Clydey and Friends' Philosophical Paradise - Page 13 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

View Poll Results: Is Hinduism more or less rational than the major religions?

It's more rational. 1 3.70%
It's less rational. 3 11.11%
It is no more and no less rational than any other religion ou there. 12 44.44%
I don't know enough about it to give an educated opinion. 11 40.74%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

Old 12-02-2008, 03:20 AM   #181
country flag Clydey
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 32
Posts: 13,288
Clydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond reputeClydey has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostUnholy View Post

While you are right, deductive reasoning cannot prove that god doesn't exist, you need to recognize something.

The statement of Atheism is that God does not exist. (a negative)
Therefore, you are stating that the universe was not created by god. (a negative)
Therefore you are stating that reality/the universe originated by some other means.
You are presupposing that there was a beginning. We seek patterns. It is what the mind demands. Since everything else has a beginning, we assume the universe must also have a beginning. In reality, it is most logical to suggest that there was in fact no beginning.

By stating that the universe had a beginning, all you are doing is postulating an infinite regress. God created the universe, but who created God? Who created the God that created the God that created the universe? It just goes on and on.

Atheists do not state that God does not exist. We state that we believe there exists no God. It is no more irrational than not believing in fairies or unicorns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostUnholy View Post

You could demonstrate that "god", in one of the senses denoted by an organized religion, does not exist by determining a true, and obviously different, origin and nature of reality/the universe. Yes I realize this is impossible for us now, but who can say whether or not it will ALWAYS be beyond the means of humanity?
By that criteria, we have already disproved God's existence. The Genesis story has long since been debunked, so that proves that <insert holy book of your choice here> is mistaken.

There are so many Gods people have believed in over the years that you would need to specify which God we're trying to disprove. If the universe does have an origin, discovering it would not disprove the existence of a supreme being. Such a discovery would simply mean that the universe wasn't created by a supreme being. It is utterly impossible to disprove any God's existence. It doesn't matter what technology we have. You simply cannot disprove something like that.

As we know, religion changes with the times. Catholics have been forced to reconcile their beliefs with the theory of evolution. Debunking parts of the bible does not disprove God's existence. It can't be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostUnholy View Post

The issue is not really one of disproving a negative.
Yes, it is. As I explained, discovering the universe's origins does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a deity, just as the theory of evolution did not debunk the Judaeo-Christian God.
__________________
'Nous nous tournons vers l’Écosse pour trouver toutes nos idées sur la civilisation' - Voltaire
Clydey is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 12-02-2008, 03:52 AM   #182
country flag GhostUnholy
Registered User
 
GhostUnholy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 1,377
GhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey View Post
long post
I'll respond to this one tomorrow after I finish my paper.
GhostUnholy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 04:35 AM   #183
country flag Aloimeh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,949
Aloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Homosexuals are not biologically inferior, but they are morally in the wrong.

Evolution by mutation and natural selection doesn't speak of biological superiority or inferiority but of reproductive fitness. Mutations occur in genes, but natural selection operates on phenotypes (i.e. traits), not genotypes (i.e. genes). And phenotypes are the product of both genetic and environmental influences that may interact in a deterministic and/or chaotic manner. See below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/he...gewanted=print

Quote:
Josephine Tesauro never thought she would live so long. At 92, she is straight backed, firm jawed and vibrantly healthy, living alone in an immaculate brick ranch house high on a hill near McKeesport, a Pittsburgh suburb. She works part time in a hospital gift shop and drives her 1995 white Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera to meetings of her four bridge groups, to church and to the grocery store. She has outlived her husband, who died nine years ago, when he was 84. She has outlived her friends, and she has outlived three of her six brothers.

Mrs. Tesauro does, however, have a living sister, an identical twin. But she and her twin are not so identical anymore. Her sister is incontinent, she has had a hip replacement, and she has a degenerative disorder that destroyed most of her vision. She also has dementia. “She just does not comprehend,” Mrs. Tesauro says.

Even researchers who study aging are fascinated by such stories. How could it be that two people with the same genes, growing up in the same family, living all their lives in the same place, could age so differently?...
Some might argue that environmental influences are in fact the mediators of natural selection, but I'm not so sure about that. There are clearly many environmental influences that at face value would not in and of themselves obviously influence reproductive fitness.

So, when we come to the question of homosexuality, we get at the core of reproductive fitness. If one's phenotype negatively affects reproductive fitness by causing disinterest in intercourse with members of the opposite sex, then natural selection would supposedly dictate that genes coding for this phenotype would be bred out. But this assumes that homosexuality is coded in genes. One suggested explanation has been that the greater "nurturing" of homosexuals to relatives' young would improve reproductive fitness of the family and thereby perpetuate the genes. The problem with this is that, from my casual observations, male homosexuals are not particularly nuturing nor is their family dynamic particularly feminine/maternal. If anything, they tend to be even more promiscuous and oriented towards youth, fitness, and physical appearance (rather than fatherhood and nurturing the infirm, elderly, and young) than heterosexual males. Lesbian females, on the other hand, do appear to be just as much, if not more so, relationship-oriented than heterosexual women, but on the other hand this is not manifested in any sort of heightened nurturing/maternal attitudes. If anything, many lesbian females come off as male-aspiring and assuming traditional male gender roles while often derisively dismissing "weak" female gender roles such as homemaker and mother. So, I find it hard to accept the "helping siblings raise young" argument at all.

On the other hand, if it is NOT coded in genes and arises as a result of environmental influences such as family dynamics, early childhood influences, self-perception, etc. then clearly, while natural selection still operates in that reproductive fitness is lower in homosexual individuals, it does not lead to changes in the overall prevalence since the phenotype is not carried in transmissible genetic elements but rather in transmissible, spontaneous, or static environmental influences. For instance, the prevalence of homosexual behavior amongst certain subsets of ancient Greek society would suggest that cultural approbation of such behavior played a huge role in the high frequency of said behavior, rather than genetic isolation of homosexuality-predisposing genetic elements in the Greek population. There is absolutely no scientific reason to reject the above view and instead suppose that such inclinations and behaviors stemmed from something innate that was later suppressed by religion and law.

Ultimately, the "nurture" side of the "nature-vs-nurture" debate is not that someone makes a conscious decision to be homosexual, but that it arises from environmental entities (rather than genetic entities) arising within the individual or external to him/her, and that this imputes responsibility to those who are homosexual and also suggests that the trait is not "hard-wired" and that abnormal sexuality may be reverted to an innate heterosexuality.
__________________
Nole fan: "...most Fedtards seem to be very rabid and rude." (I agree 100%)

You can bet Djokovic's mom just screamed "Another king is dead" right about now - in the remotest corner - of her bathroom - followed by "The other one is buried." (from tennisplanet.me, following Madrid 2011 Djokovic d. Nadal 7-5 6-4)
Aloimeh is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 05:05 AM   #184
country flag JolánGagó
Registered User
 
JolánGagó's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 16,978
JolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Stop using my avy please, thanks.
__________________
Fire & Blood
JolánGagó is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 05:15 AM   #185
country flag Aloimeh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,949
Aloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by JolánGagó View Post
Stop using my avy please, thanks.
I had it before you joined.
__________________
Nole fan: "...most Fedtards seem to be very rabid and rude." (I agree 100%)

You can bet Djokovic's mom just screamed "Another king is dead" right about now - in the remotest corner - of her bathroom - followed by "The other one is buried." (from tennisplanet.me, following Madrid 2011 Djokovic d. Nadal 7-5 6-4)
Aloimeh is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 05:45 AM   #186
country flag buddyholly
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 14,021
buddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

I have not read all this thread, but it seems to me there is little to be made from arguing that homosexuals are biologically inferior to heterosexuals because they are unlikely to reproduce and pass on their genes.
The percentage of homosexuals in the population (except for Iran) seems to be constant and so it seems that genes are unimportant in propogating the lineage. Maybe it is nature's way that homosexuals just ''use'' heterosexuals to reproduce themselves. A very clever evolutionary development. They do not have to invest major time and money in caring for their young, they let heterosexuals do it for them.
__________________
JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 05:49 AM   #187
country flag JolánGagó
Registered User
 
JolánGagó's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 16,978
JolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond reputeJolánGagó has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

True but you weren't here then already. More relevant, it suits me better

BTW congrats, you crushed me at the ACC
__________________
Fire & Blood
JolánGagó is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 05:57 AM   #188
country flag Sunset of Age
Anathemaniac
 
Sunset of Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Wall.
Posts: 41,910
Sunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond reputeSunset of Age has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloimeh View Post
Homosexuals are not biologically inferior, but they are morally in the wrong.
IDIOT. enough said.
__________________
"It's getting colder, I'm getting colder, older, it's getting colder...

Am I still here? As one, with The Fear?
Am I still alive? I'm still f*cking ... Here...!"


"The Storm Before The Calm"

Anathema

Into music of the PROG-Dorky-kind? visit my blog or MTF's Prog Rock Thread.
Sunset of Age is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 01:32 PM   #189
country flag Aloimeh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,949
Aloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond reputeAloimeh has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupid Dream View Post
IDIOT. enough said.
Stunning contribution. I am not surprised.
__________________
Nole fan: "...most Fedtards seem to be very rabid and rude." (I agree 100%)

You can bet Djokovic's mom just screamed "Another king is dead" right about now - in the remotest corner - of her bathroom - followed by "The other one is buried." (from tennisplanet.me, following Madrid 2011 Djokovic d. Nadal 7-5 6-4)
Aloimeh is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 01:47 PM   #190
country flag Iván
Banned!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 59,367
Iván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond reputeIván has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Only if God and the Devil could contribute in this thread, things would be much more clear.
Iván is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 02:45 PM   #191
country flag buddyholly
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 14,021
buddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloimeh View Post
Homosexuals are not biologically inferior, but they are morally in the wrong.
By what standards?
__________________
JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 03:42 PM   #192
country flag Richard_from_Cal
Registered User
 
Richard_from_Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tucson
Age: 57
Posts: 5,228
Richard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond reputeRichard_from_Cal has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
I have not read all this thread, but it seems to me there is little to be made from arguing that homosexuals are biologically inferior to heterosexuals because they are unlikely to reproduce and pass on their genes.
The percentage of homosexuals in the population (except for Iran) seems to be constant and so it seems that genes are unimportant in propogating the lineage. Maybe it is nature's way that homosexuals just ''use'' heterosexuals to reproduce themselves. A very clever evolutionary development. They do not have to invest major time and money in caring for their young, they let heterosexuals do it for them.
Is that a concession that homosexuals reproduce themselves by programming the young of hetrosexuals, to become homosexual? If so, I would consider that Iran might have something, in...repressing? homosexuality, by the ...judgemental method I have seen posted on the internet. ...but that might be unChristian.
__________________
Hobo's Lulaby ./.Arlo Guthrie…..

…”A HOBO Travels to work,
A tramp travels and won't work
A bum neither travels or works”
-=-=-=-=-=-
…hobotraveler (link <--it's a site by hobos, for hobos...it's very slow)…

Nomad Backpackers <--link
Richard_from_Cal is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 04:10 PM   #193
country flag Jaztheman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 45
Jaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond reputeJaztheman has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

It's up to people what they want to do with their life and if they want to be a homosexual, then I'm not going to stop them. I don't think it is up to us to decide whether one should or should not be allowed to do something, if it is not harming others or having a bad affect on people. We are all equal on the world and despite some having more possession on materials and obects, I don't believe we should really control what one another does, up to the extent of what they are doing is harming something/someone.
Jaztheman is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 08:12 PM   #194
country flag GhostUnholy
Registered User
 
GhostUnholy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 1,377
GhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Before I start responding to your post Clydey, let me say a few things. You ignored half of what I said in doing so pretty much responded to a completely different argument than what I was getting at. Regardless though, after reading your post it became clear to me that our disagreement is entirely a difference in how we've defined the terms we're using and the paramters of the discussion. I suggest we stop it here as this discussion is meaningless. I will do a rush job of a response for the sake of courtesy but don't take this as a complete description of my views, nor is it without flaws because I don't have all day to sit here and define terms. This is an argument where the exact language used is extremely important and I frankly don't have the patience to start a philosophical argument about physics, which is where we'd have to go. I addressed your post out of order as well, since it makes sense to talk about some things before others.


Quote:
There are so many Gods people have believed in over the years that you would need to specify which God we're trying to disprove. If the universe does have an origin, discovering it would not disprove the existence of a supreme being. Such a discovery would simply mean that the universe wasn't created by a supreme being. It is utterly impossible to disprove any God's existence. It doesn't matter what technology we have. You simply cannot disprove something like that.
As I was trying to get at in my last post, you are 100% right using the narrow usual definition of the word god. The issue of proving the existence the judeochristian god for example is no different than proving or disproving the existence of fairies. Or any other deity. I already acknowledged this in my last post, so I don't really see why you felt the need to be redundant.

What I was trying to get at with that grammatical travesty of a sentence I had in my last post regarding a "higher power" is that I am not referring to any particular "god" when I talk about atheism. This is what you failed to understand and this is why we're having a pointless argument about two different things.

God
1) traditionally would refer to a deity proposed by some religion
2) could refer to some "higher power" that governs the universe. now when I say "higher power" its because the english language lacks the the vocabulary to describe a force driving the universe that we have no conception of, so you must accept that I'm limited in how such a thing could be described. What I mean by higher power is not some sentient being guiding the universe, but something, probably something that we cannot concieve of, that is the origin of reality AS WE KNOW IT. Basically, god as im discussing it could simply be a phenomenon outside all physical laws that we can conceive. I'll deal with this statement more later though.

And I suppose you're right, there could be an independent supreme being that had nothing to do with the origin of reality and has no role in our existence, and then we couldn't disprove it, but why would we give a fuck about it then? Religion is obviously concerned with a supreme being that would have directed our creation and possibly our affairs, and THIS you can very much disprove by finding an alternate explanation.

Quote:
By that criteria, we have already disproved God's existence. The Genesis story has long since been debunked, so that proves that <insert holy book of your choice here> is mistaken.
Well, as I see it, disproving the genesis story disproves the judeochristian god in the exact form postulated by the religion, for the reason mentioned above. While a supreme being may exist that did NOT do what was described in the bible/torah/quran/whatever, if it possessed all the characteristics described by those religions it would inevitably HAVE to have also performed the actions described in those books, therefore, the EXACT god they believe in does not exist if key elements of their texts are debunked. Which is exactly why I dont adhere to any existing organized religion.

Quote:
As we know, religion changes with the times. Catholics have been forced to reconcile their beliefs with the theory of evolution. Debunking parts of the bible does not disprove God's existence. It can't be done.
The existence of the judeochristian god can and has indeed been dubunked, as noted above. They postulate that a God exists in a certain form with certain aims and took certain actions that were the foundation of existence. If you can prove that the story is a load of bullshit you are essentially proving that the God they described obviously doesn't exist. Because if it did, it would posess the characteristics they described and would inevitably have come to same conclusions and taken the same actions they described. Obviously this doesn't disprove the existence of any other supreme being but as noted above this isn't the aim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey View Post
You are presupposing that there was a beginning. We seek patterns. It is what the mind demands. Since everything else has a beginning, we assume the universe must also have a beginning. In reality, it is most logical to suggest that there was in fact no beginning.
Suggesting that there is no beginning is as foolish assuming there was no beginning because this is more of an issue where its an area where we have no idea as to the truth. Some people, as you noted, say I'm fucking stumpted as to how everything exists and assume the pattern of beginnings continues. Others say I'm fucking stumped as to how everything exists so I'll assume that everything is just here and that's theres nothing to explain.

Both views are flawed. There is obviously much more to learn about the nature of reality before either view could be accepted. I think at this point its just one big I don't know, and any attempt to make sense of existence at this point would be a load of shit. When I talk about origins I'm simply oversimplifying the situation as we all must when discussing such things to avoid suspending our lives precisely defining every term and the limits of every situation.

Quote:
By stating that the universe had a beginning, all you are doing is postulating an infinite regress. God created the universe, but who created God? Who created the God that created the God that created the universe? It just goes on and on.
similar issues to above
-i'm not referring to some sentient physical presence
-you are assuming that the universe makes up reality in its entirety. unfortunately there are infinitely many possibilities here to discuss. I guess this boils it down to the original disagreement: you cannot say with any certainty that nothing exists outside of what we can ever physically explain. In fact, given that its even impossible for us to truly imagine any dimension beyond length, width, and depth (x,y,z axis) I'd think it'd more likely that there is a LOT we will never explain. When I say you cannot prove that there is not a "god" this is what me mean. Obviously our disagreement was one of definitions. This is why I say it is irrational to be an athiest, and rational to be an agnostic and accept that we really don't have a clue what the fuck is going on, and probably won't ever.

Just grabbed this definition from webster's dictionary:
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


Intestingly, check out the definition of atheism they give:
one who believes that there is no deity

It would seem that the difference between people who choose to be atheists vs. agnostics in general is simply one of choosing the context in which the issue of religion is discussed. Do you care about whether or not some proposed deity exists or are you more concerned with, to quote, some "ultimate reality".

Talking about God only in the narrow context of a sentient deity long since ceased to make sense, so I don't even bother considering that context at this point. Apparently many still do.

And as you say, if you are a 6/7 of 7 on the scale of atheism, you are not really an athiest. Atheism requires 100% conviction.

Quote:
Yes, it is. As I explained, discovering the universe's origins does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a deity, just as the theory of evolution did not debunk the Judaeo-Christian God.
Even if we were to consider the existence of a supreme being that had no relevance to our reality, the problem you described is not even one born from disproving a negative, and I'm not sure why you're pretending it is. The problem is one of discussing something that supposedly transcends the laws of the reality we're forced to work in. Which obviously is a very real problem when you're trying to address the issue logically.
GhostUnholy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 08:18 PM   #195
country flag GhostUnholy
Registered User
 
GhostUnholy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 1,377
GhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond reputeGhostUnholy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaztheman View Post
It's up to people what they want to do with their life and if they want to be a homosexual, then I'm not going to stop them. I don't think it is up to us to decide whether one should or should not be allowed to do something, if it is not harming others or having a bad affect on people.
Exactly, homosexuals are not harming anyone by being homosexual, so why this rush to prevent people from being happy?
GhostUnholy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios