quote:Gays are trying to force us to teach our children that they are normal.
It is in fact a mental disorder due to perversion either naturally or artificially and this is what I will teach my children
And yet the leading voice on psychiatry totally refutes your false claims. But hey, ignore the evidence all you want.
quote: Yes i agree with you in that sense. But what I believe is that homosexuality is a mental desire. And because it is a desire, if someone has the urge to refrain from that desire, They can! It will take time and discipline, but it is doable.
Which again brings me to my question: Do you think that YOU could force yourself to be attracted to other men? That is exactly what you are asking gay people to do.
quote:When i brought up natures cycle and natural processes, it was to show you that homosexuality was not an innate part of mans physical biological make-up. Homosexuality is a desire that is part of their mental nature which is why they develop these thoughts and desires. Their is no homosexual gene marker trait.
Neither is heterosexuality then LOL!
quote:Homosexuality is not normal and by definition makes it a mental disorder.
It is perfectly normal. Learn to read already posted sources please
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Heterosexuality is part of natures cycle because it is productive, it has a purpose. Homosexuality on the other hand is not part of natures cycle of life, because its not productive(it offers nature nothing in return). Everything on Earth has its purpose. Homosexuality has no purpose heterosexuality has its purpose(reproduction). So, you can't compare the two.
Again its not about forcing. Its something gradual and subconscious.
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your position: Homosexuality is not biologically determined.
^If that is the case, then I see no reason for heterosexuality to be biologically determine. Sure, heterosexuality may serve a purpose. However, as I have repeatedly said, homosexuals can't force themselves to go straight if they know their sexual orientation.
So, once again I ask you: since YOU believe homosexuals can change their sexual orientation by counseling etc., do you think you could do the same thing you suggest they can do?
About conversion therapy- I have already posted the American Pyschiatric Association's position on that-- go and read it.
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx: ^ Heterosexuality is part of natures cycle because it is productive, it has a purpose. Homosexuality on the other hand is not part of natures cycle of life, because its not productive(it offers nature nothing in return). Everything on Earth has its purpose. Homosexuality has no purpose heterosexuality has its purpose(reproduction). So, you can't compare the two.
Again its not about forcing. Its something gradual and subconscious.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Somethings in Nature are common sense... Heterosexuality is common sense...
I don't know if you believe in creationism. But the angle by which interpret things will be different by how we define the existence of the universe. If you do believe in creationism and in one of the abrahamic faith, then we can both agree we came from Adam and Eve. They were the first ones on Earth. Adam and Eve were created in a pair. Someone could reflect on that and see the wisdom behind it. It says a whole lot.
Your argument is based off conjecture. And I agree I don't have any science to back my argument up.
I think our debate is an endless circle. I am not going to change my mind and neither are you. So lets just leave it at that.
However regarding the whole over population thing... Its all propaganda.. its not true... where is your proof..
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that directed at me or Calabooz? I can understand the confusion because of the avatars.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: multisphinx, what is the purpose of life.
Well that is a question every human being has to figure out on their own accord. And sitting around and watching TV is not going to give you the answer(just a general statement).
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked you, because you said everything on earth has a purpose. You seemed so sure about that, when you said it.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well IF you look at the web of life... it is all interconnected. If one species falls out of its niche it effects the whole ecosystem. Study any eco-environment. Every living thing in that environment is connected somehow to the other living thing in one way or another. You can even look at from abiotic and biotic standpoint... every abiotic(nonliving) matter is their for a purpose. Whether it is the preliminary step of the food chain or the maintenance of the atmosphere. Just reflect on the world we live in; is their anything that is just there and serves no purpose? The purpose I speak of, is the maintenance of order and balance within the ecosystem/cosmos..
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I get that part. The way I see it, things seem to "fit into place", because the conditions on our planet that are necessary to allow them to happen, are available. But I'm not sure that answers the overall question of life's purpose on earth, or if in fact each and everything in the universe has purpose.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gays are trying to force us to teach our children that they are normal.
It is in fact a mental disorder due to perversion either naturally or artificially and this is what I will teach my children
And yet the leading voice on psychiatry totally refutes your false claims. But hey, ignore the evidence all you want.
quote: Yes i agree with you in that sense. But what I believe is that homosexuality is a mental desire. And because it is a desire, if someone has the urge to refrain from that desire, They can! It will take time and discipline, but it is doable.
Which again brings me to my question: Do you think that YOU could force yourself to be attracted to other men? That is exactly what you are asking gay people to do.
quote:When i brought up natures cycle and natural processes, it was to show you that homosexuality was not an innate part of mans physical biological make-up. Homosexuality is a desire that is part of their mental nature which is why they develop these thoughts and desires. Their is no homosexual gene marker trait.
Neither is heterosexuality then LOL!
quote:Homosexuality is not normal and by definition makes it a mental disorder.
It is perfectly normal. Learn to read already posted sources please
Exactly my point, you finally admitted your insanity and irrationality on this subject.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal?
We have to protect our children from such perversion of rationality. It is clear that what is normal is what is clearly based on our natural design. The rest is social engineering at its worse and I don't care where you get your citations from.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Yeah, I get that part. The way I see it, things seem to "fit into place", because the conditions on our planet that are necessary to allow them to happen, are available. But I'm not sure that answers the overall question of life's purpose on earth, or if in fact each and everything in the universe has purpose.
Well the laws of the universe have a purpose... to make everything "fit into place" like you said.. That is what I meant by everything on Earth has a purpose... or is there for a purpose...
Are you speaking of human life? Because I personally believe that their is a much greater purpose for humans on Earth. Humans are not just on Earth to just make everything "fit into place". As humans, we don't correspond by the law of nature/universe because we have been blessed with an intellect. The intellect of a human being compares to nothing else on Earth.. This is the reason we have learned to surpass the carrying capacity laid upon by the laws of nature(which is why some scientist claim the world is overly populated).
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll have to respectfully disagree with some of the stuff you said there. The laws of the universe are just that; they just happen to be. However, that doesn't mean each and everything the comes out of this law has purpose, pending demonstration thereof.
Humans cannot possibly transcend the laws of nature or universe, because we ourselves are a product of these laws. Whatever we have going, it is because the laws of nature have allowed it.
And no, I'm not referring to just human life, but life in general. The life humans have, is the very same life that is distributed throughout the organic world. No new life is created. The life that parents pass onto the offspring is the very same life that the parents themselves have; a new "life" is not being created. In other words, humans, other animals and bacteria share a single life. That's the scientific perspective of life.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry I did not mean to say that humans can transcend the laws of the universe. What I mean is Humans have been able to overcome the boundaries set by nature to maintain a balance. We have been able to do this because of our intellect. For example the concept of predator and pray is a form of balance set by nature, which prevents one animal from dominating an ecosystem. When humans introduce a foreign species into an ecosystem, it becomes an invasive species. It will disrupt the equilibrium set by nature for that ecosystem and will cause the indigenous species to die off. That foreign species did not have an antagonist within that ecosystem to buffer the imbalance it created. The result is destruction of that ecosystem. The limits created by mother nature are there so no living organism can surpass its carrying capacity. This is what i meant by humans are able to overcome natures limits. This is reason for all the paranoia about over population.
Give me an example of something with no purpose?
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are these "boundaries" set by nature that humans are supposed to have overcome?
Humans are able to cross-breed certain animals to derive new ones, because nature has already made it possible for that to happen. It is not like it would happen, if it didn't conform to the laws of nature.
Even the intellect that you speak of, came to be, because the laws of nature permitted it. The family line of humans was not supposed to have originated that way; it came by way of evolution. Evolution conforms to the laws or nature.
Your demand for examples of items with "no purpose" is a loaded one, because how do you define "purpose"?
I mean, I can ask you what purpose a Tsunami has on earth, or that of a land earthquake, a meteorite impacting earth, lightening striking earth, or conjoint twins, infestations of cockroaches, lice, or even house flies. What will say are their purposes in life or earth for that matter? What does our own being serve for earth or the universe?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science and technology have allowed humans to overcome regulatory factors(exp.food supply) that restrict a population from dominance. Our ability to mass produce food for example. I am not saying we are doing anything outside the laws of nature. I wanted to point out that because of our intellect we are different from other living things. All our capabilities through science and technology are constricted within the laws of nature.
If humans are able to transcend the laws of nature, they could overcome the forces of gravity. But that is not possible.
Do you believe in the supernatural? Or are you a man of metaphysics?
Tsunami has its purpose so does an Earthquake. This is all part of Earth natural phenomena. I lack great insight in meteorology or geology, but i know for sure like the water cycle(precipitation, evaporation,condensation) these elements you speak of have their purpose in nature. Another example wind has many purposes, one is too create climate. We are limited to our understanding based on the knowledge we carry. I lack great insight on things, but I try to make out from what knowledge I acquire.
The other examples are all are part of the web of life or part of an ecosystem. A simple example. Flies and bees are pollinators and without them plant life would likely not exist. You look at it as they are factors for life to "fit in place". I look at as a grand design by a creator with a purpose to uphold the balance for human life. We both have different outlooks on this subject matter and this will create the differences in opinion.
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you've come across the biological term of "survival of the fittest". That is all about species dominating over another, in an effort to survive.
I can tell you that I believe in supernatural intervention, but that would only be a subjective perspective.
You claim that a Tsunami has purpose: what is it? And when you speak of this purpose, are you referring to purpose for humans, or that of earth, or yet the universe? What about a cockroach in a cupboard? It is certainly not out there pollinating for flowers. Again: What about lightening striking earth; what purpose could it possibly have for earth or the universe. What about the airborne germs that you hardly even see? I've noticed that you still haven't chimed in on what our own purpose is in the universe, or even on our own planet.
Is there a purpose to conjoint twins or people being born blind?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I familiar with survival of the fittest. That how nature works.
I don't get what a cockroach in a cupboard has to do with anything. I just stated that biotic and abiotic matter has a purpose to uphold the equilibrium of the ecosystem or make everything "fit in place" as you put it. Now the stuff you are asking about is irrelevant to purpose in that sense.
Like I said earlier, everyone must find their purpose in life on their own accord. I have found my purpose. Have you found your purpose?
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reacting to your demand for examples of elements with no "purpose". That's where the cockroach, lightening, conjoint twins, et al., and yes, even ourselves come in. I'm asking you whether you see purpose for these things. And if you do, vis-a-vis whom or what: us, or the universe?
You have to take into account that purpose to us, is different from purpose to the universe, or even our own planet.
My take on my purpose in life is purely subjective and has no bearing on another's. To this end, it would be irrelevant.
Ps: The "survival of the fittest" was invoked, because you keep referring to humans ability to dominate via intelligence. Well, if this is so, it wouldn't be an anomaly, as it is part of that "survival of the fittest" theme; humans got this way, because they had to adapt this way.
There was a time when dinosaurs were supposed to have dominated the living on land, and this included dominance over humans' ancestors.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx: ^ Heterosexuality is part of natures cycle because it is productive, it has a purpose. Homosexuality on the other hand is not part of natures cycle of life, because its not productive(it offers nature nothing in return). Everything on Earth has its purpose. Homosexuality has no purpose heterosexuality has its purpose(reproduction). So, you can't compare the two.
Again its not about forcing. Its something gradual and subconscious.
the purpose of having heterosexual sex using birth control is pleasure.
However these guys are into a little something different:
posted
No I do not believe in creationism because I'm not religious.
Here is the thing, you have already agreed with me numerous times, every time contradicting your original argument. You have also failed to understand anything I've said, ignoring most of it and going off in a useless rant.
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx: In response to Calabooz laste statment
Somethings in Nature are common sense... Heterosexuality is common sense...
I don't know if you believe in creationism. But the angle by which interpret things will be different by how we define the existence of the universe. If you do believe in creationism and in one of the abrahamic faith, then we can both agree we came from Adam and Eve. They were the first ones on Earth. Adam and Eve were created in a pair. Someone could reflect on that and see the wisdom behind it. It says a whole lot.
Your argument is based off conjecture. And I agree I don't have any science to back my argument up.
I think our debate is an endless circle. I am not going to change my mind and neither are you. So lets just leave it at that.
However regarding the whole over population thing... Its all propaganda.. its not true... where is your proof..
quote:Gays are trying to force us to teach our children that they are normal.
It is in fact a mental disorder due to perversion either naturally or artificially and this is what I will teach my children
And yet the leading voice on psychiatry totally refutes your false claims. But hey, ignore the evidence all you want.
quote: Yes i agree with you in that sense. But what I believe is that homosexuality is a mental desire. And because it is a desire, if someone has the urge to refrain from that desire, They can! It will take time and discipline, but it is doable.
Which again brings me to my question: Do you think that YOU could force yourself to be attracted to other men? That is exactly what you are asking gay people to do.
quote:When i brought up natures cycle and natural processes, it was to show you that homosexuality was not an innate part of mans physical biological make-up. Homosexuality is a desire that is part of their mental nature which is why they develop these thoughts and desires. Their is no homosexual gene marker trait.
Neither is heterosexuality then LOL!
quote:Homosexuality is not normal and by definition makes it a mental disorder.
It is perfectly normal. Learn to read already posted sources please
Exactly my point, you finally admitted your insanity and irrationality on this subject.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal?
We have to protect our children from such perversion of rationality. It is clear that what is normal is what is clearly based on our natural design. The rest is social engineering at its worse and I don't care where you get your citations from.
Please explain how anything I said "proved your point". Your argument is that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be "cured". I have in no way supported or reinforced your asinine statements. Rather, I have responded to them time and time again, whereas you ignore the sources already presented and repeat yourself.
Homosexuality isn't abnormal, or do you disagree? If it happens among other animals, then it is reasonable to assume it would happen in humans without need for "social engineering" or else you would have to make the argument that homosexuality is the result of "social engineering" among animals as well. I honestly don't see how it is abnormal.
You say you don't care where my citations come from? Well you should otherwise you are dodging the truth.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ dodging the truth? Now that is really hillarious coming from your political position.
Is it not you that cannot accept that there are norms in nature and natural abnormalities?
By the way, stop with the strawmans. I didn't say homosexuality was caused by social engineering. I said that is how we try to treat the symptoms. The primary problem for homosexuals is that they feel abnormal and so there is a political movement to try to normalize their sexuality. This is called social engineering. You would have us train our children at a young age to believe that homosexuality is normal.
I train my children that homosexuals are like any other people and have the right to enjoy their God given rights. However, it is obvious that their form of sexuality is an abnormality caused by a psychological disorder that we do not have a cure for. If there was a pill that would cure them I am sure 90% of them would take it.
It is one thing to teach tolerance but another to teach lies. I am not about to teach my children that deception is okay if it makes people feel better about themselves.
Same I would say to Afro-Nuts. West African Bantu are to Egyptians what Samoans are to the Chinese.
Teaching descendents of the Atlantic slave trade that they were the Egyptians may make African Americans feel better but it is a lie.
There are different types of Africans and yes the Egyptians were Black politically speaking, but no, the average African American does not have Egyptian heritage.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm reacting to your demand for examples of elements with no "purpose". That's where the cockroach, lightening, conjoint twins, et al., and yes, even ourselves come in. I'm asking you whether you see purpose for these things. And if you do, vis-a-vis whom or what: us, or the universe?
You have to take into account that purpose to us, is different from purpose to the universe, or even our own planet.
My take on my purpose in life is purely subjective and has no bearing on another's. To this end, it would be irrelevant.
Ps: The "survival of the fittest" was invoked, because you keep referring to humans ability to dominate via intelligence. Well, if this is so, it wouldn't be an anomaly, as it is part of that "survival of the fittest" theme; humans got this way, because they had to adapt this way.
There was a time when dinosaurs were supposed to have dominated the living on land, and this included dominance over humans' ancestors.
I see purpose for everything and every event. Some purpose I can see, other is beyond my reach of understanding. You don't believe in creationism... that makes all the difference to why our thoughts clash. I don't believe in the theory of evolution. I believe in evolution but not the theory of Evolution, it is full of conjecture.
So why didn't any other species from our genus evolve with the intellect? Why the homo sapian? Are humans still evolving(in the sense of the theory of evolution)?
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: No I do not believe in creationism because I'm not religious.
Here is the thing, you have already agreed with me numerous times, every time contradicting your original argument. You have also failed to understand anything I've said, ignoring most of it and going off in a useless rant.
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx:
Who said you have to be religious to believe in creationism.
I never contradicted my self. Because you don't believe in creationism you won't understand what I am trying to say. It all has to do with the perspective of thought. Its as if we are speaking two different languages.
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: [QB] ^^ dodging the truth? Now that is really hillarious coming from your political position.
Excuse you?
quote:Is it not you that cannot accept that there are norms in nature and natural abnormalities?
Of course I can. Homosexuality is not abnormal, however, as it occurs in nature among animals as well. Do those animals have mental disorders to you LOL
quote:By the way, stop with the strawmans.
Funny you say that, because your entire post turns into a strawman about Egyptians.
quote:I didn't say homosexuality was caused by social engineering.
LMAO! Here, why don`t I quote you:
quote:Originally posted by Osirion: It is clear that what is normal is clearly based on our natural design. The rest is social engineering at it's worst...
Obviously you are stating that "the rest" is social engineering, and "the rest" in this case would be the abnormal (as you separated the normal from the "rest" meaning the "rest" isn't normal to you and therefore abnormal, which according to you includes homosexuality). Stop lying to yourself.
quote:I said that is how we try to treat the symptoms.
Nope, you didn't. As shown above, you are saying things which you deem as abnormal are the product of social engineering.
quote:The primary problem for homosexuals is that they feel abnormal and so there is a political movement to try to normalize their sexuality.
Oh, I'm sorry. I had no idea you knew every homosexual. And there are people who try to change gay people via conversion therapy. I have already posted the American Psychiatric Association's statement on conversion therapy, I suggest you go back and read it.
quote:This is called social engineering. You would have us train our children at a young age to believe that homosexuality is normal.
I could care less about how YOU raise your children. However, the judicial system was right when they denied an anti-gay couple to adopt a child. Why willingfully let a child go to a household that discriminates instead of a tolerant household. That goes along the lines of an anti-black couple wanting to adopt a child. All forms of discrimination is wrong, so the court was correct. I find it extremely ironic that a black couple is doing this... moreso that black people here are also discriminating.
quote:I train my children that homosexuals are like any other people and have the right to enjoy their God given rights. However, it is obvious that their form of sexuality is an abnormality caused by a psychological disorder that we do not have a cure for.
LOL! This brings me back to your comment on social engineering. You stated that everything not normal to you was social engineering, and now you again state that homosexuality is abnormal. Again, according to the American Psychiatric Association, homosexuality is not a disorder. If you think it is a disorder, then it must also be a disorder in animals as they do it too! So
First provide evidence that it is a disorder in humans
Then provide evidence that it is a disorder in animals
quote:If there was a pill that would cure them I am sure 90% of them would take it.
Oh, so you DO know 90% of homosexuals? Don't make me laugh.
quote:It is one thing to teach tolerance but another to teach lies.
Not a lie. I have repeatedly listed sources whereas you have not.
quote:I am not about to teach my children that deception is okay if it makes people feel better about themselves.
That's your delusional belief contradicted by numerous things
quote:Same I would say to Afro-Nuts. West African Bantu are to Egyptians what Samoans are to the Chinese.
Strawman
quote:Teaching descendents of the Atlantic slave trade that they were the Egyptians may make African Americans feel better but it is a lie.
Strawman
quote:There are different types of Africans and yes the Egyptians were Black politically speaking, but no, the average African American does not have Egyptian heritage.
Strawman
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: No I do not believe in creationism because I'm not religious.
Here is the thing, you have already agreed with me numerous times, every time contradicting your original argument. You have also failed to understand anything I've said, ignoring most of it and going off in a useless rant.
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx:
Who said you have to be religious to believe in creationism.
I never contradicted my self. Because you don't believe in creationism you won't understand what I am trying to say. It all has to do with the perspective of thought. Its as if we are speaking two different languages.
A. Creationism is based on religion B.You have contradicted yourself in our argument numerous times. C. I understand fully what you are saying, which is why I respond addressing all your points thus making longer replies. I am inclined to think that you don't understand me, as all your replies to me hardly address a thing I've said.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Most religion is a myth that evolves over time.
You told me earlier in one of your posts that you had a spiritual side. How do you connect with your spiritual side if their is no religion in your life? People can have a religion and not be religious. Most Americans in US are Christians or believe in the christian dogma, but are not religious.If you are not religious it does not necessarily mean you don't have a religion.
Give me an example where I contradicted myself...
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx: ^ Most religion is a myth that evolves over time.
You told me earlier in one of your posts that you had a spiritual side. How do you connect with your spiritual side if their is no religion in your life? People can have a religion and not be religious. Most Americans in US are Christians or believe in the christian dogma, but are not religious.If you are not religious it does not necessarily mean you don't have a religion.
Give me an example where I contradicted myself...
Creationism is based on religion, and that is why I deny it, as it has no scientific bases whatsoever.
As for spirituality... you can be spiritual without being religious. I believe that there is a higher being than me, but creationism is just ridiculous in my opinion
I have already demonstrated earlier on how you belie your argument numerous times. Go back and read my post where I demonstrate your contradictions, and plain hypocrisy in some instances
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
One of the all time Geniuses said this.
Here is one of the definition of religion from dictionary.com "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." Compare that to what you told me you believe. You have a religion and that is the belief in a higher being...
You believe in a higher being... So a higher being who is just there? or.. A higher being with no purpose? elaborate (Just trying to understand your perspective).
Show me my contradictions...
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: [QB] ^^ dodging the truth? Now that is really hillarious coming from your political position.
Excuse you?
quote:Is it not you that cannot accept that there are norms in nature and natural abnormalities?
Of course I can. Homosexuality is not abnormal, however, as it occurs in nature among animals as well. Do those animals have mental disorders to you LOL
quote:By the way, stop with the strawmans.
Funny you say that, because your entire post turns into a strawman about Egyptians.
quote:I didn't say homosexuality was caused by social engineering.
LMAO! Here, why don`t I quote you:
quote:Originally posted by Osirion: It is clear that what is normal is clearly based on our natural design. The rest is social engineering at it's worst...
Obviously you are stating that "the rest" is social engineering, and "the rest" in this case would be the abnormal (as you separated the normal from the "rest" meaning the "rest" isn't normal to you and therefore abnormal, which according to you includes homosexuality). Stop lying to yourself.
quote:I said that is how we try to treat the symptoms.
Nope, you didn't. As shown above, you are saying things which you deem as abnormal are the product of social engineering.
quote:The primary problem for homosexuals is that they feel abnormal and so there is a political movement to try to normalize their sexuality.
Oh, I'm sorry. I had no idea you knew every homosexual. And there are people who try to change gay people via conversion therapy. I have already posted the American Psychiatric Association's statement on conversion therapy, I suggest you go back and read it.
quote:This is called social engineering. You would have us train our children at a young age to believe that homosexuality is normal.
I could care less about how YOU raise your children. However, the judicial system was right when they denied an anti-gay couple to adopt a child. Why willingfully let a child go to a household that discriminates instead of a tolerant household. That goes along the lines of an anti-black couple wanting to adopt a child. All forms of discrimination is wrong, so the court was correct. I find it extremely ironic that a black couple is doing this... moreso that black people here are also discriminating.
quote:I train my children that homosexuals are like any other people and have the right to enjoy their God given rights. However, it is obvious that their form of sexuality is an abnormality caused by a psychological disorder that we do not have a cure for.
LOL! This brings me back to your comment on social engineering. You stated that everything not normal to you was social engineering, and now you again state that homosexuality is abnormal. Again, according to the American Psychiatric Association, homosexuality is not a disorder. If you think it is a disorder, then it must also be a disorder in animals as they do it too! So
First provide evidence that it is a disorder in humans
Then provide evidence that it is a disorder in animals
quote:If there was a pill that would cure them I am sure 90% of them would take it.
Oh, so you DO know 90% of homosexuals? Don't make me laugh.
quote:It is one thing to teach tolerance but another to teach lies.
Not a lie. I have repeatedly listed sources whereas you have not.
quote:I am not about to teach my children that deception is okay if it makes people feel better about themselves.
That's your delusional belief contradicted by numerous things
quote:Same I would say to Afro-Nuts. West African Bantu are to Egyptians what Samoans are to the Chinese.
Strawman
quote:Teaching descendents of the Atlantic slave trade that they were the Egyptians may make African Americans feel better but it is a lie.
Strawman
quote:There are different types of Africans and yes the Egyptians were Black politically speaking, but no, the average African American does not have Egyptian heritage.
Strawman
Not sure why your reading comprehension is so poor.
1. Social engineering is what is done to reduce bullying of Gay people. It is not that homosexuals necessarily feel abnormal but that society treats them as abnormal individuals.
2. It is not discrimination to acknowledge a deviation from the natural intent of our design as in a penis is designed to go into a vagina. Autistic children are a deviation. The same with many other natural deformities. Deformities occur in nature like anywhere else. It has also be shown that some animals become homosexual due to being in an artificial environment such as a zoo.
3. Our judicial system should not be conducting social engineering or trying to define our belief systems. Basically, if you are a conservative Christian you cannot adopt children according to this reprehensible ruling which is entirely outlandish and I cannot believe anyone, even gay people, can support this ruling. This says that we are no long allowed to believe in the Bible, Quran, Talmud, etc. Funny thing is that the same court would have us swear on the Bible and to a Christian God before we give testimony - opps, that is no longer the case is it!
4. As for my take on Egyptian history, that wasn't a strawman, it is what this forum is really about - Egypt and politics. I was simply making an analogy for you.
Man you are thick and I can't believe people are willing to compare Black people to Gay people.
A gay person can pretend to be straight. A gay person can actually live the life of a straight person. There is no comparison to being Black and the issues are completely different. Where as their is no evidence supporting a significant difference between a Black Man and a White Man, there is plenty of direct evidence supporting the differenct between a Heterosexual couple and a Homosexual one. It is indeed self-evident that Homosexual relationships are not equal to Heterosexual ones. Though sometime in the future technology may prove me wrong.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
One of the all time Geniuses said this.
This religion issue came up due to the fact that you said you didn't have to be religious to believe in creationism, in return I said that creationism is based on religion. Do you ignore the fact that NO scientist acknowledges creationism?
quote:Here is one of the definition of religion from dictionary.com "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." Compare that to what you told me you believe. You have a religion and that is the belief in a higher being...
Now tell me, how does the definition of religion effect this discussion? Your definition of religion does not reply to me LOL lets reexamine it:
quote:Multisphinx's definition of religion "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
I do not believe nor follow my belief in a higher being devotedly. It is a belief based off of observations, there is a higher being than most everything on this planet, so why not humans?
Definition of devoted:
de·vot·ed (d-vtd) adj. 1. Feeling or displaying strong affection or attachment; ardent: a devoted friend. 2. Having been consecrated; dedicated.
I do not display strong affection for my belief that there is something higher than me. It should be obvious, as I mentioned, there is something higher than everything on this planet, why not me? I'm sure something higher than me exists, but I don't follow this belief with strong affection i.e., in a religious way.
quote:You believe in a higher being... So a higher being who is just there? or.. A higher being with no purpose? elaborate (Just trying to understand your perspective).
OK, elaboration: I believe that there is a higher power. Perhaps "being" is not an appropriate term. For example, the Universe is a higher power than me. I could just mean that there is another life form somewhere that is higher than me. I do not mean:
A being that has power over human life
A godlike figure
It just stands to reason that if I am higher than a bug, then something else is higher than me. As I said, you can be spiritual without being religious, the opposite is not true.
quote:Show me my contradictions...
I have pointed it out to you before. Just go back and read the thread instead of asking ME to do something that I have already done as opposed to just doing it yourself
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Religion has all to do with this discussion.. Because this whole discussion is meaningless without religion. Religion defines morality/ ethics for society. So my perspective in analyzing this whole discussion is from a creationism outlook. I could assume osarion has a similar perspective as well. YOU on the other hand don't believe in creationism and that will make all the difference on where this discussion will go.
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are you getting this "no scientist acknowledges creationism. That is absurd! I just quoted Albert Einstien. There are MANY scientist who acknowledge creationism.
Creationism speaks of a higher being. I think what you are really trying to say is you are Agnostic. You believe their is no proof for a superior divine deity at the same time there could be a superior deity.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: [QUOTE
quote:Show me my contradictions...
I have pointed it out to you before. Just go back and read the thread instead of asking ME to do something that I have already done as opposed to just doing it yourself
What you pointed out I clarified. There is no contradiction in what I said.
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I see purpose for everything and every event. Some purpose I can see, other is beyond my reach of understanding.
If you see purpose for everything, then why are you having a hard time telling me our (human) purpose on this planet, the purpose of a cockroach that hides in the cupboard, bed bugs, lightening striking the earth, etc. Why are you not case by case as laid out to you, providing specific and succinct descriptions of the purpose of each of these aforementioned elements?
Saying that you see a purpose without defining said purpose is itself without purpose.
quote:You don't believe in creationism... that makes all the difference to why our thoughts clash.
I don't recall ever sharing with anyone what my belief is. Do you personally know me such that you know what I believe or don't believe? If not, how do you know what I supposedly believe in.?
quote: I don't believe in the theory of evolution. I believe in evolution but not the theory of Evolution, it is full of conjecture.
This line is suffering from contradiction.
Evolution is backed by hard data and is scientific. You have no evidence, but your personal hunch for your religious belief. You therefore cannot be telling someone else that so and so is meant to be like this and that everything on earth has its purpose, because your thinking is not grounded on an objective platform. You cannot pass off your personal bias as fact in an argument.
quote: So why didn't any other species from our genus evolve with the intellect?
Why stop there; why not go even further--why didn't horses evolve with our intellect, or dogs, cats, pigs, donkeys, etc?
quote: Why the homo sapian? Are humans still evolving(in the sense of the theory of evolution)?
These are the sort of questions asked by someone who has skipped the subject of evolution in primary school. I'm not saying this to be insulting, but just saying how the question comes out. Humans needed to have brain power, because that is the tool for their survival. I can easily ask you why humans don't have sharp claws, walk on fours and large canines. But that would be a question born out of ignorance of the subject of evolution. Are humans intelligent than Dolphins? You might say yes at first glance, only because Dolphins don't have the anatomy of humans, and hence, cannot do all the things humans are able to do. Yet, the creatures closest to the human family, like apes, are not estimated to have the intelligence of Dolphins.
Using your train of thought, there would be no other animal variety on this planet, because everything is expected to evolve into humans. No? then why do you ask this: So why didn't any other species from our genus evolve with the intellect?
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
I think you are taking that quote totally out of context. You honestly think Einstein believes in divine intervention over evolution? If so, by what proof?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion, I wish you would stop responding with such stupid replies. Now I can see why people refer to you as a "troll". Getting started...
quote:Not sure why your reading comprehension is so poor.
I actually wonder that about you, as you ignore most things I said. Please learn how to use the quote function, otherwise this gets boring I also wonder why you are so stupid:
quote:1. Social engineering is what is done to reduce bullying of Gay people. It is not that homosexuals necessarily feel abnormal but that society treats them as abnormal individuals.
No, discrimination against homosexuals is due to idiots such as yourself. Recalling your original statement on social engineering, again...
quote:Originally posted by Osirion: We have to protect our children from such perversion of rationality. It is clear that what is normal is what is clearly based on our natural design. The rest is social engineering at its worse
In the above statement made by yourself, you claim that things you consider "normal" are "natural". Whereas "the rest" you consider the result of social engineering. Now, if you separate "the rest" from the "normal" than you obviously think "the rest" is abnormal. And you have already made it clear that you consider homosexuality abnormal. Therefore, per your own words, you implied homosexuality was the result of "social engineering". I then gave you the task of proving homosexuality was the result of "social engineering" as you implicated in your statement. But, in order to do so you would also have to prove it was the result of social engineering in animals as well... which would be absurd. The only logical conclusion is that homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
quote:2. It is not discrimination to acknowledge a deviation from the natural intent of our design as in a penis is designed to go into a vagina. Autistic children are a deviation. The same with many other natural deformities. Deformities occur in nature like anywhere else. It has also be shown that some animals become homosexual due to being in an artificial environment such as a zoo.
LMAO! The above makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot possibly compare homosexuality to medical problems such as autism deformities etc.,
Unfortunately for you, homosexuality in animals occurs in the wild. Now, it is up to you to elaborate on how an artificial environment could cause homosexual behavior in animals, with sources. Such a claim is stupid...
quote:3. Our judicial system should not be conducting social engineering or trying to define our belief systems.
And who says they are? It is wrong to discriminate against anyone PERIOD. Therefore the Judicial system was correct to no willingly give a child away to a household that discriminates. Who said they were trying to define your beliefs? They only denied the foster parents the adoption because they were homophobic religious nutcases. If, on the other hand, the couple were religious but did not discriminate against gays, they would have been able to adopt.
quote:Basically, if you are a conservative Christian you cannot adopt children according to this reprehensible ruling which is entirely outlandish and I cannot believe anyone, even gay people, can support this ruling.
Oh, and why is that? It was absolutely correct to deny a couple a child on the basis that they discriminate against a group of people. It was absolutely logical for the judge to deny the couple adoption, what person would willingly give a child to a homophobic couple.
quote:his says that we are no long allowed to believe in the Bible, Quran, Talmud, etc. Funny thing is that the same court would have us swear on the Bible and to a Christian God before we give testimony - opps, that is no longer the case is it!
They couple were not denied adoption just because of their religion... they were denied adoption because they discriminate against gay people LOL! If they didn't discriminate against gays, then they would have gotten the child.
quote:4. As for my take on Egyptian history, that wasn't a strawman, it is what this forum is really about - Egypt and politics. I was simply making an analogy for you.
It was a strawman because it had nothing to do with this discussion. Several things you said weren't apart of your "analogy" and was useless ramblings of a madman
quote:Man you are thick and I can't believe people are willing to compare Black people to Gay people.
I did not compare black people to gay people. I said that all forms of discrimination are wrong, therefore, denying this homophobic couple rights on basis of their homophobic beliefs is the equivalent of denying a racist couple to adopt a child. My exact words:
quote:That goes along the lines of an anti-black couple wanting to adopt a child.
Anti-black does not mean a black person. It means a racist person who is anti black, hence the use of the word "anti". I simply stated that this anti-gay couple wanting to adopt is the same as an anti-black couple wanting to adopt. Neither should get the child because both discriminate against a group of people. capiche?
quote:A gay person can pretend to be straight. A gay person can actually live the life of a straight person. There is no comparison to being Black and the issues are completely different.
See, this entire next portion of your post is a complete non-seqitor and strawman, as I never compared a gay person to a black person, I compared an anti-gay couple to and anti-black couple.
quote:Where as their is no evidence supporting a significant difference between a Black Man and a White Man, there is plenty of direct evidence supporting the differenct between a Heterosexual couple and a Homosexual one. It is indeed self-evident that Homosexual relationships are not equal to Heterosexual ones. Though sometime in the future technology may prove me wrong.
Why don't you read the following:
quote:Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids Researchers Say Children Who Grow Up in Households With Gay Parents Have Normal Self-Esteem
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Oct.12, 2005 (Washington) -- Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.
"There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent," says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.
Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.
"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."
quote:Religion has all to do with this discussion.. Because this whole discussion is meaningless without religion. Religion defines morality/ ethics for society. So my perspective in analyzing this whole discussion is from a creationism outlook. I could assume osarion has a similar perspective as well. YOU on the other hand don't believe in creationism and that will make all the difference on where this discussion will go.
Do you even know what creationism is? I am curious...
quote:Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
Among other things, it teaches that humans lived with dinosaurs LOL! Any evidence that humanity was just created by some supernatural being? Nope, we have evolution LOL!
quote:Where are you getting this "no scientist acknowledges creationism. That is absurd! I just quoted Albert Einstien. There are MANY scientist who acknowledge creationism.
LMAO! Albert Einstein may have been religious, but he most certainly did not believe in creationism. Read the above definition, creationism teaches that humanity among other things were created by "God" NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES HUMANITY WAS CREATED BY A "GOD". SCIENTISTS SUPPORT EVOLUTION
quote:Creationism speaks of a higher being. I think what you are really trying to say is you are Agnostic. You believe their is no proof for a superior divine deity at the same time there could be a superior deity.
Creationism speaks of a being that created humans, life, and the earth. You do realize that creationist do not believe in evolution, and they think humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs, right? That is why the usually try to argue with scientists... yet they never offer any evidence.
Only a small minority of scientists are religious at all, and the small minority that is most certainly do not support creationism.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
After he discovered the the theory of relativity Einstein changed his views on the Reality of the Cosmos/Universe.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
You made a remark that led me to believe that you believe in the Darwin theory of evolution. So I assumed you don't believe in creationism. You can't believe in the two. Its either one or the other.
You are trying to get all philisophical about purpose. I just wanted to be straightforward about it. From a creationism standpoint. The purpose of life is to serve the creator. The creator created the universe to be of sustenance to mankind so they can grow and develop. Everything is created by the Creator with a purpose. In the view of creationism everything is in submission to the will of the creator. That is enough for purpose.
However, if a person does not view creationism as the reality of life. Everything I said will not make sense. So its all about perceptive.
I asked simple questions because I am not satisfied with the answers the the theory of evolution provides for these questions. The theory of evolution is based off conjecture. Its a mans theory. Yes their are scientific elements in it, but its overall premise is baloney. You can nullify creationism all you want, but it does not change a thing. Its all based off perspective. Creationism to me is more logical and sensible then Darwin's inane doctrine.(No disrespect intended)
You can just reflect over history and see how many theories have been debunked by man. Mankind is in the rudiments to understanding the the universe and the cosmos. Don't fool your self with all these gadgets and discoveries we see coming out everyday. There is still an astronomical amount of knowledge out there we still have yet to discover. A good example is Aristotle theory of spontaneous generation. It was the dogma of life back in the med evil times. It was not until Lois Pasteur debunked that theory with the Cell theory. And Science took a different turn from there. Darwins Theory is bits of facts amalgamated with a bunch of speculation. What you are accusing me of is what you your self are doing.
I am saying you have the right to debate using your outlook and so do I. Plus if something is fact I mention it is fact. Obviously this is a informal discussion and everyone carries his bias opinion, you included.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx:
I see purpose for everything and every event. Some purpose I can see, other is beyond my reach of understanding.
If you see purpose for everything, then why are you having a hard time telling me our (human) purpose on this planet, the purpose of a cockroach that hides in the cupboard, bed bugs, lightening striking the earth, etc. Why are you not case by case as laid out to you, providing specific and succinct descriptions of the purpose of each of these aforementioned elements?
Saying that you see a purpose without defining said purpose is itself without purpose.
quote:You don't believe in creationism... that makes all the difference to why our thoughts clash.
I don't recall ever sharing with anyone what my belief is. Do you personally know me such that you know what I believe or don't believe? If not, how do you know what I supposedly believe in.?
quote: I don't believe in the theory of evolution. I believe in evolution but not the theory of Evolution, it is full of conjecture.
This line is suffering from contradiction.
Evolution is backed by hard data and is scientific. You have no evidence, but your personal hunch for your religious belief. You therefore cannot be telling someone else that so and so is meant to be like this and that everything on earth has its purpose, because your thinking is not grounded on an objective platform. You cannot pass off your personal bias as fact in an argument.
quote: So why didn't any other species from our genus evolve with the intellect?
Why stop there; why not go even further--why didn't horses evolve with our intellect, or dogs, cats, pigs, donkeys, etc?
quote: Why the homo sapian? Are humans still evolving(in the sense of the theory of evolution)?
These are the sort of questions asked by someone who has skipped the subject of evolution in primary school. I'm not saying this to be insulting, but just saying how the question comes out. Humans needed to have brain power, because that is the tool for their survival. I can easily ask you why humans don't have sharp claws, walk on fours and large canines. But that would be a question born out of ignorance of the subject of evolution. Are humans intelligent than Dolphins? You might say yes at first glance, only because Dolphins don't have the anatomy of humans, and hence, cannot do all the things humans are able to do. Yet, the creatures closest to the human family, like apes, are not estimated to have the intelligence of Dolphins.
Using your train of thought, there would be no other animal variety on this planet, because everything is expected to evolve into humans. No? then why do you ask this: So why didn't any other species from our genus evolve with the intellect?
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
I think you are taking that quote totally out of context. You honestly think Einstein believes in divine intervention over evolution? If so, by what proof?
If you study the different religions. Whether it be polytheism or monotheism, you will find that their is a superior divine deity above all creation. Yes polytheist believe in many gods/goddesses, but above those gods and goddesses, they believed in a superior deity as well.
Many of today's religions are myth that evolved over time. It held truth at one point then through mans infiltration it evolved full of folly and absurdity.With this said their is truth in all religion, ignoring that fact is foolish.
Knowledge- the more you know, the more you realize how little you know.
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I must say, you have done a fine and dandy job of changing the course of this discussion. I'm not even sure how your above post has anything to do with my reply. I.e., how creationism is not supported by scientists, what it means, etc.,
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL.. Its all in sequence. Religion is what sets the morals and ethics for man if you really think about it(I know this will open Pandora's box). What will inspire man to be just and moral? Homosexuality has been been shunned throughout history because of religion role(monotheism to be exact). Religion is what gives man dignity or else he would be enslaved to his lower desires.
Creationism is supported by science... The big bang theory. It all had a beginning... This is what baffled Einstein when he discovered the theory of relativity and that was the reason he changed his opinion about a creator.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." -Albert Einstein
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."-Albert Einstein
Hubbles theory of the universe- the universe is expanding. This also coincides with creationism.
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
After he discovered the the theory of relativity Einstein changed his views on the Reality of the Cosmos/Universe.
You are essentially admitting that you are quoting him out of context, because he doesn't believe in divine intervention.
quote: You made a remark that led me to believe that you believe in the Darwin theory of evolution. So I assumed you don't believe in creationism. You can't believe in the two. Its either one or the other.
Correction: I made a scientific claim. And yes, I accept the biological perspective of evolution, because it is grounded on objective platform not sectarian theology, which is purely subjective.
quote:You are trying to get all philisophical about purpose.
You incited the philosophical turn of this discussion by saying that everything has its purpose.
quote: I just wanted to be straightforward about it. From a creationism standpoint. The purpose of life is to serve the creator. The creator created the universe to be of sustenance to mankind so they can grow and develop. Everything is created by the Creator with a purpose. In the view of creationism everything is in submission to the will of the creator. That is enough for purpose.
This is what I was talking about. You are using a subjective personal viewpoint and trying to use it as a FACTUAL argument against an opponent.
quote: I asked simple questions because I am not satisfied with the answers the the theory of evolution provides for these questions. The theory of evolution is based off conjecture.
Do you believe mutations occur, or do you think that too is conjecture?
Do you believe that dinosaurs actually existed, or do you think somebody fabricated their skeletal remains?
Do you believe the likes of Neanderthals and Homo Erectus existed before, or they too are part of a big fraudulent scheme?
If not, how do you explain their occurrence?
How do you explain the great similarity between pan troglodyte and human genome?
quote: Its a mans theory. Yes their are scientific elements in it, but its overall premise is baloney.
So, if man says there is a solar system and that the earth revolves around the sun, and that the earth is round, we should dismiss it on the account that man made that observation? I thought you said humans were intelligent; whatever happened to that understanding?
quote: You can nullify creationism all you want, but it does not change a thing. Its all based off perspective. Creationism to me is more logical and sensible then Darwin's inane doctrine.(No disrespect intended)
Science is not the same thing as religion. The former relies on hard data. The latter relies only on personal hunch, without evidence.
quote:
Don't fool your self with all these gadgets and discoveries we see coming out everyday.
I never fool myself, because I always rely on hard data, not illusions and fairy tales. It is hard to make a fool out of yourself, when hard data is right before your eyes.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of humnity's "physical adaptations" have been rendered not as necessary as before -- this may have been what dude (who ever was talking about boundaries - or perhaps more accurately barriers to other species - being overcome) was referring to.
quote:^ LOL.. Its all in sequence. Religion is what sets the morals and ethics for man if you really think about it
Last I checked it was the reason for genocide among other terrible things.
quote:I know this will open Pandora's box). What will inspire man to be just and moral? Homosexuality has been been shunned throughout history because of religion role(monotheism to be exact). Religion is what gives man dignity or else he would be enslaved to his lower desires.
Religion tends to cloud peoples judgment if they read too much into it. You know, kind what you've been doing this entire thread?
quote:Creationism is supported by science...
No it is not. Name one scientific paper that supports creationism. Name one scientist that believes in creationism...
quote:The big bang theory. It all had a beginning... This is what baffled Einstein when he discovered the theory of relativity and that was the reason he changed his opinion about a creator.
Does that mean he believes in creationism? Nope
quote:"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." -Albert Einstein
Again, doesn't mean he supported creationism, because he didn't/
quote:"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."-Albert Einstein
I'll reiterate what the Explorer said:
quote:Originally posted by the Explorer: You are essentially admitting that you are quoting him out of context, because he doesn't believe in divine intervention.
quote:This also coincides with creationism.
Go look up what creationism is
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did not believe in A personal God, but the point I was trying to make, is he was no longer an atheist.
Well if I was trained in philosophy I would be able to answer your question. But I will admit I have no background in philosophy so I can not enter that arena of the discussion. I will take what I said back.
The Explorer said... o you believe mutations occur, or do you think that too is conjecture?
Do you believe that dinosaurs actually existed, or do you think somebody fabricated their skeletal remains?
Do you believe the likes of Neanderthals and Homo Erectus existed before, or they too are part of a big fraudulent scheme?
If not, how do you explain their occurrence?
How do you explain the great similarity between pan troglodyte and human genome?
All skeletal fossils are real. And previous skeletal remains similar to the homo sapian existed. Yes I agree with all this. This is science. We have been able to prove all of this. What I mean about conjecture. Is the overall conclusion. It is a big leap don't you think.
Do you know what it comes down to? It comes down to faith on the subject matter. You claim their is no creator(You can't believe in the a creator and a Darwin's Theory) because their is no evidence. However to me, their is evidence(Everything you find to be evidence to Darwin's theory I make to be evidence for a Creator). I claim that Darwin's Theory did not exist because their is no evidence. I believe the facts are evidence to prove his theory. You have faith in how you see the evidence. I have faith in how I see the evidence. Like I said its all on the perspective.
You know that feeling you have when you think you figured out the answer for a problem. Then when you put your answer in you figure out your answer is wrong. Later a friend demonstrates the solution to the correct answer and it just happens to click. It is all based off perspective. The perspective you took to analyze the problem at first made everything seem to fit in place because you tailored the problem based off what you know. But when your friend demonstrated the solution to the correct answer he exposed you to a whole new perpective. And at the end you tell yourself that was simple. Because the answer is always simple.
My main point in the discussion was its all based off perspective.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by multisphinx:
After he discovered the the theory of relativity Einstein changed his views on the Reality of the Cosmos/Universe.
You are essentially admitting that you are quoting him out of context, because he doesn't believe in divine intervention.
quote: You made a remark that led me to believe that you believe in the Darwin theory of evolution. So I assumed you don't believe in creationism. You can't believe in the two. Its either one or the other.
Correction: I made a scientific claim. And yes, I accept the biological perspective of evolution, because it is grounded on objective platform not sectarian theology, which is purely subjective.
quote:You are trying to get all philisophical about purpose.
You incited the philosophical turn of this discussion by saying that everything has its purpose.
quote: I just wanted to be straightforward about it. From a creationism standpoint. The purpose of life is to serve the creator. The creator created the universe to be of sustenance to mankind so they can grow and develop. Everything is created by the Creator with a purpose. In the view of creationism everything is in submission to the will of the creator. That is enough for purpose.
This is what I was talking about. You are using a subjective personal viewpoint and trying to use it as a FACTUAL argument against an opponent.
quote: I asked simple questions because I am not satisfied with the answers the the theory of evolution provides for these questions. The theory of evolution is based off conjecture.
Do you believe mutations occur, or do you think that too is conjecture?
Do you believe that dinosaurs actually existed, or do you think somebody fabricated their skeletal remains?
Do you believe the likes of Neanderthals and Homo Erectus existed before, or they too are part of a big fraudulent scheme?
If not, how do you explain their occurrence?
How do you explain the great similarity between pan troglodyte and human genome?
quote: Its a mans theory. Yes their are scientific elements in it, but its overall premise is baloney.
So, if man says there is a solar system and that the earth revolves around the sun, and that the earth is round, we should dismiss it on the account that man made that observation? I thought you said humans were intelligent; whatever happened to that understanding?
quote: You can nullify creationism all you want, but it does not change a thing. Its all based off perspective. Creationism to me is more logical and sensible then Darwin's inane doctrine.(No disrespect intended)
Science is not the same thing as religion. The former relies on hard data. The latter relies only on personal hunch, without evidence.
quote:
Don't fool your self with all these gadgets and discoveries we see coming out everyday.
I never fool myself, because I always rely on hard data, not illusions and fairy tales. It is hard to make a fool out of yourself, when hard data is right before your eyes.
No, discrimination against homosexuals is due to idiots such as yourself. Recalling your original statement on social engineering, again...
You just have a reading comprehension problem. How old are you?
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote:Originally posted by Osirion: We have to protect our children from such perversion of rationality. It is clear that what is normal is what is clearly based on our natural design. The rest is social engineering at its worse
In the above statement made by yourself, you claim that things you consider "normal" are "natural". Whereas "the rest" you consider the result of social engineering. Now, if you separate "the rest" from the "normal" than you obviously think "the rest" is abnormal. And you have already made it clear that you consider homosexuality abnormal. Therefore, per your own words, you implied homosexuality was the result of "social engineering". I then gave you the task of proving homosexuality was the result of "social engineering" as you implicated in your statement. But, in order to do so you would also have to prove it was the result of social engineering in animals as well... which would be absurd. The only logical conclusion is that homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
Nope, just poor reading comprehension.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote:2. It is not discrimination to acknowledge a deviation from the natural intent of our design as in a penis is designed to go into a vagina. Autistic children are a deviation. The same with many other natural deformities. Deformities occur in nature like anywhere else. It has also be shown that some animals become homosexual due to being in an artificial environment such as a zoo.
LMAO! The above makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot possibly compare homosexuality to medical problems such as autism deformities etc.,
Unfortunately for you, homosexuality in animals occurs in the wild. Now, it is up to you to elaborate on how an artificial environment could cause homosexual behavior in animals, with sources. Such a claim is stupid...
Autism is a mental issue that apparently happens during formation of the fetus. It is a problem that impacts an individuals ability to adapt to our social environment. It occurs naturally all of the time. My point was simple, just because something occurs naturally it doesn't mean it is normal. It has also be shown that Zoo environments can cause homosexuality in animals as well as some chemicals. My point is that homosexuality can be caused by a number of reasons and not just naturally. Putting perfectly heterosexual men in jail together and we see homosexual acts committed all the time but that is because of the environment not nature.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote:3. Our judicial system should not be conducting social engineering or trying to define our belief systems.
And who says they are? It is wrong to discriminate against anyone PERIOD. Therefore the Judicial system was correct to no willingly give a child away to a household that discriminates. Who said they were trying to define your beliefs? They only denied the foster parents the adoption because they were homophobic religious nutcases. If, on the other hand, the couple were religious but did not discriminate against gays, they would have been able to adopt.
quote:Basically, if you are a conservative Christian you cannot adopt children according to this reprehensible ruling which is entirely outlandish and I cannot believe anyone, even gay people, can support this ruling.
Oh, and why is that? It was absolutely correct to deny a couple a child on the basis that they discriminate against a group of people. It was absolutely logical for the judge to deny the couple adoption, what person would willingly give a child to a homophobic couple.
Christianity clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. To deny people the ability to adopt because they believe homosexuality is wrong would be the same as denying them the ability to adopt because they think pre-marital sex is wrong. It is clearly the most absurd ruling I have heard in a very long time.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote:his says that we are no long allowed to believe in the Bible, Quran, Talmud, etc. Funny thing is that the same court would have us swear on the Bible and to a Christian God before we give testimony - opps, that is no longer the case is it!
They couple were not denied adoption just because of their religion... they were denied adoption because they discriminate against gay people LOL! If they didn't discriminate against gays, then they would have gotten the child.
quote:4. As for my take on Egyptian history, that wasn't a strawman, it is what this forum is really about - Egypt and politics. I was simply making an analogy for you.
It was a strawman because it had nothing to do with this discussion. Several things you said weren't apart of your "analogy" and was useless ramblings of a madman
No you just have a poor intellect to grasp the analogy.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote:Man you are thick and I can't believe people are willing to compare Black people to Gay people.
I did not compare black people to gay people. I said that all forms of discrimination are wrong, therefore, denying this homophobic couple rights on basis of their homophobic beliefs is the equivalent of denying a racist couple to adopt a child. My exact words:
Anti-Black people have no direct evidence for their position and only rely on bigotry. Anti-Gay have direct evidence of the difference between heterosexual relations and non-heterosexual ones. A male gay couple are not equal to a man and a wife for bringing up children (assuming all things are equal in terms of mental stability, etc). Of course two decent gay men would make better parents than a man and women that are unstable. Again, technology may change this but then nothing is good as organic which we foolishly are only learning now. We can try to mimic but organic is still better.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote:That goes along the lines of an anti-black couple wanting to adopt a child.
Anti-black does not mean a black person. It means a racist person who is anti black, hence the use of the word "anti". I simply stated that this anti-gay couple wanting to adopt is the same as an anti-black couple wanting to adopt. Neither should get the child because both discriminate against a group of people. capiche?
Anti-Black people actually murder Black people. Are you saying that this couple actually Hated Gay people? As in wanting to do them harm or exterminate them? If that is the case then I would agree with you fully. If however they simply believe that homosexuality was a sinful lifestyle and taught that gay people are living outside of God's will then I am afraid our judicial system has truly lost touch with reality.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote:A gay person can pretend to be straight. A gay person can actually live the life of a straight person. There is no comparison to being Black and the issues are completely different.
See, this entire next portion of your post is a complete non-seqitor and strawman, as I never compared a gay person to a black person, I compared an anti-gay couple to and anti-black couple.
Interesting how Black plight often comes up when people are trying to argue for Gay rights. At least you admit that its not the same at all!
quote:Where as their is no evidence supporting a significant difference between a Black Man and a White Man, there is plenty of direct evidence supporting the differenct between a Heterosexual couple and a Homosexual one. It is indeed self-evident that Homosexual relationships are not equal to Heterosexual ones. Though sometime in the future technology may prove me wrong.
Why don't you read the following:
quote:Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids Researchers Say Children Who Grow Up in Households With Gay Parents Have Normal Self-Esteem
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Oct.12, 2005 (Washington) -- Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.
"There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent," says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.
Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.
"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."
quote:Religion has all to do with this discussion.. Because this whole discussion is meaningless without religion. Religion defines morality/ ethics for society. So my perspective in analyzing this whole discussion is from a creationism outlook. I could assume osarion has a similar perspective as well. YOU on the other hand don't believe in creationism and that will make all the difference on where this discussion will go.
Do you even know what creationism is? I am curious...
quote:Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
Among other things, it teaches that humans lived with dinosaurs LOL! Any evidence that humanity was just created by some supernatural being? Nope, we have evolution LOL!
quote:Where are you getting this "no scientist acknowledges creationism. That is absurd! I just quoted Albert Einstien. There are MANY scientist who acknowledge creationism.
LMAO! Albert Einstein may have been religious, but he most certainly did not believe in creationism. Read the above definition, creationism teaches that humanity among other things were created by "God" NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES HUMANITY WAS CREATED BY A "GOD". SCIENTISTS SUPPORT EVOLUTION
quote:Creationism speaks of a higher being. I think what you are really trying to say is you are Agnostic. You believe their is no proof for a superior divine deity at the same time there could be a superior deity.
Creationism speaks of a being that created humans, life, and the earth. You do realize that creationist do not believe in evolution, and they think humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs, right? That is why the usually try to argue with scientists... yet they never offer any evidence.
quote:
Only a small minority of scientists are religious at all, and the small minority that is most certainly do not support creationism. [/QB]
The rest of your ramblings are just in support of modern day denial and foolish man's inability to accept natural law of things. That is why we have cancer today and many other abnormalities.
Its obvious that humans are too arrogant in their ways to change and will do what they want regardless of the abnormality and its impact to society and the environment. All you have to do is look at the corruption we are spreading. From cancer from artificial additives to diseases from promiscuous sexuality. Then from our oil addiction to our inability to simply pay for the wars we fight. We simply cannot respect the rules of nature and are too blind to see our own demise.
We won't be around that much longer so eat drink and be gay because tomorrow we are all going to die.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Creationism in the sense of Creation. I don't believe the other jargon.
I personally believe in both evolution(not Darwin's Theory) and creationism(the idea that everything was created).
Posts: 671 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
He did not believe in A personal God, but the point I was trying to make, is he was no longer an atheist.
I don't get your point. If he didn't believe in God, then how is not an atheist? How do you qualify a "personal" God?
quote: All skeletal fossils are real. And previous skeletal remains similar to the homo sapian existed. Yes I agree with all this. This is science. We have been able to prove all of this. What I mean about conjecture. Is the overall conclusion. It is a big leap don't you think.
If you agree with all the stuff above, as you say you do, then the concept of evolution becomes all too apparent, and doesn't sound like conjecture at all. Evolution is ultimately the result of genetic mutations. Because of errors in genome, an organism can exhibit traits that would have otherwise been rare before within its species. Take for example cockroaches, again. Pesticides have been developed for them. A certain pesticide may wipe out a good number of them, but there may be one or a few individual cockroaches with genetic mutations that would allow them to resist the deadly poison. Likewise, there are genetic mutations that modify form, and if goes uninterrupted, could lead to newer sub-species or even an entirely new species. This is for instance, the case between the African Elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian counterpart; they belong in two different sub-species.
This is hard evidence for the concept of evolution. Remember that matter of conjoint twins? Evolution can account for that, but creationism can't. A creationist advocate will be compelled to rationalize why the "creator" made a "mistake", when this creator is supposed to be the all-knowing and perfect supernatural being. The great similarity between apes and human genome is also readily explainable via evolution, because it suggests derivation from a more recent common source between these two entities than say between a dog and humans, or that between any other non-anthropic creature and humans. Divine intervention cannot convincingly explain why there is such similarity between apes and humans but not between humans and other non-anthropic creatures. These are all hard data that support evolution, and so, no; I don't think the concept of evolution is conjecture.
quote: Do you know what it comes down to? It comes down to faith on the subject matter.
That's inaccurate. Evolution, as I just demonstrated briefly above, is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of a verifiable concept, that is supported by empirical evidence.
quote: You claim their is no creator(You can't believe in the a creator and a Darwin's Theory) because their is no evidence.
Correction: Science claims that there is *no evidence* of a supernatural creator. You need to be able to distinguish between myself and science. I'm dealing with science, not my personal opinions.
But to address your remark, science does not answer the question of whether a supernatural creator exists or not; however, science has proven to this point, at least says some proponents of academia, that the workings of the universe suggest that divine intervention is not necessary for what are occurring. Scientific explanation has been adequate enough to explain the processes without alluding to divine intervention.
quote: You know that feeling you have when you think you figured out the answer for a problem. Then when you put your answer in you figure out your answer is wrong. Later a friend demonstrates the solution to the correct answer and it just happens to click. It is all based off perspective.
That's the difference between science and personal religion. Science is based on verifiable data, and can be replaced with a new one, if the latter proves to be the more plausible. People however, stick to the same religious ideas, regardless of how shaky it may be in the face of evidence to the contrary. What you just described above, about a solution, actually applies only to science, not religion.
You are unlikely to flinched one bit on religion, because you would be claiming to be going by the holy book of the supreme all-knowing being.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I also wonder why you are so stupid:![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic