Topic: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God - page 26. (Read 37272 times)

Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.

It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude  - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.


Re. the gender debate at hand, all I will say is that it will take more than the contraceptive pill to do away with thousands of years of evolution. What I mean is, it might well suit me personally to have multiple partners/orgasms on a regular basis. Indeed, it did suit me, down to the ground, not so many years ago. But I'm not so sure it would have suited Mrs. Dreamer quite to the same extent to have herself potentially impregnated by a frigate full of drunken Russian sailors on a regular basis.

Or so she tells me ...?

Like the title of this thread and the opening post have anything to do with God.

God created the whole universe. The only thing sinning might do is destroy the sinners, if they remain in it without acknowledging the forgiveness God offers through Jesus.

The impetus of this thread is irrelevant to God. It is stupid. The best it does is to bring out some discussion among forum members.

Coming from some one who has yet to provide a single peer reviewed study to support his arguments, that means pretty much nothing. I am very well educated in the scientific method, and your accusations of ignorance are little more than projections of your own failures in this realm. Social sciences are not hard sciences. It is a fact. You can not produce scientific studies supporting your argument BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST and you are operating completely on your beliefs.

Yes, your inability to distinguish science from pseudo-science has been made crystal clear to me by your posts in this thread and others.

You were saying something about me not understanding science?




"Scientific Method. The collection of the data on which a conclusion is based must conform to a scientific method. A scientist’s observations (data) about a phenomenon prompt the scientist to pose a question about the phenomenon. Next, the scientist reformulates the question as a hypothesis. Hypotheses then make predictions and data are collected and analyzed to test the prediction. A determination is then made about the likelihood that the result was due to chance and whether the result is scientifically important.

Measuring a difference in data that is gathered does not necessarily mean that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect. The scientist must first determine whether a difference in results is due to chance. Once statistical significance has been established, the scientist must decide whether the results are of scientific significance. The answer lies in the proportion of the total variation (statistically, variance) explained by the phenomenon. A phenomenon that has devastating effects on individuals or society may be important, even if it is unlikely.

Objectivity in execution is the second standard of good science. The procedure of science must be executed in a way that does not influence the results. Methods such as double blind, randomization, variable matching, and analysis of variance, are aimed at eliminating bias and are particularly important when dealing with phenomena that directly impinge upon human beings.

The third standard of good science requires that the result be repeatable. For a scientific conclusion to be acceptable, other scientists must be able to repeat it in other locations at other times employing the same methods. The fourth standard of good science requires that the results be published in a scientific journal or other publication that is peer reviewed. Passing the hurdle of peer-reviewed publication is an assurance that quality control has been exercised in communicating the results to other scientists and meets a type of reliability norm on which decision-makers can rely.

Any "science" that does not meet all four of the standards (procedure, performance, duplication, and peer scrutiny) is not good science.

Scientific Practice. Scientists have a general consensus about what constitutes good experimental design. It is that consensus about good experimental design that inherently tests a null hypothesis. The single most important aspect of good experimental design that tests a null hypothesis is the requirement that the experimenter’s hypothesis be capable of being disproved by the experiment. To allow a hypothesis of causation to be disproved, the scientist must allow an equal opportunity for the truly opposite, or null, hypothesis to be proven."

https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/mcnaughton.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

The vast majority of "social sciences" do not meet the above listed criteria requisite for studies to truly be called scientific.
I never said anything about God, there you go again projecting your prejudices and biases upon me. Just because I disagree with you and I don't like seeing religious people be harassed with your insane ideologies must mean I am a religious nut right?

I am still waiting for you to cite any scientific studies proving your arguments. I have presented studies to support my argument, why can't you? Is it perhaps because they don't exist and your ideology is based completely upon your beliefs, making you no different than the religious nuts you so eagerly despise?







Ok, lets come back to reality here for a moment. People of ALL TYPES are affected negatively in ways that are outside of their control many times on a daily basis. So you are telling me that we can legislate our way to utopia, and that doing so will not just do far more damage to society than it does to help it? You can feel that way all day if you want, but that is not how the law works sorry. The law does not exist to enforce emotions, feelings, and desires. Like science, the law is based on hard demonstrable facts. Subjective things like emotions, feelings, and desires are not quantifiable therefore are not provable in a court of law other than by some one's word. In effect anyone can simply claim offense and use the law as a weapon against others and there is no way to prove one way or the other.

Again, I challenge you as well to provide actual scientific evidence that there is no biological basis to gender identity and behavior. Furthermore can you prove to me that forcing children with hetero-normative gender identities to change their gender identity to meet what you believe to be ideal gender identities is not harmful to those children? Can you prove to me that children will not be harmed by removing their natural gender identity from them?

Why is this any different than trying to condition a gay person into being heterosexual and adopting hetero-normative gender roles? Aren't you just forcing the same but polar opposite gender roles upon people who naturally feel a different way? If it is wrong to try to recondition a gay person into being hetero-normative, why is it acceptable to condition hetero-normative children into something other than what they were born as?






No, the links I provided have everything to do with gender. They demonstrate that children and even animals have innate biological gender roles before society even has an opportunity to condition them. Men are more thing oriented, women are more people oriented. Even when extreme measures have been undertaken to create a gender balanced workforce, even with more choices, the fields dominated by one sex or the other grows EVEN MORE segregated by gender. This demonstrates that certain genders gravitate to certain fields more than others NATURALLY not just because society tricked or coerced them to some how via some mythical oppressive gender police.

Gender is NOT JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT no matter how many times you repeat it. Additionally there is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting biology plays a large part in creating gender roles. You can make up whatever meanings you want for the words to convince yourself we aren't talking about the same thing, but we are. Gender roles have biological sources as well as social sources. Ignoring biology in order to recondition them into some supposedly ideal state can be disastrous for a person's well being.

I am a sheep now because I don't agree with you? Silly me deciding that what is best for the majority will most likely result in more people overall being happy and successful. What insanity. Society is not always right, but neither are utopian ideologues looking to recondition the gender roles of all of society. It is very clear you don't care about the majority, just like most social justice warriors. Your ideology is always more important than the rights of others. The majority doesn't have to change, and this kind of attitude is what puts people off from your supposed message of equality.

Wise words, our founding fathers shared this sentiment, they called it the "tyranny of the majority". This is what you get with a population that doesn't know their own history, even history as recent as a few hundred years ago.

It's official, you're a tedious pedant.  Half to two thirds of my posts are from my (not so) smart phone,  there's a limit to how much I struggle with this thing, as long as the idea is conveyed IDGAF if it's perfect English.

It's official,  you don't understand how science works. No surprise there,  if you did you'd be forced to reject all god claims for lack of evidence.

"That gender is a social construction has been a widely accepted fact for over fifty years in the social sciences."

First of all who taught you English? Nice sentence structure. Second of all just because you believe it is "a widely accepted fact" among the handful of political ideologues willing to confirm your biases for you does not make it fact. Furthermore "social sciences" are not hard sciences, there can not be true empirical data collected for these studies conducted within this field of study. There are far too many variables, and real scientists know that social sciences are not based on fact but observation and hypotheses at best.

You claim there is a "growing mountain of scientific evidence that gender is deeply harmful to young developing minds". If there is such a preponderance of evidence, what is preventing you from presenting these studies for peer review of the forum? We are just supposed to take your word for it? If the studies don't exist in the first place, then I would have a hard time finding them in Google wouldn't I? That is besides the point though, because you are the one making the claims, and the one who makes the claims proves.

I argue that your convictions are based on nothing more than your emotions and beliefs, and you are willing to rob children of their perfectly natural biologically based gender identities in order to satiate your personal belief constructs. This makes you no better that religious nut jobs that send their kids to gay therapy camp, because in both instances you are seeking to deny the child their natural gender state and sexuality for the sake of your beliefs.

No two people are 100% alike. Even if you had two people who had exactly the same number of the same kinds of molecules in their bodies, all correspondingly located so that everything in the two people happened to be operating exactly alike at exactly the same time, including the things that they were thinking about, they still would be different. One reason they would be different would be because they were not made of the exact same molecules. The molecules of the two would still be different molecules.

If we want to get down to the basics, we could say that every person was a different gender from everyone else, because all people are different.

When talking about gender, we are not getting into such detailed differences so as to separate every single person from every single other person. Neither are we looking at simply the ways that everyone is the same - barring deformities... eyes, ears, a head, two arms with hands, two legs with feet, torso, etc.  

The thing that we are looking at with gender is a rather general difference in people goes beyond their similarities, but remains general in that it does not focus on the vast majority of differences. Gender has to do with male and female.

Despite what the people who control the definitions write as definitions, and despite what medical research controllers do to combine the genders, and despite how feminine some men are or masculine some women are, there is a tremendous difference between men and women, male and female. This is true gender no matter what anyone wants to say.

The point is, let's look at the truth, rather than trying to ignore the evident.

While it's true that biological males and females are somewhat predispositioned to act differently(i.e masculine and/or feminine). You're right about gender norms being exclusively a social construct.  Various societies have different gender roles for males and females, there is no "universal standard" and that shows the fragility of "gender".

For ex: Males are often wanted to act masculine and hide their emotions and etc in many socities, but the fact of the matter is that males feel just as emotional as women and society wanting them to hide it or cover it up is obviously a detriment to them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/13/men-women-emotional-parents_n_5491119.html

EDIT: For those who believe gender to have some biological basis such as in the case of transgenders, you're wrong. If you bother to read up on transgenders and their views on themselves, they feel like a biological female, even down to the genitalia(Such as feeling to have a vagina but being reminded of having a penis at times), meaning their perception of themselves is related to sex, not gender.

That gender is a social construction has been a widely accepted fact for over fifty years in the social sciences. Today there is growing mountain of scientific evidence that gender is deeply harmful to young developing minds. All that knowledge is available to you, if you were genuinely interested in getting to the truth of this issue you'd be on google learning about it, but we both know you're not.  

Just because you are taking something doesn't make it a right. People have lots of rights, very few actually make the effort to exercise them. The difference between the two is that rights are for ones self, and what you are doing is attempting to destroy the gender identity of others simply based on what you believe, without empirical backing of studies whatsoever. Your rights end when they harm the rights of others. All you have presented so far is persuasive writing. This has nothing to do with science. Provide your proof, otherwise you are no better than the religious nutbags sending their kids to christian gay therapy summer camp because you are imposing your beliefs about gender and sexuality upon others. 

One of my favorite laws to break,  that.

I had it copyrighted. Your fixation is your own.

Fixed your sentence, you had a minor grammar error there.

As retarded as this thinking is, it might be somewhat accurate if God, Himself, didn't step in and manipulate things, which He will do again, when mankind become bad enough.

Nothing and no one gives me the right. I'm taking the right, because I am on fire with compassion. If someone has to give it to you, it's not a right - it's a privilege. It's only a right when you seize/assert it for yourself.

The myth of gender hurts every innocent little girl, nearly all grown women, and every innocent boy too.

The three most destructive words that every boy hears is "Be A Man".

Here in the information age, religion has about the same odds of survival as Pi (3.14159) has of being returned back to it's biblical value of 3.0