Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political Science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Political Science

    I would like to jump in:
    Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

    I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Political Science

      Possible genetic link found for homosexuality:

      http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...genes-its-them

      ================

      A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219

      Science. 1991 Aug 30;253(5023):1034-7.
      A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.
      LeVay S.
      Source

      Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186.
      Abstract

      The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men. No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

      Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Political Science

        Originally posted by aaron View Post
        I would like to jump in:
        Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

        I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.
        You guys could really do well to chillax. Those are pretty mean words, dude.
        Grow a thicker skin if it bothers you and stop being a bunch of cry baby whiners. If you don't like someone's views then ignore them, but don't bother the rest of us trying to engage in civil discussion with your childish temper tantrums b/c you don't agree with someone. With all do respect, it is your intolerance that is the problem here and in the general world of those who think themselves "open minded", but just revert to name calling and anger when they can't get someone to agree with them.

        Geez iTulip, where's the bouncer?

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Political Science

          Originally posted by Raz View Post
          Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.

          Even if you could prove a negative of this sort, science doesn't deal with proof. While it is convenient from a rhetorical standpoint to set someone an impossible task, in this case it represents a profound misunderstanding of the nature of science and its methods.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Political Science

            Originally posted by reggie View Post
            Tell me, do you think "science" is any more fact based? Ultimately, ALL of it is based in faith.... science, mathemetics, God.
            Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Political Science

              Originally posted by shiny! View Post
              If I may (gingerly) step in this minefield, I'd like to tell you a story. ...
              ...
              Then I got cancer. It was an enlightening experience. Many of my non-Christian friends were not there for me. They judged me, blamed me for being sick. Told me in various ways that I must have brought it on myself through either lifestyle choices or mental attitiude. The nearest I could figure out, they were scared to death of getting cancer themselves. They thought if they could pin the blame on me rather than think it was out of my control, then they might be able to live "better" and control their own outcome- not get cancer. Magical thinking. Not kind at all.

              At that time I belonged to a local rose society- a gardening club. Most of those people were Christians, a lot of them what we would call rednecks. Good, countrified dirt gardeners with hick accents. Churchgoing folk. Without fail, they were there for me. Offering me help, offering me food, offering to pray... It forever changed my opinion of conservative Christians.

              Raz and I don't see eye to eye on religion, but I know him to be kind and respect him for being principle-centered. I would feel safe having him for a neighbor, and I think that if TSHTF he would have my back as I would have his. I can't say the same for many people who may seem to be nicer but are actually driven by fear and anger.
              +1
              altho not a religious sort - but was 'raised catholic' (as mom tried to be a good irish-catholic wife), i'm more of a 'pagan' myself (believe in 'the gods' and the natural world's 'power', vs the 'supreme being' - not that i'm a dis-believer, but lets just say i havent seen much proof of 'the existence') - that said, i'd much rather put my trust in those that have faith and believe in PRINCIPALS like moral/ethical behavior - in my mind, those that practice religious faith are generally more trustworty (not all mind you - the mega-church hucksters should be regulated IMHO, to protect their sheep-like followers from getting sucked into their money grubbing activities)

              my anecdotal toe-tip into the minefield goes something like this...

              when riding the chairlifts in the rockies, one meets quite a range of people - from all over the world, to all over the religious/non spectrum - and this is what i have observed: the 'bible thumpers' (as my pals in CO call em) who show up from mostly the midwest/texas etc at certain resorts (where skiing is The Thing, vs the 'retail therapy' shopping mall syndrome-themed resorts) are the nicest, most-open/least-guarded, talkative/cheerful and FRIENDLY people i meet - contrast this with the typical chairlift rider from the shoppingmall-themed resort$ (like say, oh i dunno - Vail, for instance) - where one will typically be exposed to 'big city' types from back east - who are more rude, less inclined or simply dont want to chitchat or worse, while riding a 4 or 6pack chair, get all huffy/bent outa shape if one should interject into their converstation - sorry, but in my little mind, if one wants to have a _private_ chat one shouldnt expect the rest of the passengers to butt out - esp within the 'intimate confines' of a 6pack detachable - its the height of arrogance, IMHO and seems to come esp from the new york crowd that shows up at this sort of resort - dont notice it so much west of the rockies tho

              my .02: it takes all kinds to make a civil society, but give me country folk - religious or otherwise - any time:


              Last edited by lektrode; 12-16-12, 03:04 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Political Science

                Originally posted by reggie View Post
                Do me a favor, DEFINE "science" for all of us. And, also tell me this, does "science", whatever that is, actually move humanity closer to "TRUTH"? (ie. the Karl Popper view)
                If you think the purpose of science is to bring truth as put forth by your deity of choice to humanity you are mistaken. Maybe you could try wikipedia for a primer on science and why it works.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Political Science

                  Originally posted by Raz View Post
                  Please explain to me how a male fetus (Y chromasomes) with a different blood type is part of a woman's body. The mixing of those two blood types would cause death.
                  You are the one putting forth "non-scientific babble" - not me. Go ahead: put forth your argument based only upon human anatomy and physiology.

                  Facts, please.
                  That a zygote is somehow objectively better than any of the other millions of cells I shed every day is the height of human conceit.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Political Science

                    Originally posted by aaron View Post
                    There are definitely fairy tales in there. They are the as means of educating people. Most could not read. These stories had to be read aloud or by memory. And, they had to be interesting, no? We teach morals with Hollywood movies these days. ....
                    now thats a stretch, mr a.
                    seems to me whats being 'learned' from (most) of hollywierd is anything BUT 'moral'
                    would go so fars to say that its the primary reason/focus of why the true stone-age types (over there in the middle east)
                    are trying to take us out

                    just sayin.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Political Science

                      Originally posted by radon View Post
                      Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.
                      Regarding mathematics, all mathematical systems and constructs are based on a set of "axioms" which are assumptions/postulates/first principles that are taken "on faith" in order to derive and get value from the mathematical system. There is of course nothing wrong with this; in fact it is a requirement to move forward with the math system. Are you familiar with:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems ?

                      Regarding physics/science, "there is order to the universe" and "rigorous application of the scientific method will lead to discovery and understanding of nature and its rules" are 2 examples, both of which are true of course, of the "taking it as self-evident truths" or faith. The mind would not even embark on the hypothesis/experiment/conclusion unless it believed in the order of the universe and reproducibility of results to begin with.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Political Science

                        Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
                        Regarding mathematics, all mathematical systems and constructs are based on a set of "axioms" which are assumptions/postulates/first principles that are taken "on faith" in order to derive and get value from the mathematical system. There is of course nothing wrong with this; in fact it is a requirement to move forward with the math system. Are you familiar with:
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's...eness_theorems ?
                        This is precisely why I used the word loath. Definitions, certain degenerate cases, decidability in large systems can all be used as examples where proof is not possible. But equating the acceptance of a set of sometimes arbitrary definitions with an act of faith in the religious sense is a bit of a stretch. We might as well call coming to a consensus on spelling an act of faith. Besides if mathematicians enjoyed relying on faith they wouldn't waste lifetimes reducing the number of axioms or proving the obvious.

                        Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
                        Regarding physics/science, "there is order to the universe" and "rigorous application of the scientific method will lead to discovery and understanding of nature and its rules" are 2 examples, both of which are true of course, of the "taking it as self-evident truths" or faith. The mind would not even embark on the hypothesis/experiment/conclusion unless it believed in the order of the universe and reproducibility of results to begin with.
                        I'm not sure I understand your point. It would be perfectly reasonable to reject these things if the observable universe proved otherwise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Political Science

                          Originally posted by aaron View Post
                          I would like to jump in:
                          Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

                          I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.
                          Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. I didn't re-animate the discussion. I was perfectly willing to let it die.

                          If you will go back and read the posts you won't find me citing scripture or any theologians concerning preborn humans or homosexuality.
                          My arguments were based entirely upon human embriology.


                          I'll take your criticisms to heart, though and accept that my opinions are not valid in the politically correct world of compassionate, tolerant atheism.

                          I'll try to read only
                          EJ, bart and Finster and keep my ignorant, uninformed, stupid "bible-thumping" opinions to myself.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Political Science

                            Originally posted by radon View Post
                            Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.
                            Oi vey! You have been successfully brainwashed. Which "Institution" did this to you? I'm especially dismayed with your characterization of mathematics and mathemeticians, especially given incompletenes proven in 1925.

                            If Scientism-bots are going to populate this thread with such mindless programming, fine. But don't expect to be treated kindly when you demonstrate such limited knowledge of history, especially when it comes to the discussion of science and faith. Robert Boyle's a great place to start, you know, the Boyles Law guy. He wrote a book on the subject and developed at least 8-dfferent definitions of science in his process to deal with this question.

                            I'll post a video presentation by MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson if I can find it, as he just published a book also dealing with this subject matter, "Monopolizing Knowledge", and discusses how "Scientism" was considered a religion and evolved out of religious doctrine.

                            On Edit: As just one bizarre example, Science can not tell us what Time is or whether it even exists as humans perceive it. If you buy into Einstein's Theory of Relativity, then Time does NOT exist, and is merely a human perception of frequency, which certainly does NOT "remove it from Human predispositions." So, if Time doesn't exist, how does one even start to explain Theories of Evolution?

                            Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm with Thomas Kunh.... science makes leaps that may or not be based upon previous findings, and certainly does not necessarily bring humanity any closer to Truth. It does, however, facilitate the development of kewel little toys in the form of technology, too bad most of this is deployed for the purpose of social control which is undectable by just about everyone.
                            Last edited by reggie; 12-16-12, 07:38 PM.
                            The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                            Comment


                            • Re: Political Science

                              Thanks for the clarification. I haven't encountered this term before. As for the avatar, it is "The Woodsman" by Ivan Kramskoi. He was an artist of the Peredvizhniki or "Wanderers" movement in late 19th Century Russia. I'm mad about Russian art.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Political Science

                                Read this again today and immediately thought of you, Raz. I must say, I admit to sometimes being put off by your POV too, but I've never been more put off than I was by how you were treated. It seems like a decidedly uncharacteristic moment here behind the iTulip paywall and I didn't like it at all. I don't recall seeing any rule or warning that the theistic viewpoint is not welcome here. FWIW, I think there's room enough here for theistic, atheistic, and pantheistic viewpoints informing our conversations. The way I see it, iTulip is "about" earning and keeping wealth and how to navigate the uncertain times ahead and it would be a poorer place if we have to tiptoe around some of the more contentious areas of debate. But I'm just a newbie 99%er, so what do I know?

                                Still, it makes me wonder when I will set off the tripwire and go BOOM. Me, I'm a wobbly agnostic that leans more towards the "perennial theology" so I doubt it will be god-talk that gets me tossed. But it's never been clearer to me that every community has its orthodoxy and woe to us who run afoul of it. And damn if I don't always do.

                                Between Heaven & Hell

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X