Look,i didn't say shit about Christians being the true religion just because xyz had scientic 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.
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
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
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
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
Post automatically merged:
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
There are plenty of examples of biased scientist manipulating experiments to obtain what they want.
Does this mean that gravity is false? No.
But there is gonna be plenty of scientist willing to bend reality.
Section "Meaning and types", last pragraph, third sentence.
"Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning."
"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)
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
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.
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.
scientific theory
[ sahy-uhn-tif-ik theer-ee, thee-uh-ree ]SHOW IPA
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
They just said to Israel to make sure that they take actions for a genocide to not happen like allowing humanitary help to get inside Gaza like Israel is doing.
Nothing that the court said gives Israel a single drop of guilty therefore there is no asking for them to stop the attacks.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Do you think dismissing one attempted explanation of History of life on earth and how it evolved is tantamount to dismissing evolution as an empirical phenomenon of biological change over time altogether?
If so, then you are conflating the phenomenon with the explanation that applies that phenomenon.
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.
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.
I mean, if you are gonna ignore a litteral paragraph of description of what negative eugenics practices are and how the comment of Dawkins is reflecting this vision.. go for it mate, I won't stop you. Well.. unless of course this vision becomes institutionnal in the future and creates eugenic policies in which case this will mean war, but we are not there yet :)
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.
Nazi germany used all of them : Positive eugenism concerning the "aryan race" where reproduction between people considered "pure" were encouraged to reproduce (in fact a specificity of fascism are the pro-natalist policies) and negative eugenism was used to prevent children with "conditions" from being born. Meaning sterilization of the "impure" but also compaign of abortion of the foetus with potential genetics diseases.
Wether or not down syndrome is genetically heritable or not is not the point. The point is that Dawkins in his comment considered this condition as a disability and not a life worth living the same way eugenics at the time were considering lives with disabilities "not worth living"
So, wether you like it or not, Dawkins's vision was eugenistic. This is one of a reasons why we should be careful with the words of members of the "new atheism" movement and their followers on social medias.
Do you think dismissing one attempted explanation of History of life on earth and how it evolved is tantamount to dismissing evolution as an empirical phenomenon of biological change over time altogether?
If so, then you are conflating the phenomenon with the explanation that applies that phenomenon.
Oh, we're back with the pseudointellectual speech with lots of Latin & Greek words
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
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
"
They did not accused Israel of anything. Didn't asked Israel to stop. They just asked Israel to make sure things don't get out of control like Israel is doing it.
Oh, we're back with the pseudointellectual speech with lots of Latin & Greek words
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
No seriously do you really think
Evolution (phenomenon) and Evolution (theory) are the same thing? And also disbelieving in any version of Evolution (theory) is disbelieving in empirical Evolution (observable phenomenon)
If so.. We can stop this right here, because you're just embarrassing yourself by not even making the slightest mental effort in understanding how much on an idiot your look like calling this psudo-science.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
