Sad
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Science Lesson For The Atheists

In occidental culture, in general, the believers promulgate the apparent illusion of their possession of a superior morality. Why? Because it perpetuates their ideology. Their world view. "You don't believe what I believe so you're going to hell." How myopic and obtuse. Because religion, in that culture specifically, either as a result of the ideology or to support it, took upon itself political adversity with the emerging intelligentsia. Since that adversary arose from the illusion and the obvious logical flaws it had incorporated historically - hypocrisy, ignorance, xenophobia, oppression, repression, and violence through military, legislative and social dominance - by support of the masses, there are some important lessons to be learned from it.

The teachings of the believers was full of holes. They weren't harmonious with the source. In order for, or as a result of the implementation of their sociopolitical illusion it was necessarily so. Their ideology wasn't compatible with their teachings. That doesn't matter. It's a small sacrifice because their ideology is what became important.

So, there's this reality created from that transmogrification of the source and mythology. If I had to define religion that's pretty much how I would put it. That's also how I would describe the world around me. Reality. The sacred and profane. Secular and religious. Quixotic and mundane.

So there is this logical excursion that should be derived from this turn of events. Critically examine, explore, educate, illuminate. Or, instead, just repeat it. Argue, judge, sentence and eliminate. Become your enemy. Just another side of the ideological coin of reality. The world view.

[Laughs] My theory is that the latter is what is happening to science. That's what I mean when I say "the end" is near and that science will destroy the world. Science isn't a religion, it's a byproduct of religion. Created by religion: the student becomes the master. Science is not only eliminating religion it is surpassing it.

The lesson for atheists, or just the unbeliever, is that it doesn't matter if religion and the Bible is wrong and nonsense, because it is the formed "reality" and instead of arguing what is right and wrong, perhaps you should look at it like that.

From my perspective, from my Biblically founded perception of reality, it's done. So, stopping it isn't anywhere near my priority. My priority is simply observation.

That's why I want an exchange of ideas here. I want to learn, not from the books of science, but from adversity. Both sides. Without the propaganda.

It astounds me that those who wear scientific methodology on their sleeves are painfully unaware or unwilling to do that. Not for the historical preservation of the vanquished. To educate so as not to repeat history. But rather, for the ideological replacement.

Right and wrong. Us and them. A far more compelling process than science. As it had been with the adversary. So the illusion propagated by the unbelievers is of intellectual superiority.

Yeah, I know, I know. It is funny. So is the illusion of the religious of moral superiority.

So . . . if I'm right in my Biblically founded perspective then you will attempt to destroy all that I believe in but God will intervene. Science will be taken from your cold dead hands and placed into mine. Not by me. Not by my argument or my violence. By God. So, if I'm wrong nothing happens through my will.

If you're right you will destroy first science and then the world.

If I'm right everyone who follows ideological science will be destroyed. If you're right everyone will be destroyed.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
nedkelly · 61-69, M
Women can have babies only - Scientific fact

Anyone can have a baby - Activist

male can have abortions - Activist
@nedkelly [quote]Women can have babies only - Scientific fact

Anyone can have a baby - Activist

male can have abortions - Activist[/quote]

Huh.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you pointing out an ideological obsession or are you a part of one by supporting and defending another?

So, let's look at it. Women can have babies only. Scientific fact.

No. Women only can have babies, yes. But it takes fertilization which requires males. And, women can do other things. So, science doesn't promulgate facts. They investigate and as best as they currently can, offer their findings. They don't, or they shouldn't, spout dogma. So, they don't have a dog in the race. Of course, like religion, science can be used by idiots to do that. Just look around.

Next, anyone can have a baby. Well, okay. No. Some can't so they adopt. Notice I say they. Some can't afford or want a baby.

Male can have abortions. I guess this is where you throw me off. I don't pay attention to fake news and the big noise made by a small crowd amplified by the media. So . . . I can only say males (other than male doctors) don't abort a fetus but males can be a deciding force in those that do. To abort or not abort.

Edited to add: by the way, abortion is prohibited by the Bible. Meaning that those who follow the Bible don't have abortions. Not meaning that they should have any say about anyone outside of that realm of influence should or shouldn't have abortions.

It isn't their place. It's a part of that ideology I mention in the OP. It's fake morality to oppose abortion.
nedkelly · 61-69, M
@AkioTsukino Have a look at this link - activist in USA Congress


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2690893/Abortion-activist-Congress-Men-pregnant-birth.html
nedkelly · 61-69, M
@AkioTsukino[media=https://youtu.be/CHZIvmbiZyc]
@nedkelly [quote]Have a look at this link - activist in USA Congress[/quote]

I sometimes will do that if it really is important, but not for political reasons. I'm apolitical. That means the nonsense being hammered out in congress and the media. Just isn't important to me. No matter what direction it goes.
This message was deleted by its author.
@nedkelly The fact that so many people don't understand the difference between sex and gender is a testament to how uneducated Americans are.
This message was deleted by its author.
@AkioTsukino They're unindoctrinated for being objectively wrong about something?
@BohemianBoo You'll have to be more specific by explanation. How are they objectively wrong?

Sex: 1. (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.

2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Gender: 1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

2. (in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.

Where did Oxford dictionary and I screw that up?
@AkioTsukino

Actually, that dictionary is pretty accurate. The only thing it got wrong is that male and female only refer to biological sex, not gender. Gender is boy/man, girl/woman, and non-binary.
But other than that, it's correct. Sex is determined by biology, whereas gender is determined by social and cultural traits as well as personal identity.
@BohemianBoo Non-binary is not relating to, composed of, or involving just two things. I thought the dictionary indicated that. Indirectly, perhaps, but I thought it did. Maybe you didn't see it?

Biologically the sex you refer to is the act, not the gender? Wouldn't sex acts be non-binary; orientation and sex (male/female) be biological. It appears to me you confuse the two for a sociopolitical reason currently popular?
@AkioTsukino Sure, but non-binary in this context refers to people that don't identify as part of the gender binary.

So it sounds like you didn't understand the dictionary definition at all. What it's saying is that one definition of sex is the act, but the second definition is the two biological categories, male and female.

[quote]2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.[/quote]

And then gender, as it said, is about identity, society, and culture.

[quote]especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.[/quote]

It's tricky because for a long time, we all accepted the difference between sex and gender. But now Fascists have realized they can discriminate against trans people by pretending that the two are one thing. And a lot of Useful Idiots are falling for it.
But thankfully, we cleared it up for you, yes?
@BohemianBoo Okay. The first definition the dictionary gave was sexual activity. It doesn't specify the details. Having sex. Gay sex, bi-sex, trans-sex, etc. We agree, I think. The second definition of the same specifies two sexes. Male and female. Here is where we disagree, maybe. I'm not sure. But no matter how you look at it you can't deny the obvious. Male. Female. Nothing else. Unless, of course, you are talking about hermaphrodites, in which case there is male and female simultaneously.

On gender the dictionary said: especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

I didn't expect that but it isn't problematic. I'm a homosexual who no longer practices homosexuality (the sexual act). I don't think that is biologically driven, it is, in my opinion, a learned behavior. But no one knows. So, that pretty much conveys your stance, correct? The definition of gender? It isn't biological male/female it is what one identifies with in reference to social and cultural yada yada.

When I was born homosexuality was bad. Real bad. (Mr. Mackey) Now it isn't. So the social and cultural perception changes, but it takes time.

[quote]It's tricky because for a long time, we all accepted the difference between sex and gender. But now Fascists have realized they can discriminate against trans people by pretending that the two are one thing.[/quote]

Hmmm. Let me think. First of all that seems backwards. Secondly it may very well mistake who are the fascists, but that term is a low blow anyway. It's very presence is problematic.

[quote]And a lot of Useful Idiots are falling for it.[/quote]

Yeah. Well, that's life. Some think that they can do what's never been done, win what's never been won. Meantime life outside goes on all around them. A lot of idiots in the world. Just take care you don't become one.

[quote]But thankfully, we cleared it up for you, yes?[/quote]

I've watched friends of mine deteriorate with aids. I've seen their spiritual interest which, for some unexplained reason is often very strong. More so than usual. I've stood on the battle grounds. And in the gay bars and roadside rest stops. I've embraced my gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans friends. Straight cross dressers, gay drag queens . . . and though I'm old and all of that is well behind me, I will not forget.

Having said that I feel your passion. Maybe pain. And I respect it. But I see the possibility of it going very wrong.

It kind of fits in this thread. Perhaps too much? Thank you for "clearing it up for me." I appreciate it.
@AkioTsukino [quote]Male and female. Here is where we disagree, maybe. I'm not sure. But no matter how you look at it you can't deny the obvious. Male. Female. Nothing else. Unless, of course, you are talking about hermaphrodites, in which case there is male and female simultaneously.[/quote]

Yes, biological sex categories are purely genetic. So male, female, and intersex.
This is why sex can't be changed, but gender can be. A male can be a woman if she identifies as a woman.

[quote] didn't expect that but it isn't problematic. I'm a homosexual who no longer practices homosexuality (the sexual act). I don't think that is biologically driven, it is, in my opinion, a learned behavior. But no one knows. So, that pretty much conveys your stance, correct? [/quote]

Sexual orientation is distinct from gender. A person's sexual orientation is mostly biological. There may be some environmental causes too, but according to everything we know, it seems most likely that it's biological.

[quote]Hmmm. Let me think. First of all that seems backwards. Secondly it may very well mistake who are the fascists, but that term is a low blow anyway. It's very presence is problematic.[/quote]

It's only a low blow when used as an insult, but that's not what I'm doing. Right now we have lots of fascist groups in the West who are using the fear of trans people to gain power. This is especially happening in America, Russia, Poland, Hungary, and France.
Fascists always do this. They find a minority group that people aren't knowledgeable about, they stoke fear, and then they claim only a "strong man with traditional values" can save us. Much like the Trumpian Republicans and their lies about LGBT people being a danger to children.
@BohemianBoo [quote]Yes, biological sex categories are purely genetic. So male, female, and intersex.[/quote]

No, just male and female. I'm not familiar with intersex as a concept, so I don't feel comfortable forming an opinion on the subject. I've glossed over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex but that seems ambiguous. You can elaborate on that if you like, but it seems to me, just at a glance, now, that sexual characteristics can be physical or behavioral. The wiki page says that "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%." (With a source)

That would seem to indicate to me that the majority by a substantial margin are behavioral. To me that doesn't invalidate intersexuality (term ?) but it does nevertheless mean there isn't male, female and intersex categories. The intersex category would remain either male of female, correct?

[quote]This is why sex can't be changed, but gender can be. A male can be a woman if she identifies as a woman.[/quote]

Perhaps that is the case, but it seems that you are conflating the two. Sex and gender. Sex is male or female. Intersex is gender. Am I wrong?

[quote]Sexual orientation is distinct from gender. A person's sexual orientation is mostly biological. There may be some environmental causes too, but according to everything we know, it seems most likely that it's biological.[/quote]

That seems ambiguous to me as well. Sex. Male or female. Biological. For almost everyone. Orientation is distinct from gender, as far as I can tell, but has nothing to do with that. Again, it seems you are conflating sex with orientation. If a person is born a male or a female their orientation isn't dependent upon that. You may identify as the opposite sex you were born as, and that's fine, but that doesn't make you the sex you identify with.

My perspective is anecdotal, but it seems to me you are distorting. You say "everything we know . . ." what studies? What sources? Who is we? What is everything?

[quote]It's only a low blow when used as an insult, but that's not what I'm doing. Right now we have lots of fascist groups in the West who are using the fear of trans people to gain power. This is especially happening in America, Russia, Poland, Hungary, and France.[/quote]

I'm sure that is true but you can easily flip that around.

[quote]Fascists always do this. They find a minority group that people aren't knowledgeable about, they stoke fear, and then they claim only a "strong man with traditional values" can save us. Much like the Trumpian Republicans and their lies about LGBT people being a danger to children.[/quote]

Well, that doesn't tell me anything. I do know that the LGBT are idiots. The louder they get the more apparent that becomes to everyone. And it also tells me that you are speaking from a sociopolitical perspective, which would likely warp the shit out of that perspective. Best not do that.

The thread is, at least in part, about how destructive ideology is. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it remains destructive. But, I mean, you know. I think people who are afflicted by this should do what they think is right, without "fascists" on either side. That, unfortunately, is unlikely if it all becomes politicized. Which it has.
nedkelly · 61-69, M
@AkioTsukino Did you know he is a democrat, and believes in Santa and The Easter Bunny
@AkioTsukino [quote]No, just male and female. I'm not familiar with intersex as a concept, so I don't feel comfortable forming an opinion on the subject[/quote]

Intersex are people who can't really be considered male or female on a biological level. This is a pretty small minority, though. Hermaphrodites are considered intersex.

[quote]Perhaps that is the case, but it seems that you are conflating the two. Sex and gender. Sex is male or female. Intersex is gender. Am I wrong?[/quote]

No, intersex is a sex category because it's genetically determined.
Non-binary is gender because it's determined by identity and culture. Anyone can be non-binary, but only people born intersex can be intersex.

[quote] Again, it seems you are conflating sex with orientation. If a person is born a male or a female their orientation isn't dependent upon that. [/quote]

Yes, that's what I said. Orientation is distinct from sex and gender.

[quote]The thread is, at least in part, about how destructive ideology is. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it remains destructive. But, I mean, you know. I think people who are afflicted by this should do what they think is right, without "fascists" on either side. That, unfortunately, is unlikely if it all becomes politicized. Which it has.[/quote]

The people I'm talking about are objectively Fascists. As in they want to eliminate Democracy and justify it by claiming we need to go back to tradition. And as is typical, they're blaming it on a minority group.
I don't like Democrats either, but at least they believe in Democracy and human rights. The Republicans are literal Fascists. And they want you to be afraid of LGBT people so you think what they're doing is ok.