Pics For Sharing & Debating

[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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

Nope. Just blatantly wrong. Your inability to grasp the precepts of rhetorical logic is stunning.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Nope. Just blatantly wrong. Your inability to grasp the precepts of rhetorical logic is stunning.

Then we'll agree that your explanation was inefficient, communication is key.

What 'just blatantly wrong' do you refer to? Construct complete, coherent sentences, please, that way you can't change direction when you get shown to be wrong.

More bait, JR. Push back!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Then we'll agree that your explanation was inefficient, communication is key.

What 'just blatantly wrong' do you refer to? Construct complete, coherent sentences, please, that way you can't change direction when you get shown to be wrong.

More bait, JR. Push back!

LOL --

My statement was, as previously explained, intended as bait for the logically impaired. A trait that, for someone critiques others so fiercely for their failures of the same, you seem to be oblivious to in yourself.

Complete sentences? Why .. you just impose whatever meaning is convenient to your point regardless of context, ignore arguments you can't refute and, generally, pretend the rules of rhetoric are inapplicable to every pearl of wisdom you dane to share with us poor uninitiated.


lol ... always a pleasure.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

LOL --

My statement was, as previously explained, intended as bait for the logically impaired. A trait that, for someone critiques others so fiercely for their failures of the same, you seem to be oblivious to in yourself.

Complete sentences? Why .. you just impose whatever meaning is convenient to your point regardless of context, ignore arguments you can't refute and, generally, pretend the rules of rhetoric are inapplicable to every pearl of wisdom you dane to share with us poor uninitiated.


lol ... always a pleasure.

Your so called bait was backtracking on a statement that everyone could see as inherently incorrect.

Please pose an argument I've failed to refute.

Is that a Great Dane or deign I ask?