencing a malicious presence.

Now we only need someone to create a website that claims that 'science' is a verb and we have our backup proof. True story: I once got linked to a website that explained why 'of' is a verb. I could have went there and read it all, but then it hit me that blue collar English is rubbish and should only be used to make a joke.

*sigh* We have certainly not been good stewards of our given language.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

" Since we can just make up anything we want"

well as I said its a possibility from my perspective, I can't rule it out since I am not omnipotent

and I think if we live in a world where 1). we simply disregard categories like sex then 2). we can at least entertain the idea of a man that can part a sea, 3). in my opinion the latter is more realistic

"Also, this whole noun-verb thing is very telling."

4). more telling than you confusing sex with gender? 5). anyway its context sensitive obviously, science can be applied as a method and it can also be regarded as a body of knowledge, the other user ironically given his behavior couldn't realise that 

1). We don't disregard sex.  If anything, we're more specific about it than ever before.

2). But what science is behind such a belief?  With regards to the sex being more than 2, that's at least based on scientific information.

3). Realistic...? How does the physics work to part a 5 mile segment (narrowest portion) of the Gulf of Suez?

4). I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are.  Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits.

5). It's not context sensitive.  I just wrote it out in dialog.  Did any of that sound contextually correct?  Go ahead, use science in a sentence as a verb.

"But what science is behind such a belief?  With regards to the sex being more than 2, that's at least based on scientific information."

"We don't disregard sex.  If anything, we're more specific about it than ever before."

I posted various authoritative sources that claim we should not make such classifications but ignoring that how are we more specific? can you detail that for me? give me your personal point of view on how we are more specific

"Realistic...?"

yes that's my opinion, that the stuff I've identified is to me more unrealistic than moses parting the sea

"I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are."

your initial reply was this

"Male and female are genders."

"It's not context sensitive."

as an example taken from google

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
  • a particular area of science.
    plural noun: sciences
    "veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."
google defines science initially as an activity and then as a body of knowledge because the two together are what science is
science is not only information but its also a method of collecting and evaluating information and I'm honestly surprised to see people attempting to claim otherwise
without making this distinction you'd have to also acknowledge the bible as science would you not? since that is itself a body of information... the distinction lies in processes science applies in gathering that information


o_O.Q said:

"It's not context sensitive."

as an example taken from google

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
  • a particular area of science.

    plural noun: sciences

    "veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."
google defines science initially as an activity and then as a body of knowledge because the two together are what science is
science is not only information but its also a method of collecting and evaluating information and I'm honestly surprised to see people attempting to claim otherwise
without making this distinction you'd have to also acknowledge the bible as science would you not? since that is itself a body of information... the distinction lies in processes science applies in gathering that information

It's right there in your own definition.  Again, use it as a verb in a sentence.  Go on. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."