Pics For Sharing & Debating

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It wasn't a backpedal. It was a specific word choice intended ........

<SNIP>

as only can know your intent we can leave aside intent.

You stated science, not the misuse or misinterpretation of science.

Who are you to rank the commandments? In order, the first four are all about how insecure god is and then ten mentions your neighbours slave, which more recently was sanitized to mean 'servant'.

Xtians are such egomaniacs.....



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<SNIP>

as only can know your intent we can leave aside intent.

You stated science, not the misuse or misinterpretation of science.

We do not leave aside my intent. The statement stands as set out. "Many have used science to justify racism, slavery and other evils". The statement neither defines nor passes judgment on the validity or invalidity of the science used. It simply contains the same logical fallacy that claiming "many have used Christianity to justify racism, slavery and other evils" does.

You, of course, don't see the equivalency because your knowledge of theology and Christianity appears to fit in a teaspoon and your ability to perform any critical thinking about the possible existence of things beyond the perception of our five senses is simply non-existent.

Okay ... so maybe that last paragraph scored a few points on the arrogance scale.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<SNIP>

as only can know your intent we can leave aside intent.

You stated science, not the misuse or misinterpretation of science.

Who are you to rank the commandments? In order, the first four are all about how insecure god is and then ten mentions your neighbours slave, which more recently was sanitized to mean 'servant'.

Xtians are such egomaniacs.....



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

For some reason (not the missing you) the bolded sentence made me laugh. Let's just leave intent out of all discussions going forward. Intent serves no purpose. Intent is in the eye of the intender so no one else can ever be expected (because we can obviously set aside context, and grammatical structure, and word usage) to understand intent.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

For some reason (not the missing you) the bolded sentence made me laugh. Let's just leave intent out of all discussions going forward. Intent serves no purpose. Intent is in the eye of the intender so no one else can ever be expected (because we can obviously set aside context, and grammatical structure, and word usage) to understand intent.

The god botherer didn't make his intent clear, he changed the thrust of his argument by stating the following:

"Science, however, has most certainly been used to justify racism. "

Then changing it to:

"perversions of the scientific process have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses".

Mmmm, intent! Smells like 'BACKPEDAL'!

In my defence (because I'm Anglo-American) I was typing on my cell phone when I left off the 'You' whilst working on a complicated system install at work. I'm far more relaxed now.

CRedskinsRule, you seem to be an expert in reading 'intent' in a communication. What am I intending to call you, right now? Should be easy, right?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

The god botherer didn't make his intent clear, he changed the thrust of his argument by stating the following:

"Science, however, has most certainly been used to justify racism. "

Then changing it to:

"perversions of the scientific process have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses".

Mmmm, intent! Smells like 'BACKPEDAL'!

In my defence (because I'm Anglo-American) I was typing on my cell phone when I left off the 'You' whilst working on a complicated system install at work. I'm far more relaxed now.

CRedskinsRule, you seem to be an expert in reading 'intent' in a communication. What am I intending to call you, right now? Should be easy, right?

LOL I am pretty sure you intended to call me a "saint", with all the connotations that you might personally ascribe to them.

JR's first sentence and second sentence don't have any form of backpedal in them. The first takes the general noun of "SCIENCE" (for my purposes said in a cute and cuddly penguin voice) and the second shows the form of "SCIENCE" which has definitely been used by humans with bad INTENT to do bad things.

Substituting RELIGION (in cute and cuddly pope voice LOL[ LOL is included for showing intent of making a joke]) and "perversion of religious precepts" in the above two sentences gives you:

RELIGION(Science), however, has most certainly been used to justify racism.

perversions of the religious precepts(perversions of the scientific process) have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses

Pretty clear that JR was, as he later said, trying to provoke a realization of a logical fallacy.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

LOL I am pretty sure you intended to call me a "saint", with all the connotations that you might personally ascribe to them.

You have a couple of letters missing, some in the wrong order, but, yeah.....close.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

JR's first sentence and second sentence don't have any form of backpedal in them. The first takes the general noun of "SCIENCE" (for my purposes said in a cute and cuddly penguin voice) and the second shows the form of "SCIENCE" which has definitely been used by humans with bad INTENT to do bad things.

Did JR state "Science, however, has most certainly been used to justify racism". He did. So you're saying he's free to change the meaning of what was said to suit an argument he's losing. Otay.....

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Substituting RELIGION (in cute and cuddly pope voice LOL[ LOL is included for showing intent of making a joke]) and "perversion of religious precepts" in the above two sentences gives you:

RELIGION(Science), however, has most certainly been used to justify racism.

Yawn.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

perversions of the religious precepts(perversions of the scientific process) have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses

Pretty clear that JR was, as he later said, trying to provoke a realization of a logical fallacy.

Which politician are you a speechwriter for?

We're lucky to have you helping out.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Did JR state "Science, however, has most certainly been used to justify racism". He did. So you're saying he's free to change the meaning of what was said to suit an argument he's losing.

An argument I was losing?!?! There you go knocking chess pieces over again. I'll probably find a steamer on my kitchen floor too.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

An argument I was losing?!?! There you go knocking chess pieces over again. I'll probably find a steamer on my kitchen floor too.

It's in the corner, you won't spot it until it's dried.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

An argument I was losing?!?! There you go knocking chess pieces over again. I'll probably find a steamer on my kitchen floor too.

You're trying to make Science = Religion or Religion = Science.

This will help you understand the difference:

Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not

Humans are naturally inclined to look to agents, their states of mind, and their actions as the bases for explanations. Such inclinations of mind importantly contribute to the attraction of religions and to the attraction of religious explanations – explanations not only of matters of social and psychological import but of the origins and foundational principles of the cosmos.

And

Although not typically recognized as such, the emergence of the cognitive and brain sciences over the past fifty years marks the beginning of on-going scientific enterprises that often eschew explanatory appeals to agency and intentionality in us! This is not to suggest that contemporary social, cognitive, or even brain science has ceased to refer to agents and their mental states, but only to say that the broader trend is clear within these sciences and within modern science more generally.
Critics of religion have usually underestimated the cleverness and creativity with which new generations of theologians have managed scientific challenges, but the historical pattern to which I am pointing may signal far greater challenges ahead. Accommodationist theologies that abandon all reference to agents are unlikely to have much popular appeal.

Science doesn't tell you that your choices will condemn you to a painful or pleasant afterlife dependent on your adherence to some choices made in this life. Science is pure, it has no bias.

Is that what your secondary argument was supposed to explain, JR?