>im a liberal who loves science and hates religion, stupid religion obviously isnt real!Oh so you must be a naturalist/materialistic/eliminativist/reductionist right?>no of course not im a dualist/idealist who believes in free will! consciousness is not reducible to neurons, its magic!
Dualists are very silly. Reality is One, and the mind is the brain.
>>18241270You'll find plenty of atheist libs who say that we're all just dumb meat puppets. It's true that many others just want to spite Christianity though
>>18241278i have a small sample size, but every "philosophy youtube" channel is clearly far leftist, but things you think theyd agree with like materialism makes them have meltdowns. they stop being able to talk about the viewpoints of certain philosophers without constantly commenting on how stupid they find it and disagree with it.i can respect the religious nutcases who full embrace spirits and shit more than this nonsense that doesnt logically make sense with their other supposed ideologies
>>18241270premise 1: science is physicalistpremise 2: transgenderism relies on dualist/idealist principles like mind being born in the wrong bodypremise 3: science says transgenderism is real and possibleconclusion: science is not physicalistscience believers btfod, now science is the real metaphysical religion
Abrahamism is obviously an extended larp and mythmaking exercise that got out of hand. But other religions and ancient Greek philosophy may still be related to the truth, like a distant low-res image of reality. And consciousness simply is magic.
>>18241318false premises
>>18241387which one and give us your opinion what is the correct belief here
>>18241270If Liberals didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.
>>18241394Either the 2nd premise, and/or you're equivocating when using the same term 'transgenederism' in the 3rd premise and referring to something else than the 2nd premise
>>18241654premise 1: science is against metaphysicspremise 2: transgenderism relies on dualism/idealismpremise 3: scientists vastly agree with transgenderismconclusion: majority of scientists are metaphysicists and/or dont subscribe to science which is against metaphysicshow about now?
>>18241675What kind of reason do I have to believe that when a scientist use the word "transgender" he uses it in the sense you do, where it hinges on dualism/idealism?
>>18241278These people haven't really grasped atheism if they're on about how the prince of darkness is controlling us and guiding us to sin.
>>18241961well the common definition of transgender is a person whos born in the wrong bodythis implies a dualist framework, because under a physicalist framework you are merely your body
>>18241276No>>18241291I had one, but I'm not a leftist. So of course I was banned.
>>18241989I don't care about "the common definition"I care about what the scientist means when he uses the wordThis is why I accused you of equivocation
>>18242047>I care about what the scientist means when he uses the wordso what does the scientist mean?
>>18242062I'm asking youit was part of your argument
>>18242047>>18242062Sorry which Scientist are you two talking about? A physicist? A biologist? Natural science? Climate science? A political scientist?I think a biologist might have a different working definition of transgender compared to a political scientist. So when you two are talking about what a scientist would say what kind of scientist do you mean?
>>18242125I don't know, it's not my argument
>>18242102the scientists means the common definition>>18242125a gastronomic scientist obviously
>>18242140The "scientific definition" of transgender: "person whos born in the wrong body"this is do dumb
>>18242157thats right scientists are dumb
>>18242177Why are you clowning? What's the fucking point of starting this conversation if you don't intend to follow it up You dropped a formal argument then just dip out from giving any support that you are using the same term in in the same sense the entire thing evaporates if you can't do thateven if we were to grant that that the folk definition of transgender somehow commits you to dualism, for the sake of argument (you didn't say why)
>>18242200WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO FUCKING DO?CITE A SCIENTIST? I ASKED YOU WHAT YOU THINK SCIENTIST IDEA OF TRANSGENDERISM ISAT LEAST STOP BEING LAZY AND GIVE ME A FUCKING DEFINITION HOLY SHIT
>>18242216Yes, that could workit's YOUR argument, it doesn't matter how I use the term
>>18242216buck broken
I think you kinda need to know what scientists means by Transgender, in order to say it entails dualism
>>18241991>NoYes
>>18241270Free will is the biggest bullshit ever invented. All it takes is some head trauma to proof it doesn't exist
