Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? dems are screwed with kamala gaolang>jurota i refuse to pay my taxes is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real men pay taxes tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you trump won
I did answer. You can still be an atheist,i.e. be someone that doesnt actively believe in god, while still thinking that its possible that a higher being of some sort is the reason for existence.
You are just generalizing and dont know what you are talking about. Which is why i have to repeat fairly simple points multiple times
I also mentioned how one can hold the position of "i dont know" regarding the reason for existence. . .
You arent engaging whith what im saying
Well, i guess at some point i should ignore those resistant to education, fair enough
Sorry yall dont understand these terms
You are just generalizing and dont know what you are talking about. Which is why i have to repeat fairly simple points multiple times
I also mentioned how one can hold the position of "i dont know" regarding the reason for existence. . .
You arent engaging whith what im saying
Post automatically merged:
Well, i guess at some point i should ignore those resistant to education, fair enough
Post automatically merged:
Sorry yall dont understand these terms
Dude.. this is not a question of ideology. This is a scientific fact. There IS a consensus about the difference between sex and gender. Weither you like it or not.
Ok so you do agree that scientific source have a superior value.
See.. Here you are in a paradoxe. On one hand you don't believe in science in the other you believe in science.
This means that you are not searching for truth, you are searching for what will help your point of view. This is a common type of cognitive bias : the confirmation Bias
No not what it is to be a woman, but they can understand better the situation of the globality of women. Know the fact I mean. This is the difference between a feeling and a fact.
Lets take that back to the atheist debate.
I just proved you that you the one who are involved are most likely the one you need to listen unless there is global data.
So, as an atheist AND a person who have studied this subject i'm FAR more legitimate than you to define what atheism is.
So that's why I tell you that your definition is wrong.
Atheism is not the presence of belief in no god but the ABSENCE of belief in a specific god
Now, let's attack the WOKE subject.
What I just prove to you is:
1 - The scientific source have more value than non scientific sources and that there is a scientific CONSENSUS on the difference between sex and gender
2 - That the person involved are the most legitimate one to have an opinion on a subject and the scientific (sociologue) are the legitimate one to have an opinion on a more global scale (because studies)
So. I proved that this was wrong:
Now. I think you are talking about "safe space" for example safe space for women when men are excluded.
For you to understand the importance of those safe space, you need to understand first that oppressed person (like women/racialized people) are more likely to share information when they are not cut by men/white people and when they can have a discussion between them.
Meaning that safe space for racialized people or for women are a NECESSITY to learn about thing such as agressions or problematic behaviors.
If you are honest with yourself. You should now change your point of view.
Ok so you do agree that scientific source have a superior value.
See.. Here you are in a paradoxe. On one hand you don't believe in science in the other you believe in science.
This means that you are not searching for truth, you are searching for what will help your point of view. This is a common type of cognitive bias : the confirmation Bias
No not what it is to be a woman, but they can understand better the situation of the globality of women. Know the fact I mean. This is the difference between a feeling and a fact.
Lets take that back to the atheist debate.
I just proved you that you the one who are involved are most likely the one you need to listen unless there is global data.
So, as an atheist AND a person who have studied this subject i'm FAR more legitimate than you to define what atheism is.
So that's why I tell you that your definition is wrong.
Atheism is not the presence of belief in no god but the ABSENCE of belief in a specific god
Now, let's attack the WOKE subject.
What I just prove to you is:
1 - The scientific source have more value than non scientific sources and that there is a scientific CONSENSUS on the difference between sex and gender
2 - That the person involved are the most legitimate one to have an opinion on a subject and the scientific (sociologue) are the legitimate one to have an opinion on a more global scale (because studies)
So. I proved that this was wrong:
Now. I think you are talking about "safe space" for example safe space for women when men are excluded.
For you to understand the importance of those safe space, you need to understand first that oppressed person (like women/racialized people) are more likely to share information when they are not cut by men/white people and when they can have a discussion between them.
Meaning that safe space for racialized people or for women are a NECESSITY to learn about thing such as agressions or problematic behaviors.
If you are honest with yourself. You should now change your point of view.
Missed the point.
With 2 options, the position im talking about is not choosing either because of insufficient evidence. I never claimed there to be alternative options (and told you this before anyway)
I dont know whether the universe existence is due to natural or unnatural reasons. I still dont believe in a god, because i consider all god claims (that i know about) to be wrong af.
Not really.
Some peeps just dont grow up religious but still dislike science.they are still atheists.
They are different terms describing different positions. These positions are not mutually exclusive.
With 2 options, the position im talking about is not choosing either because of insufficient evidence. I never claimed there to be alternative options (and told you this before anyway)
I dont know whether the universe existence is due to natural or unnatural reasons. I still dont believe in a god, because i consider all god claims (that i know about) to be wrong af.
Post automatically merged:
Not really.
Some peeps just dont grow up religious but still dislike science.they are still atheists.
Post automatically merged:
They are different terms describing different positions. These positions are not mutually exclusive.
