Shooting at Quebec City mosque, multiple dead - Page 45
Page 45 of 84 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 838

Thread: Shooting at Quebec City mosque, multiple dead

  1. #441
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    3,823
    Before you engage in further obfuscation of the bloody obvious (namely that the church enforced religious dogma which resulted in a step back in sciences), could we agree on three very simple facts:

    - I did not say that Constantine burned his opponents. You lied about it.

    - At no point did I say that Galileo was burned. You lied about it.

    - I did not claim that Bertrand Russell was persecuted by the Catholic church. You lied about it.


  2. #442
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    600
    ^ Is he worth your time, why not ignore him?

    He has a habit of making false accusations without any evidence. A basic recent example on this thread, I had commented how different Trudeau's reaction had been to the Boston bombings, and for that harmless and correct observation not based on opinion, he labelled me "an angry right-winger blaming Trudeau, the left, Islam and the CBC" for the Quebec terror attack. What does that say about him?

    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Regardless of who the terrorists were, it's very sad and shocking for Canada. Interesting how Trudeau was able to correctly call this an act of terror, but not when 3 people were killed and hundreds injured in Boston. Trudeau's response to the Boston bombings hours and even days after it happened, was wrong. Those that are not convinced can compare his reaction and judge for themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRO4UGSiQo
    Quote Originally Posted by olivaw View Post
    Now is not the time for the angry right wingers of CMF to blame Trudeau, the left, Islam and the CBC. They should wait until we know what is going on before launching their familiar refrain.
    Who's the one that sounds like the angry left winger?

  3. #443
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    3,823
    No, not really. You are right. When someone fabricates what happened yesterday, discussing history is rather pointless.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    CanadianMoneyForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #444

  6. #445
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific
    Posts
    8,018
    It's unfair to blame Canadian politicians for the mosque massacre.

    However it *is* fair to blame the groups that radicalized the shooter: American white supremacist and white nationalist groups, and alt-right, which are groups with extremist agendas that work hard to radicalize people (like this shooter).

    I've shifted my opinion about Trump's role in all that. I now think that Trump himself has been radicalized, or at least influenced, by extremist alt-right forces. He fits the profile for the kind of person who can fall for their nonsense.
    Last edited by james4beach; 2017-02-17 at 10:08 PM.

  7. #446
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    640
    And what profile would that be pray tell? Billionaire ,amoral master manipulator who is himself manipulated?
    Who would have thought it. The con artist is himself conned. Amazing.

  8. #447
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,402
    James then why would Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu come to visit Trump it then. If he is the manipulated king of the white supremacists then I think Netanyahu would have a clue.

  9. #448
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by mordko View Post
    My point isn't that scientists didn't believe in god - many did; in those times it was hard to explain basic natural events without a supernatural belief.

    My point is that totalitarian regimes attempt to control thoughts. Constantine attempted to enforce Christian dogma and the system lasted for many centuries. Scientists, philosophers, writers think for themselves and don't follow dogma. For this reason totalitarian regimes have suppressed science, whether it's medieval Christian regimes, Islamic regimes, communist regimes or fascist regimes.


    1. "totalitarian regimes attempt to control thoughts". Essentially a reliable claim, I think. So far so good. However,
    2. One doesn't need to be a regime to have a dogmatic view, and a totalitarian thought control attitude. I don't think you should excuse people for being dogmatic and exhibiting a totalitarian attitude simply because they are not a regime.
    3. "Constantine attempted to enforce Christian dogma..." I accept that. But I prefer it said in a more general way: Constantine enforced dogma". The reason I prefer it that way because many of the greats in the history of science were Christian or believed in God, if not Orthodox Christians. You seem to want to paint the entire religion with the sins of Constantine. You are implying a principle of original sin to this, as if all subsequent theists bear the guilt of Constantine, and as if all subsequent churches must be totalitarian.
    4. "Scientists, philosophers, writers think for themselves and don't follow dogma". I'm not convinced that is reliable. It looks like you believe science is based on immutable empirical fact, and therefore people should draw the same conclusions as you. Logical positivists believed and promoted the dogma of immutable fact. To their credit, they gave up in failure, but science continues to give lip service to their dogma. The idea that science is based is immutable fact is a dogma that contributes to the very thing you abhor, namely, totalitarian thought control as in the next point......
    5. Science textbooks often, and usually near the beginning, have a little section about "what is science, and/or what is the scientific method" Often these little sections outline the dogma of logical positivism/empiricism, only they don't usually label it as such, possibly for purposes of manipulation. They state explicitly or implicitly that science isn't about belief (faith) or values, only about immutable "empirical facts" as if,there actually was a criteria to filter out belief, faith, and values from "facts". They ignore the reality that science is theories, and that no theory can be absolutely proven. Such sections in textbooks seep uncritically into the minds of students whereupon they unconsciously have faith in the dogma of immutable fact.
    6. for myself, in highscool physics, chemistry, and even social science, I was subtly indoctrinated into a logical empiricist dogmatic view of immutable fact and I did t even know it. I mouthed the words of the dogma without being aware it was the convoluted metaphysics of logical positivism. I doubt the teachers who were doing it even knew it was dogmatic logical positivism, for they too were likely indoctrinated they way I was. It was only through pure luck that I later chose teachers who would expose and weed out the dogma that I had uncritically embraced. they did it by critiquing my writing and thinking: they did it by showing how I assigned a value to facts, how I ignored some facts that I devalued, but highlighted facts I preferred in order to draw a preconceived conclusion. They also did it by showing what I considered fact was tied to methods that were not proven to be infallible, hence my facts were tied to faith in the method.
    7. Upon abandoning my false faith in the fairy tale of immutable facts I became pluralistic, the enemy of a totalitarian mindset. That's why I tolerate differing views such as yours, while not uncritically accepting them. I use differing views to assess and refine my own. I think pluralism was made possible by the failure of science to found itself on evidence. that implies that a theory of science that promotes the idea of immutable fact could be inherently totalitarian.
    8. Supernatural Belief: Atheists seem to gravitate towards a logical empiricist dogma, possibly because it battled against belief and faith. Some atheists have proposed a theory of everything, apparently under the label of Naturalism. When the theory of everything comes to the issue of the origin of the material of the universe, they have two options: 1. material always existed, or 2. material created itself. Either way it is an unprovable assumption, which is the same thing as faith. Theists in the Jeudeo-Christian tradition look at the universe as see it as a creation. They typically and honestly declare it as faith, while atheists try to hide their faith in pseudo scientific lingo in order to prove their preconceived conclusion that they have no faith or beliefs. I suspect such linguistic manipulation bears the seeds of ideology, and if institutionalized, totalitarian.
    9. My confrontational language, such as "pseudo scientific" and "linguistic manipulation" is not intended to insult or degenerate, or say they are wrong and I'm right. It is to challenge atheists and those of a logical positivist bent to think more deeply and to develop their world view in a more coherent way. It is also to expose myself to critique, and possibly learn something to refine the articulation of my own world view.
    We can not know things as they are in themselves, but only as they appear to us.

  10. #449
    Senior Member olivaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by mordko View Post
    Before you engage in further obfuscation of the bloody obvious (namely that the church enforced religious dogma which resulted in a step back in sciences), could we agree on three very simple facts:

    - I did not say that Constantine burned his opponents. You lied about it.

    - At no point did I say that Galileo was burned. You lied about it.

    - I did not claim that Bertrand Russell was persecuted by the Catholic church. You lied about it.


    You are trying to change your argument again. You said that the Church suppressed science. Now you have changed it to say that the Church enforced religious dogma which resulted in a step back in science.

    If I were to later say that you claimed that the Church suppressed science, would you call me a liar? (Redundant question. Of course you would. You throw around the word "liar" like gibor throws around the phrase antisemitic.)
    Last edited by olivaw; 2017-02-18 at 02:02 PM.
    If you have something to say - then say.

  11. #450
    Senior Member olivaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    He has a habit of making false accusations without any evidence. A basic recent example on this thread, I had commented how different Trudeau's reaction had been to the Boston bombings, and for that harmless and correct observation not based on opinion, he labelled me "an angry right-winger blaming Trudeau, the left, Islam and the CBC" for the Quebec terror attack. What does that say about him?

    Who's the one that sounds like the angry left winger?
    LOL What on earth made you think that my comment about "angry right wingers" had anything to do with your post? Are you going to follow me from thread to thread and accuse me of terrorism again?

    Last edited by olivaw; 2017-02-18 at 02:43 PM.
    If you have something to say - then say.

Page 45 of 84 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •