Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do you need to put morals into science? If there is a "designer" we should be able to detect it. That is just science and you don't have to put your morals into it.
What does this paragraph mean?
It's not against the rules for me to say you're mistaken. It's probably more against the rules to continue to assert that I had an intention I did not have. I'm not threatened by wrong beliefs. As the person who actually made the post I know what intentions and purposes are in it, you don't.
I was not discussing your intentions, I was discussing the form of your statement. I understand you did not intend it to be an argument, but as it had the form of an argument it seems unassailable that it was an argument, regardless of your intent.
Well, you don't have to say anything. The concern that I (and many others) have is that your belief on homosexuality and abortion is demonstrably incorrect and based on religious underpinnings, not on real-world findings.
That's not demonstrating it, that's theorising. The Demonstration would confirm the maths or disprove the theory.
You should go back and read the whole conversation - @W2L and I were talking about personal experiences. No morals were 'put into science' here. I agree with you on how morals have nothing to do with Science and that a Designer would be detectable if one was involved in reality though...
Everyone gets that you didn't intend to 'argue' with your statement - but nonetheless, your statement is indeed an Argument. Your statement makes a proposal in the form of assertions and claims about reality which are indeed consistent with the form of an argument. That is to say, someone who fields your statement would be able to agree, disagree or challenge you on it - which of course some of us have. That you don't believe it to be an argument is just incorrect.
Accident is not really a term that finds its place in science. Scientists do not have an agreed position on the origin of the universe. The current lack of sufficient evidence and/or models to state how the universe originated has spawned a wide variety of hypothetical proposals. You are likely familiar with some of them.
Why? Because it works. Mathematics works, the scientific method works. Together they have provided the most effective tool yet found with which to understand the universe and, to a limited extent, control some small aspects of it.
Science concerns itself more with the How questions rather than the Why. The latter is more in the field of philosophy. I see no reason why the existence of prime numbers should be considered evidence for a creator. Nor do I see it as evidence against a creator.
And the pro LGBT agenda makes decisions that affects people like forcing transgender ideas down 5 year olds and forcing teens to shower together and frankly the rest of us are no longer sympathetic to your issues because of it. So you want to throw a spear that's fine but we are all getting fully aware now of your agenda as well.Well, you don't have to say anything. The concern that I (and many others) have is that your belief on homosexuality and abortion is demonstrably incorrect and based on religious underpinnings, not on real-world findings.
EDIT: I should also add that your beliefs aren't held in a vacuum - you make decisions that affect other people around you that may or may not believe as you do. This is why many of us are concerned about the lack of critical thinking skills, particularly among fundamentalist religious folk. I've said this many times before, but children die because of withheld medical attention or lack of vaccinations based on incorrect beliefs. Administration and Medical staff die because of family planning clinic bombings based on incorrect beliefs. Teenagers suffer higher pregnancy rates and venereal diseases for lack of education because of incorrect beliefs. Planes are flown into skyscrapers killing thousands of people because of incorrect beliefs.
This is a very long list and when you instantly annexed a caveat on your "Love is a Way of Life" - you too became a contributor, even if indirectly, to the problem faced by modern society. and I really don't mean to offend, because I'm sure you think you're doing the right thing - but by treating these people differently based on your demonstrably wrong beliefs about homosexuality and abortion, you are actually being a hypocrite by not living your claimed "way of life" with everyone. Perhaps you shouldn't claim Love as being more than an emotion, but a "way of life" that you claim to embody?
That's not demonstrating it, that's theorising. The Demonstration would confirm the maths or disprove the theory.
You should go back and read the whole conversation - @W2L and I were talking about personal experiences. No morals were 'put into science' here. I agree with you on how morals have nothing to do with Science and that a Designer would be detectable if one was involved in reality though...
Everyone gets that you didn't intend to 'argue' with your statement - but nonetheless, your statement is indeed an Argument. Your statement makes a proposal in the form of assertions and claims about reality which are indeed consistent with the form of an argument. That is to say, someone who fields your statement would be able to agree, disagree or challenge you on it - which of course some of us have. That you don't believe it to be an argument is just incorrect.
In short, you tabled a proposal... <==There's an Argument!
...and we disagreed with it. <== There's an Ongoing Argument!
See: the definition of argument and note how points 3, 4 and 6 match your stand-alone post - then myself and @Ophiolite responding, covers points 1, 2 and 5.
Well, That's entirely bathed in ignorance - Citation please.
I agree, you didn't consider my intentions. That is the whole reason you were mistaken, because the intent of the statement matters per your own definition. The reason why it matters is so that language doesn't become petty so that someones opinion of ice cream doesn't turn into a debate. I assume you are able to handle peoples opinion in the real world correct? I mean you don't go running around yelling "Argument from ignorance" at the ice cream shop right? Surely you don't, that would be socially ignorant. No one would even want to be around you if you were that way.
This is not an ice cream shop. This is a discussion forum.
