Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

HimSar

Minister (2k+ posts)
This!
Do you know that the studies with outright negative or outlandish, cooked results also get highly cited. In negation. So citation index is not directly proportional to the strength of results, always.
Do you know that your pubmed article is a popular science review, sponsored by not any scientific lab but a media deptt., where the author discusses the changing views towards the, again, ass-umed gay gene and its paraphrenelia?
Do you know you're scientifically discussing, the holy grail of male homosexuality industry?
Do you know that you're, again, showing how bifurcated your so-called morality scale is when, you keep misquoting, misinterpreting and misconstruing religion to support your pet notion about the tortures on female slaves, yet you hardly seem to be bothered by the lack of mention of a lesbian gene in the holy science texts that you're shoving around?
Do they know?

Sure but also check the number of citations. Articles with more citations tend to be more credible than ones with few or no citations.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
You have dug yourself into a hole bro.

Im not talking about history, I am talking about Qurans guidance with regard to slavery. If you are a Muslim then I am sure you agree that Quran is meant to be a guidance for all times not just a specific time in history.

So let me ask you a question and prove me a liar once and for all...

1. what is the instruction given in this book of guidance for all time about slavery? Is it allowed or is it haraam like pork and wine?

2. What is the instructions in Quran regarding sex slaves? Are you allowed to have sex with your female slaves or not?

Slavery is thoroughly discussed in Quran so it shouldnt be hard for you to answer these.

I am waiting for your answers. Cheers!

Oh you sick skewed sod. Your zeroing in on history's elements pertaining to specific situations and twisted made up interpretations of those say everything about you and your very peculiar religious down bringing, whether it was done to you or you subjected yourself to it. Hope you get peace, and if you're by any chance in science, God forbid, then an open, unbiased, discerning approach and ability to critically evaluate, appreciate and accept evidence.
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Im not trying to convince you as you are not looking for the truth.

We already agreed that intuition is not a reliable path way to truth. Yet in the end you made a 180 and came back to intuition that you feel that God is necessary condition for existence of Universe. And we agreed that the most reliable method to get to the truth is to follow the evidence.

If you cared about the truth you wouldn't make that statement.

1) I think your motivation to be in this debate is not about discovering truth.

2) Its not about changing my position on religion.

3) The sole reason why you sticked around so long is that you hold a belief but you have certain doubts in your mind, and these doubts are making you uneasy about the position that you hold.

4) This feeling is called cognitive dissonance. When you hold 2 or more beliefs that contradict each other. For example you believe in the super natural, but then discover that everything that we have learned in our reality has a natural explanation.

5) So your motivation is to somehow ease that pesky cognitive dissonance and/or to somehow justify the irrational belief that you hold.

6) This is the reason why you will go to zero credibility sources such as creationist videos and reject the highest credibility scientists who dedicated their life to study chemistry, biochemistry and biology, and you will try to dispute 100s of years of human knowledge. Why? Because of that pesky cognitive dissonance.


I noticed this very early on that you stopped trying to argue with me but rather started trying to find reasons to justify your beliefs. The reason is that I noticed this with almost every religious individual that got deeper into the debate with me. Including my own family members.
to an extent yeah..its not that easy to detach oneself from his/her belief

but we are not there yet..science has only started to doubt peoples beliefs
it has yet to give complete alternative

whatever u call it creation/order/design..the first view is
Designer
the second is randomness..which after a certain point is directed

the second one is not yet completed..there are so many ifs and buts
multiverse..this that

like for example if (according to u) we were able to assign probability to life occurring naturally and it turn out to be low we will need multiverse

or maybe multi multi verse for when we talk in probability terms we dont say that "the probability is low but impossibility is zero" when ever the probability of something is low u will need multiple iteration for it..so one multiverse life could hatch but probability is low..another multiverse life could hatch but couldnt bcz probability is low..another multiverse probability is low but it happend. It has togo like this

the rzn i left the debate is not bcz i ran out of arguments ?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Just to make it clear.

If science cannot give you an alternative that doesn't mean the answer is God.

So forget about multi-verse, simulation, big bang, randomness lets assume we cannot prove any of those. The answer does not automatically become God.

You still need evidence to support your God claim.

This is what is called an argument from ignorance. I dont know what caused the universe, therefore God did it.


Watch this video carefully


to an extent yeah..its not that easy to detach oneself from his/her belief

but we are not there yet..science has only started to doubt peoples beliefs
it has yet to give complete alternative

whatever u call it creation/order/design..the first view is
Designer
the second is randomness..which after a certain point is directed

the second one is not yet completed..there are so many ifs and buts
multiverse..this that

like for example if (according to u) we were able to assign probability to life occurring naturally and it turn out to be low we will need multiverse

or maybe multi multi verse for when we talk in probability terms we dont say that "the probability is low but impossibility is zero" when ever the probability of something is low u will need multiple iteration for it..so one multiverse life could hatch but probability is low..another multiverse life could hatch but couldnt bcz probability is low..another multiverse probability is low but it happend. It has togo like this

the rzn i left the debate is not bcz i ran out of arguments ?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Perfect. We can have a reasoned argument on this topic and say we care about humans because they are intelligent beings and then extend it to, we should care about other animals that are also intelligent such as Chimps, Gorillas, Bonobos, Dogs and Cattle.

just to undertand..why should it only be person only
why not include animal plant etc as well
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Perfect. We can have a reasoned argument on this topic and say we care about humans because they are intelligent beings and then extend it to, we should care about other animals that are also intelligent such as Chimps, Gorillas, Bonobos, Dogs and Cattle.
a little confusing..
what should be the basis of morality..
to not swing my hand so that it doesnt hit an intelligent being ?
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Just to make it clear.

If science cannot give you an alternative that doesn't mean the answer is God.

So forget about multi-verse, simulation, big bang, randomness lets assume we cannot prove any of those. The answer does not automatically become God.

You still need evidence to support your God claim.

This is what is called an argument from ignorance. I dont know what caused the universe, therefore God did it.


Watch this video carefully

i will watch the video in a while

do u agree that humans are political animals as well
there are many roads here..
1.believe in a God (which according to u) is tyrant immoral etc.
2.wait for evidence for another explanation or even no explanation

what should i choose keeping in mind His existence is not ye falsified
 
Last edited:

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Doc.... I am grateful to your effort for taking time out of your busy schedule for this debate.

But Doc, I cannot find any evidence of your "Gay gene" theory in all your referenced stuff.

The fact remains "There is no study which replicated the findings of the gay gene", specifically in an "
in vitro" setting.

I guess you do not understand the way scientific exploration works through the system of research and research analysis. Neither you seem to have a grip on the subject of Biology.

Now you are referring to "Fraternal Birth Order and its correlates to homosexuality", which is an "
in vivo" analysis of human behavior and other correlates.

Now if you are trying to prove a hypothesis which demands an "
in vitro" analysis with a study having an "in vivo" framework, the I guess you are literally comparing apples with oranges.

To elucidate further, if you say that there exists a gene for stealing in people, then you have to carry out an analysis of the genetic code of the thieves in a laboratory, to exactly find that gene, its location on the chromosomes etc.

Saying that you have observed a tendency of being a gay in people who have a greater number of older male siblings, is just an observation, not a "Genetic finding" to corroborate with your hypothesis of existence of a "Gay gene".
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I am not a biologist but I understand the big picture and the logic. There is a scientific consensus that there is a genetic factor behind human behaviour along with a list of other facts such as nuture and psychological.

Even if you cannot isolate the specific part of the genome that leads to homosexuality it doesn't mean there is no genetic/hormonal. You can find other evidence that hint towards a genetic cause of homosexuality.

For example having older brothers may mean a hormonal/genetic imbalance in younger siblings which can be taken as a hint of hormones/genetics causing homosexuality rather environmental factors.

When there are multiple studies that fall on the same conclusion which does not involve society and environment, then there is a strong conclusion to be made there as well.

Also, Ill give you some extra information but you do not have to take it as evidence this is just for your info... I think you live in a Muslim country where you cannot meet Gay people openly. But I live in the West and Ill share my experience. I have met lesbian women and I can tell they are lesbian before I even know them. Just last week I met a girl and it was strange that I felt no sexual tension with her at all. It is as if she is my brother or something, later I found out that she is lesbian.



Doc.... I am grateful to your effort for taking time out of your busy schedule for this debate.

But Doc, I cannot find any evidence of your "Gay gene" theory in all your referenced stuff.

The fact remains "There is no study which replicated the findings of the gay gene", specifically in an "
in vitro" setting.

I guess you do not understand the way scientific exploration works through the system of research and research analysis. Neither you seem to have a grip on the subject of Biology.

Now you are referring to "Fraternal Birth Order and its correlates to homosexuality", which is an "
in vivo" analysis of human behavior and other correlates.

Now if you are trying to prove a hypothesis which demands an "
in vitro" analysis with a study having an "in vivo" framework, the I guess you are literally comparing apples with oranges.

To elucidate further, if you say that there exists a gene for stealing in people, then you have to carry out an analysis of the genetic code of the thieves in a laboratory, to exactly find that gene, its location on the chromosomes etc.

Saying that you have observed a tendency of being a gay in people who have a greater number of older male siblings, is just an observation, not a "Genetic finding" to corroborate with your hypothesis of existence of a "Gay gene".
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
You can believe in God if it helps you in life... But just don't say thats its a fact and know the negatives of it and avoid the negative parts.

Some people keep their belief because faith helps them in business, relationships etc... Even though they know that its not a fact. Which is totally fine.

What I am more worried about when people believe something in the absence of evidence is more dangerous ideologies such as Zionism, Nazism, Communism, ISIS etc. When you have a group of people who strongly believe in an ideology and they dont give a damn about evidence then you have a recipe for disaster.

Another scenario is when people talk about discriminating against someone based on their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, belief system etc because their religious ideology says so then that is also dangerous.

Thats the reason why I do not support believing things without evidence.

If you believe in a God and it helps you in your personal life and you are not hurting anyone then all the power to you.

i will watch the video in a while

do u agree that humans are political animals as well
there are many roads here..
1.believe in a God (which according to u) is tyrant immoral etc.
2.wait for evidence for another explanation or even no explanation

what should i choose keeping in mind His existence is not ye falsified
 
Last edited:

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
You can believe in God if it helps you in life... But just don't say thats its a fact and know the negatives of it and avoid the negative parts.

Some people keep their belief because faith helps them in business, relationships etc... Even though they know that its not a fact. Which is totally fine.

What I am more worried about when people believe something in the absence of evidence is more dangerous ideologies such as Zionism, Nazism, Communism, ISIS etc. When you have a group of people who strongly believe in an ideology and they dont give a damn about evidence then you have a recipe for disaster. Thats also why I do not support believing things without evidence.

If you believe in a God and it helps you and you are not hurting anyone then all the power to you.
when i say i believe in God/Creator/Designer..why do u presuppose religion

this whole debate was secular ?
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Just make sure you are not hurting others and treat people the way you want to be treated. Thats the basic.
two questions..

1.in the last post u said ideologies have repurcussion..doesnt this base of morality seems political to u

2.i have not understood the people part in it..why is the word people there
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
1. Thats not a problem as long as it is based on reason. Thats why the West is ahead, their legal, political and economic systems are based on reason, not on ideologies that have no studies/evidence backing them. They went for capitalism and decentralization because it had proven to have the highest yield.

While we Pakistanis are fucking around with one unit plan, nationalization, nepotism infused privatization, islamic banking and then our economic advisory committee is full Mullahs. Throwing spaghetti on the wall and to see what sticks.

2. Human beings are social animals, the survival of your neighbour also ensures your own survival. If we want to live happily in this world we need to be able to share our space and live in a cooperative way with other people, we have to use reason to find the best way we can achieve this. Thats secular morality in a nutshell.


two questions..

1.in the last post u said ideologies have repurcussion..doesnt this base of morality seems political to u

2.i have not understood the people part in it..why is the word people there
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
1. Thats not a problem as long as it is based on reason. Thats why the West is ahead, their legal, political and economic systems are based on reason, not on ideologies that have no studies/evidence backing them. They went for capitalism and decentralization because it had proven to have the highest yield.

While we Pakistanis are fucking around with one unit plan, nationalization, nepotism infused privatization, islamic banking and then our economic advisory committee is full Mullahs. Throwing spaghetti on the wall and to see what sticks.
West is ahead not for sole rzn that u mentioned..
its a big factor
but west is also drying up east..middle east to be specific

how does realism fit into all this
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
2. Human beings are social animals, the survival of your neighbour also ensures your own survival. If we want to live happily in this world we need to be able to share our space and live in a cooperative way with other people, we have to use reason to find the best way we can achieve this. Thats secular morality in a nutshell.
im dragging it a bit i guess..
bt i dont think u gave a clear base for ur morality

ur saying humans are social animals
being social is one aspect of humans living
politics is another..i can thrive if i get political
 
Sponsored Link

Latest Blogs Featured Discussion اردوخبریں