Total posts: 2,033
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
How many of you have come from a religious background? And what was this background? And what convinced you to become an atheist?
I kinda came from a religious background but only in my intermediate school years staying with my dad and stepmum.
When I came back home I started questioning.
Was it a journey or an epiphany? Did it cause problems with your family or partner at the time?
More like a journey. and It didn’t cause problems.
Although there was one time my stepmum told me off for holding my cutlery in the wrong hands and said something about the devil.
Like the “proper” way is to hold the fork in your left hand, and the knife in your right.
I’ve thought to myself, ‘if you’re right handed, why the hell would you have your knife in your right hand? People eat primarily with their right hand when not using cutlery. Also there’s a reason why people shake hands with their right hand; It’s because originally it was a polite gesture you wouldn’t stab/slice them with the sword you were sheathing.’
But for the most part she tried to keep her nuttery under wraps.
And are you still connected somehow with the people from your old religious affiliation?
Not really. Only knew them for a few years and I live pretty far away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
There is no argument. I’m having a conversation with a child.- Oh! Your imaginary friend?
When you said science correcting itself means I’ve already lost the argument, you did not think that through in the slightest.
It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.
Admit to yourself what you don’t know.- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?
I know it’s true.
Understand all humans can be wrong, and all humans can be corrected; No human is infallible.- So evolutionationists are infallible? Or are they wrong?
Evolutionationists are not infallible. All people are not infallible.
Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find.
Acknowledge there are smarter people than you or I.- Smarter =/= right...
We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.
Stay curious.- They lied to you. When Blinken was asked about the awfulness of US invasions, he retorted that democracy is beautiful because we learn from our mistakes! I doubt he would be keen on saying that after he murders his American neighbor, "sorry judge, this is beautiful because I learn from my mistake", "oh sure, you're free to go." LOL!. But this is exactly what politicians do when they are pressed, use feel good bogus responses. The evolutionationists, just like the politicians, use bogus feel-good nonsense to confuse their fans.
So when it comes to science we shouldn’t be curious? Is science like murdering someone? Perhaps your belief in Allah?
Aren’t new discoveries good?- Discoveries, despite the hatefulness & biases of the evolutionationists. I remember few years back, Dawkins couldn't shut up about junk DNA & vestigial organs, until we discovered their true purpose & utility. Now he pretends like he knew all along. What a moron! Evolutionationists hamper the progress of Science & obstruct new discoveries, because they are not seeking to understand life & unravel its mysteries, rather they are after confirming their biases. The darwinist looks at life-forms as badly designed machines barely functional, thus assuming their parts to be a priori functionless & obsolete, only there to explain evolution. This is not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific.
He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing.
Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years.
And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes.
Are you talking about the human genome project? Which tree of life are you talking about? I’m note sure how they would conflict. Please explain.- The most common phylogenies, the genome Tree of Life, the molecular Tree of Life, & the morphology Tree of Life rely on completely different assumptions & give desperate results. The latest reconstruction effort comes with the Genome Project (not just for human, that one is already done), but the results are depressing since they turn the traditional trees upside down. Now, the old evolutionationists are understandably upset.
Can you tell me how?
Are you talking about science popularisers, or actual scientific study/experiments, peer review, replications?- Huh? Outside the serious sciences (Physics are the gang), the overwhelming majority of publications are erroneous & irreproducible. In Evolutionary biology, the rate is close to 100%.
Can you link me some things so I have a better understanding?
The device your using is the product of countless hours of the later.- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong.
Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.True: in accordance with fact or reality.Science cares about fact and reality.- "care"? As in 'has an emotional attachment to'...? Why the convolutions? Science does not produce truth, period. You're confusing fact with explanation of fact. A data set is not equal to its explanation. There is no true scientific theory, there are accurate/inaccurate or likely/unlikely scientific hypotheses.
So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.
Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.
You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?
But yes, you’re right.- Fixed.
Don’t edit what I say in bad faith.
You’re conflating truth with what I call absolute truth.- Take a course in Logic, or at least in Philosophy of Science. Truth & falsehood relate to deductive reasoning, such as in saying: the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement. Scientific reasoning is a statistical computation of divergence (or convergence) between hypothesized results & observable results. Therefore, its truth value is necessarily either a statistical measure, i.e. accuracy, or a probabilistic measure, i.e. likelihood.
I agree. I don’t know how that disputes what I said.
I agree. Although you might be intentionally misunderstanding some words when it comes to evolution compared to quantum mechanics.- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.
I doubt it.
First, what would you consider sufficient evidence? I guess watching an animal turn into another animal, like a fish turning into a human or something.- This is the postulate of Evolutionary Theory: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Sufficient evidence is such that it makes the aforementioned postulate a scientific postulate,
Not fully understanding something does not mean it doesn’t occur
How does quantum mechanics indicate the theory of evolution is void? You might as well say that about general relativity.- Maybe this analogy will help. Back in the day they thought a duck is just a big clock, mechanical pieces attached together. It turns out it isn't. Evolution still looks at the duck as if it's a big clock. It really isn't. The problem with most people who believe Evolution is that they don't really understand its implications, but they trust the "experts" in what they tell them, because it's supposedly too technical. This is true for religion, where the followers trust in their leaders to have the knowledge they themselves do not have. Why is this the case here. Well established scientific theories in Physics can all be personally verifiable & checked with reasonable effort. You don't need a mathematician or a physicist to tell you the equation is accurate. This is not the case for Evolution.
That was a tangent which turned into projection of internal fears you have as a Muslim.
It wasn’t a direct response to what I asked and said.
By your standards quantum theory isn’t science.- Let's see... Plausible? It's one of the two foundational theories of all of Physics, & therefore all of Science. Simple? How about this GORGEOUS equation: HPsi = EPsi . Verifiable? It is called the most precisely tested theory in the history of Science. Falsifiable? You betcha, Quantum theory can predict the movement of trillions of trillions of electrons in your flash memory allowing you to store your data & read it safely. Accurate? Give me something else that measures down to 10 to the power of 16, that's 0.0000000000000001 margin of error. In short, if Quantum Theory isn't scientific, then nothing is.
So you do reaserch?
I care about truth.- Then seek it, it isn't in the evolutionary narrative. Not because you're an atheist you have to believe in this nonsense. Sooner or later they will run out of new syntheses (i.e. versions) of their story. & the whole thing will be dropped in the shameful basket of history just like Eugenics was dropped & forgotten.
Evolution like any other science is only a narrative if you make it one. Just because it conflicts with your personal Islamic beliefs.
No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.- It strictly does. You don't know what I'm talking about that's why you don't understand me. Go ask a chemist. You can not have Molecular Biology without Chemistry. You can not have Chemistry without Quantum Physics. Else, these disciplines will shrink back to 19th century level. This applies to engineering as well, you can not have Material Science or Computer Science... without Quantum Physics.
You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..
How about both? Not sure I fully understand your crankshaft analogy but I think I know what you’re getting at.- Both what?
You can acknowledge there’s mechanical properties of biology/chemistry/physics, etc while understanding there are quantum aspects.
The study of evolution covers countless scientific fields. I don’t know where to begin.- The story* of Evolution, yes! Ubiquitous, yet utterly useless. The theory of Evolution, regardless of its truth, has never produced a single useful thing.
The scientific fields that fall under evolution have.
They all point to common ancestors.- No they don't. That's what you've been indoctrinated to believe. If you have proof otherwise, by all means, the stage is yours.
Wait, you say no they don’t. Could you please explain because I’ve been brainwashed.
i.e. modern humans didn’t just show up out of no where.- It's ok to say "we don't know" & keep looking until you unravel the mysteries.
We’ll just keep on finding more and more of our ancestors which we’re closely related to genetically.
We can see that in the fossil and genetic record.- No we can't. Show me otherwise.
and again counterfactuals.
If we weren’t related to other animals, specifically mammals, animal (medical) test trials wouldn’t be useful for humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Unlike Islam or Christianity, science autocorrects itself.- Autocorrecting implies incorrectness. You've lost the argument before you even started.
There is no argument. I’m having a conversation with a child.
- Admit to yourself what you don’t know.
- Understand all humans can be wrong, and all humans can be corrected; No human is infallible.
- Acknowledge there are smarter people than you or I.
- Stay curious.
Neo-Darwinism is the last synthesis of Darwinian evolution. They scrap the previous syntheses & invent new stories, because they realize it was all fantasy exposed with new discoveries.
Aren’t new discoveries good?
They are at their 5th synthesis now, because of the Genome Project; comparative genealogy do not support the traditional tree of life they concocted.
Are you talking about the human genome project? Which tree of life are you talking about? I’m note sure how they would conflict. Please explain.
So far they are still arguing about what this extended synthesis is, because they are not sure what stories to tell before they know the facts. Like politicians.
Are you talking about science popularisers, or actual scientific study/experiments, peer review, replications?
The device your using is the product of countless hours of the later.
Science cares about truth and it looks inwards when disputing, while Islam/Christianity care about dominance and they look outwards.Science does not relate to truth in the slightest, it relates to accuracy & likelihood.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
True: in accordance with fact or reality.
Science cares about fact and reality.
But yes, you’re right too.
No scientific theory can ever be true, by design. Science practices an inductive reasoning, where one seeks a universal explanation (an abstract hypothesis) to a particular event (a concrete observable fact), by computation of frequency.
You’re conflating truth with what I call absolute truth.
In short: observations, then hypothesis explaining observations, then statistical comparison of results of hypothesis against new observations, then rinse & repeat. A good such hypothesis is a possible, plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate explanation:Plausible: intuitive & in harmony with the general scientific narrative.Simple: as opposed to complex, more complexions mean more assumptions.Verifiable: fits observable facts.Falsifiable: predicts new observable factsAccurate: quantitative postulate with minimal statistical margin of error.
I agree. Although you might be intentionally misunderstanding some words when it comes to evolution compared to quantum mechanics.
You’re the one fixated on “stories” and “narratives.”- You have it backwards. You have yet to produce any proof or evidence for the mythos that is the evolutionary narrative you subscribe to. Don't take my word for it, check the theory of evolution against the conditions required by the scientific method.
First, what would you consider sufficient evidence? I guess watching an animal turn into another animal, like a fish turning into a human or something.
Is the theory of evolution plausible? No, it isn't. It's a dumb reductionist theory in a quantum world.
How does quantum mechanics indicate the theory of evolution is void? You might as well say that about general relativity.
Simple? Absolutely not. It's the most convoluted expansive tale ever produced by Mankind. Verifiable? That's a joke. Falsifiable? Haha. It's the only known so-called theory that predicts Jack Schitt. Accurate? It doesn't predict anything or give us any measure of anything to even have the chance to be inaccurate, let alone accurate.
By your standards quantum theory isn’t science.
- I'm ready to provide proof for the Islamic narrative that I'm willing to debate it on this forum. Are you ready to provide evidence for your narrative?
I care about truth.
“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean.- Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory.
No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.
When you move the tip of your finger, it's not a crankshaft mechanism, instead countless quantum chemical reactions are in play, from the muscle tissue down to the cell & down to the molecules & down to the smallest particles involved.
How about both? Not sure I fully understand your crankshaft analogy but I think I know what you’re getting at.
It's impossible to explain biodiversity with imbecilic vacuous tales about similarity in bone structure & common ancestor. We must achieve a bottom-up understanding of biology, by expanding our understanding in physics, maybe even beyond quantum theory, then building up from elementary particles interactions up to the organic compounds (nucleic acids, lipids, proteins & carbohydrates), up to cell structure & so on. Hence, a quantum theory of biology, with actual equations & predictions.
The study of evolution covers countless scientific fields. I don’t know where to begin.
They all point to common ancestors.
i.e. modern humans didn’t just show up out of no where. We can see that in the fossil and genetic record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- Couldn't agree more, Darwin is the prophet of the religion that is Darwinism. Too bad he was found to be a false prophet, & his religion superseded by Neo-Darwinism.
Unlike Islam or Christianity, science autocorrects itself. Is this what you’re calling neo? Science cares about truth and it looks inwards when disputing, while Islam/Christianity care about dominance and they look outwards. You’re the one fixated on “stories” and “narratives.”
- Explains why you skipped the ideas & went right to the people... Charles...
“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“
That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@FLRW
@Sum1hugme
This must be that super intelligent debate that atheists talk about.
Gods that are omniscient and omnipotent obviously conflict with some fundamental religious principals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?
The “story” starts with Charles Darwin (pbuh). He was always fascinated with the natural world…
Long story short, great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Created:
Should Some gods be nerfed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
By the way, this what happens when religions make their gods too OP (over powered).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- I'm saying, God is not omnibenevolent as Christians believe. To say God is Good or God is Loving in the moral sense is blasphemous, for God is not contingent on moral principles or otherwise. God is Absolute. God does whatever He wills. God is All Merciful, in the sense that His mercy encompasses all things. The concept of 'Love' in Christianity is ludicrous to me. If God loves everyone, the murderer & the innocent, the ingrate & the devout, then God loves evil. The concept loses all its appeal & all sense.
The same could be said about “God is All Merciful, in the sense that His mercy encompasses all things.”
- Good & Evil in Islam are understood as relative notions. What may seem good today can be evil tomorrow, what may be evil here might be good somewhere else, what may be good for some might be evil for others. It's a matter of perspective. In that respect, God tries us with good & evil accordingly to test our faiths, our submission: "Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned." (35:112). Faith is only shown when tried: :"Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried?" (29:2).
Alright, so if Allah wills your family dead, this is a test for you to be submissive to Allah?
Keep in mind Allah planned everything before the universe was created.
- Free Will in Islam relates to intentions, not actions. Our actions are beyond our control: "And Allah created you and whatever you do"(37:96). We are rather accountable for our intentions: "Allah will call you to account for what you mean in your hearts." (2:225), according to the circumstances we have been given: "He is the One Who has placed you as overlords on earth and raised some of you higher than others in rank so He may test you by means of what He has given you."(6:165) "To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48).
Whatever happens is Allah’s will I guess. Allah didn’t make a very good religion.
- What are your questions?
Seems like we’re on the same page now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I’m asking you. Is Allah (God) not a loving god?- Not in the Christian sense. God is All Merciful.
It’s been scientifically shown swear words are pain/stress reliefs.
I suspect saying Allah, God, Jesus, Muhammad + pbuh, etc also works in the same way.
It would be interesting to see which people of faith are relieved more.
I’m saying it might reinforce the merciful God mentality.
Accountability to God who has already planned your fate?- You're trying to say things, yet you're not saying them. Say it. Make your arguments. Then, I can have things to respond to...
I’m asking questions. I want to understand.
Do you want to move onto the next topic?
We are still talking about an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent god who knew everything before creating the universe, correct?- Since yu're trying to prove some inconsistency, do you wish to have a debate about Free Will? The resolution could be something like: 'Free Will In Islam Is Coherent/Rational'.
I’m not great at formal debates. I find good faith conversations better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
What loving God would plan for people to go to Jahannam (Hell) before the universe was created?- Ask a Christian.
I’m asking you. Is Allah (God) not a loving god?
What is the point of “freewill” then?- Accountability.
Accountability to God who has already planned your fate?
We are still talking about an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent god who knew everything before creating the universe, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- Yeah, no.
We have probably talked to different Christians. Those I’ve spoken to say God is omniscient and omnipotent too.
Do we really have freewill then in regards to doing good and evil?- In a sense, yes.People going to Jahannam is part of God’s plan, correct?- Yes. Yes?
What loving God would plan for people to go to Jahannam (Hell) before the universe was created?
What is the point of “freewill” then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- Damn, awyt
awyt?
- Evidently not.
They do though.
So everything that happens is part of God’s plan?He knew for an eternity how everything would happen before he made the world.that’s a logical conclusion, correct?- You could say that, yes. Do you wanna debate anything...?
Do we really have freewill then in regards to doing good and evil?
People going to Jahannam is part of God’s plan, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Let’s go through one at a time.
- God = singular absolute necessary being. (absolute = omniscient & omnipotent)
That’s the same thing Christians say. So everything that happens is part of God’s plan?
He knew for an eternity how everything would happen before he made the world.
that’s a logical conclusion, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
General:God Is (God, as defined in the Islamic tradition of course)
How would you define him in Islam?
I don’t know much about Islam and Judaism as I do about Christianity.
But I assume God in all of them has a general theme.
Islam is true / Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet
By true prophet you mean God spoke through him? It’s a claim.
The Quran is faithfully preserved
I don’t doubt that. From what I know Islam was created during war times and gave structure to the people. Some concepts are bit outdated.
The Quran is a true revelation
It’s a claim.
Islam is a religion of peace
What do you mean Islam is a religion of peace exactly? Peace can mean ‘there will be peace if you do what I tell you to do.’
The Hadith tradition is genuine
Maybe.
Christianity vs. Islam:Tawhid vs. Trinity
As an atheist I find it Interesting, I did not know about Tawhid.
But from what I understand, the Trinity is three parts of a whole. I consider there’s more meaning in that.
Quran vs. Bible preservationQuran vs. NT preservation
I would say Quran wins. But that’s not necessarily a good thing.
Conservatism on its own doesn’t get you anywhere.
Truth of Quran vs. Bible
What do you mean by truth, and how do you know?
Quranic stories vs. Biblical stories
In what sense? How much meaning you interpret from them?
Quranic prophets vs. Biblical prophets
In what sense? Which are more virtuous? It might be a tough argument for you to make.
Free Will in Islam vs. Christianity
In what sense?
Salvation in Islam vs. Christianity
In what sense?
Worldview in Islam vs. Christianity
In what sense? World views in religion change all the time. Including religious sects.
Women's rights in Islam vs. Christianity
How?
Human rights in Islam vs. Christianity
Human rights isn’t an abrahamic argument to have.
History of Muslims vs. Christians
There’s a lot of history.
Science in relation to Islam vs. Christianity
Just because books say so, doesn’t make it science.
Islamic conquests vs. Christian conquests
Both are bad.
Secularism vs. Islam:Islamic state vs. Secular state
In what way?
Freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism
How? Secularism essentially mean it doesn’t play favourites with religion.
Islamic education vs. Secular education
How? Secular education isn’t bogged down by dogma.
Islamic ethics vs. Secular ethics
There’s no such thing as “secular ethics” apart from being anti-theocratic.
People are ethical regardless of religion.
Islamic history vs. Secular history
Freedom of religion vs. Islam. Alright.
Human rights in Islam vs. Secularism
Secularism doesn’t have a doctrine unlike religion.
Women's rights in Islam vs. Secularism
You don’t know what secularism is.
Islamic conquests vs. Secular conquests
Again, you don’t know what secularism is.
Hard challenges (for me):The Quran is better preserved than any other book in history
Yeah I guarantee it isn’t if you’re including books published yesterday.
Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the best attested to person in history
Yeah I guarantee he isn’t.
Islamic penal law is superior to Secular penal law
Secularism isn’t a whole doctrine. It just lets people not be bogged down by dogma so people can reason open and rationally.
History in Islamic tradition is superior to History in the Western tradition
I think the “Western” concept is pretty new. I don’t think it’s a single tradition or culture.
I think you would agree Islam doesn’t have a single tradition or culture either.
Although there are underlying pillars in both. Though one isn’t a religion.
The origin of Common Law is primarily Islamic Law
There are far older religions than Islam.
Eastern Christianity is superior to Western Christianity
I don’t know much about Eastern Christianity.
The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions
Definitely not. Though don’t know about all sects
The zionist cause of Israel is culpable
Depends on what cause you focus on. If you mean treating Palestinians as second class citizens then yeah.
The Jewish people have been oppressed for a millennium by Christian’s and Islamist’s. Do you think they should have a home?
Atheism is unattainable
How? We’re all born atheists (have a lack of faith on gods.)
Darwinian Evolution is more literature than science
Darwinism was first a hypothesis that turned out to be scientifically true.
Though not everything Darwin said was right. Scientists don’t treat founders of scientific fields as prophets.
Subsaharan Africa adopted civilization before White Europe (non-Mediterranean)
I would agree with that. Don’t you?
Nicholas Copernicus is a plagerist
I don’t know enough about him.
Classical Physics is primarily an Islamic invention
I’m sure many people from Islam invented stuff.
The Arab race is the most influential race in history
Western civilisation is built upon many things from the Middle East and North Africa.
Democracy is a terrible government system
It’s great when it functions correctly, not when it isn’t corrupted by money and power.
Erdogan vs. any current European leader
Erdogan has been known to go after journalists, help Isis and repress the Kurds that fought Isis.
The Islamic world will surpass the Western world by 2050
In what way?
The Belt & Road project is good
It’s better than traditional imperialism.
China will surpass the Western world by 2040
China is catching up to America.
The world order will go back to its pre-Western dominion by 2070
What do you mean?
China has already surpassed the US
Almost.
The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state
Until it can’t handle the corruption anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
@Nyxified
By Sadolite’s standards, all he has to do is win the literal lottery.
The alimony will hit hard though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just pointing out the irony of using the products of capitalism to criticize capitalism.
Yeah, that isn’t a new one. Zero substance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you get to choose what electronic device to own to type that claim or were you forced to create your own device?I find it ironic and silly that anti-capitalists use high technology that they personally own to explain why the means of owning said high technology is bad.
Believe it or not, nuance and constructive criticism exists. What if I flip the script and say you aren’t patriotic if you dissuade people from criticising the system they’re born into.
Many of the anti-capitalistic arguments seem similar to the philosophy of a Luddite, wishing for a time where nearly all of the purchasing choices and the responsibilities that accompanied those choices were extremely limited.
Umm okay.
Created:
Posted in:
Are You Really Free Under Capitalism?
I’m surprised no one has brought up how capitalism is anti-democratic. Both domestically and abroad. Inside the workplace and outside.
If you only look at it from a consumption/consumer perspective, there might be an argument to have.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So where did he say America was made for a religious nation?
We should separate opinions from official documents.
“Politicks” is written.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Again, you said “He (John Adams) made it clear: America was made for a religious nation.”
I then tell you about the Treaty of Tripoli he signed which states, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Now you say:
just because adams said that the US has no trangressions against muslims doesnt mean he undermined Christianity
Your moving the goalpost into obscurity.
Do you admit you’re wrong?
Created:
-->
@Vader
U playing in this game
No
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution, the fathers understood the influence of Christianity
What SkepticalOne said.
also the quote is in reference to how the US doesnt have muslims as enemies, its not against christianity
You said “he (John Adams) made it clear: america was made for a religious nation.”
I asked which religion due to the Treaty of Tripoli Adams signed. I don’t think it would be an Abrahamic religion because of the same god and all that.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
thats not at all what john was sayinghe made it clear: america was made for a religious nation
He signed the Treaty of Tripoli which states, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
So which religion is it?
plus religious people are more moral than nonlook at franklin's quote too-"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”
It seems you consider virtue exclusive to religion. Franklin claimed to be a deist, he didn’t moralise religion.
guess what- we dont have freedom because we arent moral
By your own standards are you saying you aren’t religious?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@fauxlaw
"...our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and was wholly inadequate for the government of any other."' - John Adamshey thats one of my favorite quotes!
I’m probably gonna give John too much credit, but in 100 years people such as yourselves will be quoting physicists about the “God particle.” Intelligent people often have to dumb down their language to appease.
If you guys agree that non-religious people can do good and religious people can do bad, then it’s an irrelevant quote.
It’s truism that societies don’t last if people just do bad things. This is what true virtue signalling looks like.
Created:
I just learnt about this the other day.
Thoughts?
This is such a checkmate move against online reactionary conservatives.
Arguments in no particular order:
- Allah means God in Arabic. Christians that speak Arabic say Allah.
- Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all have the same God.
- Freedom of speech.
- Freedom of religion.
- The student is probably getting death threats.
- Under God was added to the pledge in the mid 1950’s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polyglot
Time adds up. Twelve lessons of ending the class 5 minutes early turns into an hour.
Maybe the time can be spent giving them goals for outside of class and talking about it the next lesson.
Created:
Posted in:
Hmm, not many of these are thought provoking.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The question asks what would you ideally do, not what you would ideally wear/have.
Do you understand?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I was asking for the best course of action one could take to survive. In other words the ideal.
But no, that description would still not make sense to you because you could still say you would use your jet pack, jeep, levitation powers, lion hypnoses gun, etc, etc, etc even though “Ideally” isn’t the sole contributor of the scenario. It would be meaningless if it was.
If I just asked what would you do, some dickhead such as yourself would swing to the other side of the pendulum to be defeatist.
By the way, did you read #1? I just realised you probably didn’t.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Your ideal is absent from context.
Created:
Posted in:
I’ll get it started.
Does the hair of females grow faster than males?
My thought process went something like this:
hmm I’m due for a hair cut. I only need one every 6 months.
Do women’s hair grow faster than males? That probably would make evolutionary sense.
After a quick google search it seems men’s hair grows faster.
Which thinking about it makes more evolutionary sense (for protection.)
There’s a theory about beards being a cushion for hard hitting blows also.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What words would you have liked me to include? That Zedvictor is a twat?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you want to play that game, I didn’t say end up.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ideally, allows for an infinity of hypotheticals.Ideally, I would end up in the showers after a women's beach volleyball match, and be put in charge of the gel.
Ideally, within context, allows for the ideal course of action in said scenario.
Rather than what you would actually do; that is develop a digestive system which allows for shitting and running at the same time.
Created:
Let’s say there’s a couple of lions and all you have on you is clothes.
Rescue won’t arrive for three minutes.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Aaand you?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
So something like “what is dark matter” is currently speculative, that dark matter exists, or the Big Bang occurred is not.
Kinda like gravity. I’ll see myself out.
Created:
Posted in:
A man walks into a bar looking miserable. The bartender looks over and asks the man, “why so down?”
The man replies, “I understand now why dogs are man’s best friend. They fuck your wife as soon as you leave the house.”
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
@oromagi
Thanks guys. My thoughts were two untangled particles are in the same exact state.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Quantum communication is FTL. Right?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Can you tell me why it doesn’t make sense?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Are you interested in finding out though?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Do you know what I’m trying to get at though? Can you walk me through it?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m curious about frame of reference. What would each observer experience if said conditions are meet?
Does/can quantum communication slice through curvature of time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Well you said you wouldn’t vote for me so I feed you part of Trump’s campaign announcement speech instead.
I’m starting to understand how Ebuc feels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
That was part of Trump’s 2016 campaign announcement speech to run for president.
Created: