Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
the same source cites conflict between the chruch and science
not to say no christans ever contributed to the chruch.
but it's likely the same as any reglilion and science
https://blog.myparea.com/history-science-ancient-greece/
greeks have supported science too
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/10/22/perception-of-conflict-between-science-and-religion/
some 59 percent of americans cite a conflict between the two
Look,i didn't say shit about Christians being the true religion just because xyz had scientifics achievements. Learn to read what i actually write and not what you imagine i think. My point was that being RELIGIOUS ( i didn't mention christian btw) doesn't equal to being unable to produce science. I know where you are coming from:"Religious people are superstitious,therefore can't think logically and be unbiased". Its an immature belief. Yes,religion has conflicted in the past with science,but still we had notorious scientific work done by religious people.
Last edited:
never said anyone christan cant support science
what you talking about??
most of the people fighting science are bible thumbing zealots who deny the big bang,evolution and round earth in favor of flat earth,creationism and god created universe
you only need to look at who's debating agasint evolution to tell which side is truly anti science
people who are basing their stances on belief, are always going to have positions which oppose facts
hardcore liberals/leftists like carrot are prime examples of that
men having an insane amount of privilge is just one of those idealogical takes, it's the reality that most of the homeless are male which cant be true if men hold all the power in the society
if im looking at reality with the viewpoint that x thing is true regardless of evidence then guess what im gonna ignore evidence cause that aint the framework used for the hypothical viewpoint propsed here
didt claim you did tho
Is yoir argument : there is conflict.. Hence there can't be a religious scientist?
What is your point dude?
Ig what NAMELESS says here
is what you believe then bro grab some history books about scientific contributions by religious folks and you'll find that the vast majority were religious and diests
[automerge]1706643317[/automerge]
Big bang and Explanations of Evolution through Darwaniian lense is filled with holes and quesitons, and you can't force a theory down someone's throat just because you believe in it.
And bruh Vast majority of Christians would believe earth being round
And creationsim and idea of there being a God as the initiator of the universe.. Have Logical evidences backing it up.. And unlike the theories you mentioned are quite more realistic and reasonable
What is your point dude?
Ig what NAMELESS says here
is what you believe then bro grab some history books about scientific contributions by religious folks and you'll find that the vast majority were religious and diests
[automerge]1706643317[/automerge]
Big bang and Explanations of Evolution through Darwaniian lense is filled with holes and quesitons, and you can't force a theory down someone's throat just because you believe in it.
And bruh Vast majority of Christians would believe earth being round
And creationsim and idea of there being a God as the initiator of the universe.. Have Logical evidences backing it up.. And unlike the theories you mentioned are quite more realistic and reasonable
Last edited:
"Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented by state-level legislators in the early 1900s.[34] Eugenic policies also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[35] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[36] Brazil,[37] Canada,[38] Japan and Sweden. Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed eugenics as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[39] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics"). "
This is all about parents with undesirable traits, not aborting children with disabilities. this just doesnt apply to what we were talking about. but nice try i guess (not really)
[automerge]1706649385[/automerge]
no, since down syndrome is not heritable, and eugenics is all about selecting favorable heritable traits.
you are wrong, and this still doesnt say anything regarding the point that sience works. you are just deflecting from the point attacking dawkins character
[automerge]1706649561[/automerge]
religious scientists more often than not reinterpret a literalist interpretation of passages contrary to the scientific research. and other reasonable religious people do as well. i've seen someone reinterpret adam and eve story to be indicative of evolution.
[automerge]1706649657[/automerge]
uhm, i think only height might be heritable there, so no. making six figures and working out arent heritable traits that can be selectively bred.
[automerge]1706649800[/automerge]
i think he is just trying to apply what logiko says about political ideology in science to religious ideology to make an analogy.
[automerge]1706649935[/automerge]
SCIENTIFIC THEORY Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
sorry to burst that bubble, but evolution is true and denying that is on the same level as being a flat earther
This is all about parents with undesirable traits, not aborting children with disabilities. this just doesnt apply to what we were talking about. but nice try i guess (not really)
[automerge]1706649385[/automerge]
no, since down syndrome is not heritable, and eugenics is all about selecting favorable heritable traits.
you are wrong, and this still doesnt say anything regarding the point that sience works. you are just deflecting from the point attacking dawkins character
[automerge]1706649561[/automerge]
religious scientists more often than not reinterpret a literalist interpretation of passages contrary to the scientific research. and other reasonable religious people do as well. i've seen someone reinterpret adam and eve story to be indicative of evolution.
[automerge]1706649657[/automerge]
uhm, i think only height might be heritable there, so no. making six figures and working out arent heritable traits that can be selectively bred.
[automerge]1706649800[/automerge]
i think he is just trying to apply what logiko says about political ideology in science to religious ideology to make an analogy.
[automerge]1706649935[/automerge]
SCIENTIFIC THEORY Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
sorry to burst that bubble, but evolution is true and denying that is on the same level as being a flat earther
Last edited:
I suggest you return look at the conclusion of the sessions. You missed some stuff.
"
The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from harming or killing Palestinians. It also ruled that Israel must urgently get basic aid to Gaza and that the country should punish any incitement to genocide, among other measures.
The panel told Israel to submit a report on steps taken within a month.
“That’s a time that the court could come back and say, ‘You have not met the orders. You have not complied. Now we find you are in the midst of committing genocide,’” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of law and international peace studies at Notre Dame University’s Kroc Institute
"
Well.. You got a fair point here, but sadly, if you want to ask native to do an action, it will be useless to target France and the country that protect those billionnaires. This is our job to stop them. But what those people can do is rise us and sabotage the work of those priviledged people in their countries.
No, not "same point". The point is completely different mate. You just don't understand it.
Then you are basically antiscience. You can't say "I accept just the science I like therefore I for science". No, you are just against the scientific process mate
What is even the logic behind this argumentation ?
Conclusions are unbiased* (at least they need to be). But conclusions are only one part of the scientific process. The rest of the process can be completely subjugated to biased.
But yeah, Bob speaks from an ignorant starting point about science, we can agree on that.
Gender studies are not "a science", they are a field of study, a subject studied by science.
Not the same thing.
Where ?
Careful when you are lying with that sort of subjects about me, you better be prepared. Because I don't like those kind of deffamation, especially about science about me and will fire back at you personnaly with every scientific firepower I have and you won't like it.
You better be really sure of what you are going to say next.
Actually, my positions are always supported by facts and scientific work so...
YOu did not debunk what I said mate...
You just added more historical context to the notion of eugenism. If you do not agree with me, ask wikipedia to delete the sources and the paragraph I just shared to you as even a child would understand that you are just avoiding what is written... Or accept - for once - to be wrong.
I'm right. As (like I shared) there is what we call "negative eugenism" that tends to act on abortion. And this is a case where someone tries to legitimate that practice. Its therefore Eugenic and nothing you will say will stop this from being true, I'm sorry, you are wrong and Dawkins was ALSO wrong.
And yes, the goal here was precisely to attack Dawkins because this guys is a bit too shared when it comes to talk about subjects that don't concerns him.
Are you really surprised ?
"
The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from harming or killing Palestinians. It also ruled that Israel must urgently get basic aid to Gaza and that the country should punish any incitement to genocide, among other measures.
The panel told Israel to submit a report on steps taken within a month.
“That’s a time that the court could come back and say, ‘You have not met the orders. You have not complied. Now we find you are in the midst of committing genocide,’” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of law and international peace studies at Notre Dame University’s Kroc Institute
"
Well.. You got a fair point here, but sadly, if you want to ask native to do an action, it will be useless to target France and the country that protect those billionnaires. This is our job to stop them. But what those people can do is rise us and sabotage the work of those priviledged people in their countries.
No, not "same point". The point is completely different mate. You just don't understand it.
Then you are basically antiscience. You can't say "I accept just the science I like therefore I for science". No, you are just against the scientific process mate
What is even the logic behind this argumentation ?
Conclusions are unbiased* (at least they need to be). But conclusions are only one part of the scientific process. The rest of the process can be completely subjugated to biased.
But yeah, Bob speaks from an ignorant starting point about science, we can agree on that.
Gender studies are not "a science", they are a field of study, a subject studied by science.
Not the same thing.
Where ?
Careful when you are lying with that sort of subjects about me, you better be prepared. Because I don't like those kind of deffamation, especially about science about me and will fire back at you personnaly with every scientific firepower I have and you won't like it.
You better be really sure of what you are going to say next.
Actually, my positions are always supported by facts and scientific work so...
YOu did not debunk what I said mate...
You just added more historical context to the notion of eugenism. If you do not agree with me, ask wikipedia to delete the sources and the paragraph I just shared to you as even a child would understand that you are just avoiding what is written... Or accept - for once - to be wrong.
I'm right. As (like I shared) there is what we call "negative eugenism" that tends to act on abortion. And this is a case where someone tries to legitimate that practice. Its therefore Eugenic and nothing you will say will stop this from being true, I'm sorry, you are wrong and Dawkins was ALSO wrong.
And yes, the goal here was precisely to attack Dawkins because this guys is a bit too shared when it comes to talk about subjects that don't concerns him.
Are you really surprised ?
if we go by your logic
science = leftism
and does not have relate to factual accurateness
[automerge]1706670673[/automerge]
if nazi say races are science based and germans are inherently superior cause of science
that's right cause science???
if idealogical based science is right then germans are the best race
no reason why to deny one baseless idealogical science and accept another
Last edited:
NONONONONONONONO
no evolution deniers nooooooooooo
no evolution deniers nooooooooooo
If so, then you are conflating the phenomenon with the explanation that applies that phenomenon.
Wouldn't you agree?
Nah you just twisting what eugenics is AND what dawkiks is saying. Really pathetic
[automerge]1706680622[/automerge]
You are missing the key point of eugenics being about selecting heritable traits. In this case the abortion is about selecting the parent that has unfavorable heritable traits. Down syndrome generally isnt heritable, and he isnt talking about forced abortion, just that in his opinion its immoral not to get an abortion of there is prior knowledge of the condition.
[automerge]1706680813[/automerge]
Seems like you missed the "repeatedly confirmed" part of scientific theories.
And what parts exactly are you rejecting?
[automerge]1706680942[/automerge]
There isnt anything backing up creationism either.
[automerge]1706680622[/automerge]
You are missing the key point of eugenics being about selecting heritable traits. In this case the abortion is about selecting the parent that has unfavorable heritable traits. Down syndrome generally isnt heritable, and he isnt talking about forced abortion, just that in his opinion its immoral not to get an abortion of there is prior knowledge of the condition.
[automerge]1706680813[/automerge]
Seems like you missed the "repeatedly confirmed" part of scientific theories.
And what parts exactly are you rejecting?
[automerge]1706680942[/automerge]
There isnt anything backing up creationism either.
Last edited: