Controversial General Political Discussion

Logiko

Logiko

‎
#53,021
#53,021
Blax Blah said:
Although I would not be capable of believing in evolution anyway, and I am not capable of being a materialist, it doesn't have much to do with my belief in Jesus specifically, although that solidifies my lack of pure materialism
Click to expand...
I'm just warning you to be careful.

Because while you are an anarchist now. Without a strong materialist basic, you risk to create a "stargate" toward less beneficial beliefs system on the far right.

I will take the example of those two women:



Who, in the past, fought with the femen. A feminist movement of the liberation of women. You could have categorize them in the left.

BUT

Their fight lacked a lot of sociological and materialistic basis, render their struggle individualist. Their radicalization was not based on knowledge but anger and so.. in the glimps of a few years, they radicalized to the far right and are now defending racist theories such as the great replacement and transphobic rethorics and people.

So be careful of that. Because those are stargates between the left and the far right that can be without return.

Germinator said:
So no...it isn't "impossible" for someone to radically change their opinions in a short period of time, just unlikely and it probably won't be a change due to deep understanding but appealing to authority or emotions
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Radical leftism (and I mean the level where I am) require a surface level knowledge that you can't just assimilate in one night.
 
Blax Blah

Blax Blah

‎
#53,022
#53,022
Etzel Andergast said:
You can believe in evolution and don't be materialist. You can also be evolutionist and be theist.

And I don't believe science can say anything about existence or no existence of god. This question is not within the scope of science
Click to expand...
Yeah, me I don't believe that evolution is real whether I am a theist or an atheist, but, and I say this not having looked at what theistic evolution says, I think evolution would disprove christianity
Post automatically merged:

Logiko said:
I'm just warning you to be careful.

Because while you are an anarchist now. Without a strong materialist basic, you risk to create a "stargate" toward less beneficial beliefs system on the far right.

I will take the example of those two women:



Who, in the past, fought with the femen. A feminist movement of the liberation of women. You could have categorize them in the left.

BUT

Their fight lacked a lot of sociological and materialistic basis, render their struggle individualist. Their radicalization was not based on knowledge but anger and so.. in the glimps of a few years, they radicalized to the far right and are now defending racist theories such as the great replacement and transphobic rethorics and people.

So be careful of that. Because those are stargates between the left and the far right that can be without return.


Yes it is. Radical leftism (and I mean the level where I am) require a surface level knowledge that you can't just assimilate in one night.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I say materialist as in believing that everything is material,
 
NAMELESS

NAMELESS

‎
#53,027
#53,027
Etzel Andergast said:
It depends on what kind of Christianity. It wouldn't disprove nothing from catholic theology or philosophy. So its ok for me
Click to expand...
People really think God would explain science to Adam and Eve? Every time God talks to people in the Old Testament, it sounds like he is speaking to children. Don't get me wrong, God is perfectly capable of such fantastical feats, but i think he took a more sophisticated approach to creation.
 
Zenos7

Zenos7

‎
#53,032
#53,032
Germinator said:
So no...it isn't "impossible" for someone to radically change their opinions in a short period of time, just unlikely and it probably won't be a change due to deep understanding but appealing to authority or emotions
Post automatically merged:



Pretty wild I'm getting called anti-science for not blindly believing in evolution as if it isn't literally called the theory of evolution
Click to expand...
So no one of you will actually look up the scientific terminology.
 
RyoQ

RyoQ

‎
#53,033
#53,033
Logiko said:
Yes it is. Radical leftism (and I mean the level where I am) require a surface level knowledge that you can't just assimilate in one night
Click to expand...
Where's the contradiction in a criminal regretting their actions, and interiorly willing themselves to do better from now on, all in one night?

You already admitted people can change their opinions on the basis of emotion, or appealing to an authority. You keep bringing up the bare minimum reading needed to become a radical leftist but I didn't know criminals were criminals based on a great depth of understanding after lots of studying lmao
 
Last edited:
Blax Blah

Blax Blah

‎
#53,034
#53,034
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory seeks to explain "why" or "how", whereas a fact is a simple, basic observation and a law is an empirical description of a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[3] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[4]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[5][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[5] whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2]
 
Zenos7

Zenos7

‎
#53,035
#53,035
Blax Blah said:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory seeks to explain "why" or "how", whereas a fact is a simple, basic observation and a law is an empirical description of a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[3] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[4]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[5][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[5] whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2]
Click to expand...
Views about human evolution among Christians - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center






Zenos7 said:
Click to expand...
 
RyoQ

RyoQ

‎
#53,036
#53,036
Zenos7 said:
So no one of you will actually look up the scientific terminology.
Click to expand...
I just said I don't deny evolution, I don't blindly affirm it either. I haven't looked into the reasoning for it

To tell you a bit about myself, I am an ideological technocrat and STEM major; I am pro science. I don't think dogmatically affirming something like a theory is scientific when science by it's nature changes as data changes.
 
Ravagerblade

Ravagerblade

‎
#53,038
#53,038
NAMELESS said:
I got permabanned from a thread for answering a question about Christians being afraid of mediumship and stuff. Like i literally answered what the guy asked. *Boom* Permaed.
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting.
Anyways, I think Christians are normally against that, but fuck.
Now for some reason I thought of Jesus as a Stand. Haha
Post automatically merged:

Anyways fuck reddit, even though I use it, but to much cancerous, leftists on there. And Mods will ban you and subreddits that don't adhere to their stances only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top