Quote by DarkRoseofHellAnd wow...
that many people...? Wait, really?!
Yep. Our GSA got a lot of support this year for the event. They even made a
really big cloth and hung it up from the second floor (with permission of
course) so they advertised the event pretty well too.
We even have "safe zone" signs in most of the classrooms.
Quote by ProgramZEROI assume the
neutral position and say that there is no afterlife.
Or rather there's little reason to believe there's an afterlife and much more
reason to believe that the concept of an afterlife is something humans invented
thousands of years ago to cope with death or at least explain what happens to
"you" after you die.
BobaFett2ha, I disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just
don't care. Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious
people can be scientists or have some ideas that are scientific. Where religion
and science conflict is that religions make assumptions and that everyone is
just supposed to believe no matter how crazy or baseless they are. With
scientific ideas, however, people propose an idea and then vigorously try to
test its validity and disprove it. If you apply that to religious ideas, you
completely destroy them because they're only substantiated by coincidence,
wishful thinking, and subjective experience.
Sort of related: you all might want to check out The Enemies of Reason. I saw it a while ago, and it's excellent.
You can find links to it on the Wikipedia page for it on Google Video. It's 2:00
A.M. (not when I originally wrote this) and I've been doing school-related work
all day, so I don't feel like posting the links myself. Find them if you want.
:P
Edit, 2007-12-24: Can we do this on each other's guestbook instead of on the
group's if you want?
Edit 2, 2007-12-24: On second thought, I have too much work to bother with you
anymore. Feel free to post on ProgramZERO's guestbook if he wants to keep trying
to get you to think, but I'm pretty sure it's futile. Hope you have fun
spreading ignorance across the world. Maybe--if you're lucky that is--the world
will be ruled by Christian theocracy. Except this time they'll have nuclear
weapons and even more powerful propaganda, among many other things.
Quote by Persocom01Define this
relationship. I'm tempted to say I'm a homosexual too in this case since my best
friend is of the same sex. I'll actually rather you stop the meaningless playing
with definitions, but if you wish, I'll continue with
this.
Do have some of trouble understanding what I'm saying? It's not very difficult.
Perhaps you should try a little bit harder. If you know anything about the
English language, you know what a boyfriend and a girlfriend are and you would
not call someone who is merely a friend and who is male a "boyfriend".
If you want to though, feel free to, but I've got the feeling that you're just
trying to annoy me because you don't want to confront what I'm actually saying
so instead you get off topic like this, as usual.
In the end, I know that all you'll be able to say is that homosexuality is wrong
because God doesn't like it since that's not the way God intended for people to
have sex. I doubt you consider a male having a male boyfriend to be moral, even
if they don't have sex, and that's what I'm trying to verify.
Quote by Persocom01
If can stop a dagger from hitting my friends, does that mean I don't feel angry
at the person who threw it? It doesn't. Of course God allows Christians to die
because he can give them something better after they do, but the same argument
applies. I don't see why he shouldn't be angry.
If you knew you could easily stop a dagger from hitting your friends all the
time, I don't see why you'd be angry with the person who threw it. Perhaps you
wouldn't want them to try to hurt your friends, but if it's completely within
your power to stop it, then the one you should be most upset with is yourself
for not stopping it. When people die, they're "taken away" from you,
but they wouldn't, supposedly, be taken away from God so God has no reason to be
upset at their death. In fact, God should be happy that they now have a much
better quality of life after dying.
Quote by Persocom01
Can't you see that you've given no basis for your judgement of what is
necessary? What you've given me IS circualr reasoning. How do you judge the
morality of situations? - unnecessary suffering. And how do you judge the
necessity of suffering? - depends on situation. You've essentially managed to avoid giving any basis for your your
morality. (don't make me repeat this, else I'll cut and paste next
time)
The basis for the judgment depends on one's goals. If you don't want people to
suffer, you try to prevent suffering. That's the basis for an individual's
morality.
Quote by Persocom01
You're skipping something important - why should you care if "suffering has
a negative effect on people". The understanding that you should care is
based on God's law.
Because I want to. It's called empathy, you may have heard of it. Here's a
pretty good definition: "the intellectual identification with or vicarious
experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." I am able
to empathize with others, so therefore I can sort of tell what they're feeling
and I can try to prevent them from suffering.
Quote by Persocom01By Biblical basis
for slavery you should account for the fact that pretty much all forms of
servanthood is given the blanket term slavery in the Bible. The Hebrew language
didn't have so many terms to describe "contract worker", "under
bond", "maid" or "butler". (in one instance in Proverbs
the Bible even calls a man who can't pay up his loan a slave) If the type of
slavery the Bible were practiced today, it's nothing like the slavery you think
of where masters whip slaves or give them no rights. In fact many of the rights
that slaves were given (right to justice) were equal to that of their masters.
I'll say a similar kind of slavery in the Bible is practiced in my country,
although we call the person a maid instead of a slave. For more information: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
It isn't profoundly evil to serve another person. Employees do it all the time.
Jesus himself is sometimes called the "servant king". While in the OT
Bible masters do 'own' slaves, slaves had the rights not as inanimate objects
(that the term property implies) but as human beings.
So if you're correct,that still leaves:
Quote: *The Bible permitted owners
to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as
long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the
owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the
slave was his property. 4
*Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery
-- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly
evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify
slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
*Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no
record of him having said anything negative about the
institution.
Quote by Persocom01
Nope. There's just another condition. You can have a "Biblical basis"
for many things by selectively quoting the Bible as you tried to do with me
before. It's hardly surprising.
It's surprising to me that something inspired by God that is completely perfect
would be able to be abused like that.
Quote by Persocom01
1. You're implying that Intelligent Design Theorists aren't scientists/all
scientists agree on the definition of science, which isn't true.
2. You're also implying the scientists have some scientific method of defining
science, superior to noraml human beings which also isn't true. Tell me, who
coined the word scientists/science?
Why would I know who coined the word and how is that relevant?
It's called a scientific consensus. Of course there will be some disagreement
and of course there are some ID proponents who are scientists, just as there are
some astrologists who are scientists. The difference is they are far fewer in
number than in the general population.
Quote by Persocom01When you break the
word down, Atheism derives (etymology = derivation of a word) from the Greek
word "atheos" which means "godless".[1][2] "-ism"
means belief. Therefore Atheism = "godless belief" and not a lack of
belief in God.
-ism can denote a condition or quality, not a belief.
-ism:
1. State; condition; quality: pauperism.
2. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified:
strychninism.
3. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism.
4. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Quote by Persocom01
Which goes back to my point - you're going back on your original supporting
reason for defining Atheism as a lack of belief.
"to my knowledge, most people who consider themselves atheists define
atheism as such." - alexjohnc3
Still want to reason in circles?
I'm not "going back" to my original reason. I have more than one reason. You should be able to
understand this, but I guess you just can't.
Quote by Persocom01The article froms
from a Atheistic point of view, whereby free will does not exist. Physical
determism again I see.
What they're saying is that humans can't choose to be gay or straight, i.e.,
they can't choose which gender their attracted to. You might as well say,
"secular atheist deterministic physical materialism". It's getting
kind of annoying now. What's the difference between physical determinism and
determinism?
Quote by Persocom01
I already said that:
1. It's an abuse of God's creation.
2. Sex does not equal love.
For married comples, point 1 does not apply. A non-lustful relationship is fine.
Actually I don't see any reason to call a non-lust relationship between people
of the same sex as homosexual. The only reason you call someone homosexual is
not because of the love he has for his (same sex) friend, but because of the
lust.
No, the reason you call it homosexual is between it's a love between two people
of the same sex. A heterosexual relationship that is non-sexual would be like a
boy who has a girlfriend and a homosexual relationship that is non-sexual would
be a boy who has a boyfriend. There isn't necessarily any sex involved, but it's
still homosexual because it's two people of the same sex who are in the
relationship instead of the opposite sex.
Quote by Persocom01I don't understand
what you mean, please explain in clearer terms. I don't see how God should not
be angry.
I don't think I can make it much clearer. Those people in the anime you listed
were angry because someone they cared for was injured, killed, etc. and they
couldn't stop it. God can stop suffering if God wishes and when people die,
they're still "alive" from God's POV. While those anime characters
might have an excuse to be angry, God doesn't because it is well within his
power to prevent any suffering he wants and being dead does not prevent God from
seeing you like it would a loved one.
Quote by Persocom01
Firstly you judge the morality of situations based on necessary suffering, then
you judge whether suffering is necessary based on the situation. It's circular
reasoning, and you just pretty much made your own definition of morality
meaningless.
I don't see how what I'm saying is circular, you might be misinterpreting what
I'm saying, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying what's necessary depends on the
situation. If it's necessary to have children, then it's not immoral to have
children even if it causes some suffering for the mother. If it's necessary to
kill a guy to prevent him from blowing up a hospital, then it's not immoral to
shoot him. There's nothing circular about judging each individual
situation.
Quote by Persocom01
No matter who you're talking about, they know what love is. An appeal to
compassion is an appeal to the law of God. I think you also failed to mention
that the abolitionists also had a Bibilcal basis (you replaced it with
"reason and appeals to human compassion" which is not mentioned
anywhere in your linked article) for their opposition of slavery. Unless you
tell me that the South thought it was a loving thing to do to enslave their own
children, it doesn't demonstrate that the moral law was in anyway different.
Having a Biblical basis doesn't mean you applied the Bible correctly, for even
Satan had a "Bibical basis[1]" when he tempted Jesus in the
desert.
No it's not an appeal to the law of God, it's understanding that people suffer
and that suffering has a negative effect on people, and therefore should be
avoided and eventually eliminated.
If by a "Biblical basis" you mean, "Jesus said to be nice to
people," that's not enough if you take into account that the Bible never
once condemns slavery, but instead merely regulates it (to my knowledge, that
is).
Quote: *Biblical passages
recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
*The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of
killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before
dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime,
because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
*Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery
-- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly
evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify
slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
*Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no
record of him having said anything negative about the
institution.
Quote by Persocom01
[1] Luke 4:9-12 - "And he brought Him to Jerusalem and sat Him on a
pinnacle of the temple and said to Him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself
down from here. For it is written,
"He shall give His angels charge over You, to keep You; and in their hands
they shall bear You up, lest at any time You dash Your foot against a
stone." And Jesus answering said to him, It has been said, "You
shall not tempt the Lord your God.""
Biblical contradiction?
Quote by Persocom01So you're saying
that Intelligent Design is science.
No because science is defined by scientists, and, unlike Christianity, Wicca,
atheism, etc. you can't be a scientist by saying you accept the principals of
science like the scientific method. Of course, you could always make a religion
like Sciencity and have the followers call themselves Scientists, but that would
just be confusing because words are meant to describe concepts. All I'm saying
is atheism seems to make most sense describing a particular concept because of
what it means when you break the word down and because atheists describe atheism
as a lack of a belief in any gods. Your free to define it however you want, but
it will just be confusing if you don't use the "right" definition
because when you talk to an "atheist" you'll actually be talking to an
"agnostic."
Quote by Persocom01So you're saying
that Buddhists, babies, and the mentally disabled self identify as Atheists. And
from the numbers of Buddhists, assuming 50% of them fit your definition and
babies do as well, I have doubt that the number of self-identifying Ahteists
will even reach 30% of the total number of people you identify as
Atheists.
I'm not saying they self-identify with it. The reason I think Buddhists, babies,
the mentally disabled, etc. should be considered atheists is because of my other
reason--what the word means when you break it down. That and that just because
Christians, for example, don't identify with theism doesn't mean they're not
theists. You can be something without identifying with it.
Quote by Persocom01
Under what circumstance would one be forced to be homosexual would you care to
elaborate? I believe the verdict on whether homosexuality is inheritable is
still out, so I wouldn't use that in an argument.
From the APA:
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual
orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely
the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological
factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is
also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or
inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In
summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a
person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different
people."
God could easily prevent the environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.
Quote by Persocom01
Nothing. Until they lust for each other that is. Obviously sons don't rape their
mothers even though they love them. Sex between homosexuals serves absolutely no
purpose except to serve lust, which is a form of evil. And what's wrong with
lust? I'll tell you a story about how eskimos kill wolves:
1. Take a sharp knife
2. Cover it with blood and freeze.
3. Repeat until knife is completely coated with blood.
4. Stick blood covered knife in the ground blade up.
5. Wolf dies of blood loss due to wounds inflicted by continuing to lick the
bloody knife.
The wolf is this case died of lust for blood. Lust results in destruction, and
is opposed to love.
Well, I can't say I disagree with you because I don't think people should have
sex except for procreation too. However, the difference is I don't think it's
immoral, I just think it's pointless. If you do something pointless, you're not
necessarily doing something that is immoral. I recall reading somewhere that it
sex helps to "bond" people (for lack of a better word) as well. I
don't know if that's true nor do I remember where I read it, but that's a
possible reason for homosexuals to have sex. Do you think married couples should
be able to have sex if the male does not intend on impregnating the female? And
do you think it's okay for homosexuals to be in a non-sexual relationship that
is more than just being friends?
Quote by Persocom01
I figured that any normal person would feel angry when some thy love is harmed
or killed, but perhaps I'm wrong.
No, you're not wrong. God, however, isn't a person, has the power to prevent
suffering if he wills it, and I wouldn't think someone dying would matter all
that much to him if they go to Heaven. I'm just saying the anger of those
individuals was justified (not necessarily how they expressed that anger), while
God's anger isn't because God has no excuse.
Quote by Persocom01I wouldn't call
homosexuality love at all. See first reply.
Homosexuality != (does not equal) Sex between two people of the same sex. See
first reply too. :P
Quote by Persocom01
I was waiting for your rely since you put a better hedged definition of morality
than programZERO. However your definitionis likewise flawed, because you do not
define what basis you judge whether pain is necessary.
That isn't a flaw in my definition. What is necessary depends on the situation.
If our goal is to continue to exist, it is necessary to procreate. Since that
seems to be one of our goals, procreation is necessary. The necessity of
procreation appears to outweigh the suffering it causes individuals and
eliminating that suffering should be one of humanity's goals.
Quote by Persocom01
Normal is a hedging term as I don't know about the state of mind of people who
are mentally unsound in some way, and it might not be provable that they know
what love is. Just because everyone knows the moral law doesn't mean that they
follow it. You can come up with 101 other examples of people acting against love
(slavery, human sacrifice etc...) but it doesn't in any way mean that God thinks
it is moral.
In regards to slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
The main point to take away from that page is that when people in the northern
United States (the abolitionists) were fighting against the southern
slaver-owners, the slave-owners had a Biblical-basis for their ideas because the
Bible condoned slavery. The abolitionists had to fight using reason and appeals
to human compassion to overcome the many slave-owners in the Bible Belt of the
United States. Different cultures having different ideas about morality and
those people in the South were certain owning slaves was moral as were the
Japanese samurai who thought it was honorable and moral to kill yourself after
being defeated. As these go against compassion and reason and only worsened the
condition of humans, they were eventually removed from society as humanity
progressed.
Quote by Persocom01
They quoted many reputable dictionaries in their article if you read all of it.
And while I'm not familiar with all dictionaries, they did say that no reputable
dictionary defines atheism as a "lack of belief". According to
dictionary.com:
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that
there is no God.
Dictionaries are based on common usage, and most commonly, when people refer to
atheism, they're talking about the belief that no gods exist. I don't think
atheism should be defined by people who don't look at what those who consider
themselves atheists believe (or don't believe) and base the definition on that.
If everyone, except for those who consider themselves to be Wiccans, defined
Wicca as the belief that Jesus lives in Antarctica, that would not be a good
definition of Wicca, IMHO.
Quote by Persocom01
You're going back on your original supporting reason for defining Atheism as a
lack of belief
I'm not going back to it, it still is one reason I support defining atheism that
way, but I have more than one reason.
Quote by Persocom01
What if he wanted people to have a choice? God of course could have forced you
to do anything. But obedience without choice is one of compulsion, not love.
It's nonsensical to say "my computer loves me because it serves me"
because your computer had no choice in the matter. However if your dog decides
to stay with you instead of your next door neighbour, you can say: "my dog
loves me more than my next door neighbour".
Many people don't have the choice of being heterosexual in that, because of
various circumstances (some they were born with, some not) they feel compelled
to be homosexual. That's hardly a choice. In this circumstance, it would be much
better if God made only one sex of human, for example. That would have also
saved us a lot of trouble with women being oppressed, harassed, etc. (and
sometimes just the opposite even). Giving humans a bit more intelligence and
altruism would have been nice too, just enough so that we would all understand
why we should be nice to each other and didn't have the urge to kill or hurt
each other would be good. We could still choose not to, but we would have no
desire to.
Quote by Persocom01Sorry for sounding
so critical, I found the reason you gave too absurd and felt you weren't
thinking rationally.
Quote by Persocom01 1. God's standard is Love. That is all.
Of course, not just any love, as love must be directed at something or someone.
If one loved money above all else one would do anything for it, be it
backstabbing, betrayal etc etc. God's standard is more properly defined as the
following[1]:
a. Love God.
b. Love your neighbour as yourself.
So what's wrong with homosexuals loving each other if God's standard is
love?
Quote by Persocom01the actual document
exists on infidels.org, but I don't want to waste my time finding it just to add
to my reference list - I think my references aren't always appreciated anyway,
and I don't think it's necessary for me to provide the reference to this to be
believable
Don't worry, I try to assume good faith so you don't need to bother referencing
everything.
Quote by Persocom01After all, at one
point God said "You shall not kill[2]" yet at other points of time God
orders Israel to annihilate a group of people. However it's not true that God's
standard has in any way changed. It was the same before and after. Occurances
where God seems to command something that goes against the law are instances of
judgement as a result of a breaking of the law by pepole. You might also ask how
this demonstrates love in any way, but it does, and indeed makes a great deal of
sense. A great deal of fighting is actually caused by Love in animation. In
Utawarerumono the main character wipes out the remnant of the human race (and
causing human extinction) after human scientists dissected his wife for
experimental purposes. Naruto almost went beserk when he thought Sasuke was
killed. Subaru in Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS similarly went beserk
after her sister was beaten and taken by enemies
2b. In all these cases, action was taken
not out of hatred of enemies, but out of love for a friend, family
etc...
No, those actions were taken out of anger, not out of love for a friend. The
anger was a result of the fact that someone they cared for died and their
inability to prevent that death. God, on the other hand, would have no such
excuse.
Quote by Persocom01 3. That being said homosexuality violates
God's standard a. Love God. If I wrote a beautiful piece of music on a piece of
paper, and you use it to pick up dog poop, obviously you are violating the law
of love. Sure, using Einstein's books as toilet paper in the same way doesn't
harm anyone directly yet violates the law of love. (other examples: using a a
friend gave you as computer as a hammer, or a piece of art as a shoerack)
Homosexuality is a blatant abuse of God's creation. (humans are the pinacle of
his creation too) You're wrong that God's standard is "to get people to
reproduce". It is love. All other laws that people come up with that are
good are derived from love.
Homosexuality violates God's standard that we should love God because God didn't
design humans to be homosexual just as Einstein didn't write pages of his books
to be used as toilet paper? That makes no sense because homosexuals aren't pages
in a book, they're human beings. One male loving another male instead of a
female human isn't at all like using a computer as a hammer either. I'm not sure
if I should bother talking about this anymore because I don't want to deal with
someone who's sexist as well.
Quote by Persocom01
Even an atheist appeals to the law of God in this case. However since his
version is derived, and not fundamental, there are flaws. For example since
pregnancy causes pain, pregnancy is immoral. (in the case when the society does
not require new infants) Moreover the problem with Atheistic attempts at morals
is that they are not universal. Why should we care about the welfare of society
at all? Clarence Darrow, a famous materialist, based his morals on pleasure[3].
Indeed Atheistic morals aren't laws at all, but rather conventions or mere
opinions. (for more on the difference between Christian and Atheist stands on
morality ask me on guestbook)
Note that ProgramZero said morality was relative, not absolute. I personally
detest hedonism, for example. This is because I think hedonism will lead to a
sad society based entirely around pleasure that won't have any concern for
learning or progress.
I would say that pregnancy would be "immoral" if it wasn't necessary
in that people shouldn't hurt themselves.
Quote by Persocom01 4. I've argued with you (alexjohnc3) and
a few others as well that everyone knows the moral law. And while I can't prove
this, I stand by this view, for I believe that every normal person in the world,
regardless of when they were born, or what society they are born in, has an idea
what true love is, even if they are sometimes slightly mistaken in some cases.
Love is known by many names. Kindness, graciousness, benevolence, righteousness,
gentleness etc etc
I noticed you used the word "normal" before "person." There
are many people who don't think the "moral law" is necessary or have
different ideas of morality. In Japan, for instance, samurai often committed
Seppuku. Does your god consider Seppuku immoral even though Japanese people had
the "moral law" inside of them?
Quote by alexjohnc3
This isn't a rebuttal to 2+2=4. It's implied that you're using base 10 when you
say, "2+2=4." If you're using a different base, it's like talking
about different numbers as the numbers have different values. For example, 11 in
base 2 has a value of 3 when converted to base 10. The Wikipedia entry provides
a good summary:
I'm glad you recognise that, for I seriously felt like hitting my head against
the wall when he tried to rebutt me with that.
I know enough to know that trying to compare numbers like that person did makes
no sense. :P
Quote by alexjohnc3
Define atheism however you want, but then know that many, if not most, people
who call themselves atheists are not atheists by your definition. I think that
atheism is best defined as a lack of theism (belief in any gods) because it
seems more semantic to me and, to my knowledge, most people who consider
themselves atheists define atheism as such.
Well since you present no evidence of this, I don't know if I should believe you
or not.
I could be wrong of course. This is based off of my experience and the only
example I recall of someone not defining atheism that way was the owner of
EvilBible.com, but I don't like that site very much anyway. I just think that
because a- means "non" or "without" and theism means belief
in any gods, atheism should mean non-belief or without belief in any
gods.
Quote by Persocom01
That being said, these are perfect examples of what Atheists like to say, which
is why I use Scientific Materialism as my
definition:
I think kaireon is trying to say that if Christianity is shown to be false, then
will you continue to be a Christian? Not necessarily through new scientific
discoveries.
Quote by Persocom01
While it does not perfectly justify my definition of Atheism, I do not believe
that most Atheists will suddenly be declassified as Atheists just for that
reason. Moreover, by your definition, most people whom you classify as Atheists
do not self identify as Atheists imo. (Buddhists I bet, and there are many many
of them)
I don't think most Christians self-identify with theism either, but they're
still theists. The fact that I think most self-identified atheists don't define
atheism as the denial of gods existence isn't my main reason. I just think it's
semantic and the most logical definition for the word.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I can understand why God might not want humans to be homosexual, but then he's
to blame for not thinking of a better way to encourage humans to reproduce other
than through pleasure and for allowing humans to have biological tendencies
towards homosexuality (at the very least, heterosexuality isn't ingrained
strongly enough in humans if God doesn't want
homosexuality).
I guess you're saying that God should have idiot-proofed sex. Like making a
penis incapable of being stuck into anything except a woman perhaps. Although
I've never had a problem with homosexuality in my experience, while you're
blaming God for it
I'm not "blaming God" for anything. I'm just saying that if God wanted
everyone to be heterosexual, God could have prevented people from becoming
homosexual with ease.
Quote by Persocom01
I'll give you a list of other things to blame God for:
1. Drowning.
2. Falling down stairs.
3. Choking on food.
4. People killing each other. (should sound familiar)
5. Failing exams.
6. Anorexia.
7. Walking into lamp posts.
8. Cruelty to animals.
9. Tripping and falling.
10. Getting drunk.
It's always God's fault as usual, and I'm sure you can find plenty of other ways
to rationalize your beliefs. He should have designed a better way of eating,
sleeping, breathing, walking etc etc...
Rationalize my beliefs? I don't believe any of those things are God's fault nor
do I blame God for them. It's merely under the condition that God exists and is
thus hypothetical as far as I'm concerned. If God existed, it shouldn't have
been very hard to design humans so that they couldn't drown or choke on the very
thing that nourishes them.
For morality, one needs to set a "standard" of some sort. If I believe
causing others to suffer unnecessarily is immoral, then stabbing people is
something that would be unacceptable to me. If God exists, the same would be
true for him as God would be the one dictating what is and is not moral based on
God's "standard". While our standards are based on the environment
we've been raised in and some biological aspects (which is why many people have
differing views on morality, such as some religious terrorists who think it's
okay to blow stuff up if they think their God wants them to), God's standards
could be something like "homosexuality is immoral because my goal is to get
people to reproduce." So homosexuality would be immoral in that God didn't
want us to be homosexual as it doesn't have any "benefits," like
producing children, which would be God's purpose for sexuality. (I just read the
part of your post that says this. Looks like I was right. :P )
Quote: It does not matter if it's
self imposed. I'm merely informing you that there are deviations from the norm:
not everyone is the same and live to the same principals you do. 2+2=10, in base
4. 1+1 is 10 in base 2. etc.
This isn't a rebuttal to 2+2=4. It's implied that you're using base 10 when you
say, "2+2=4." If you're using a different base, it's like talking
about different numbers as the numbers have different values. For example, 11 in
base 2 has a value of 3 when converted to base 10. The Wikipedia entry provides
a good summary:
Quote: In order to discuss bases
other than the decimal system (base ten), a distinction needs to be made between
a number and the digit representing that number. In the decimal positional
numeral system, there are ten possible digits in each position. These are
"0", "1", "2", "3", "4",
"5", "6", "7", "8" , and "9"
(henceforth "0-9"). In other bases, the digits used may be unfamiliar
to us or may be used to indicate numbers other than those they represent in the
decimal system. For example, in the base 32 numeral system, there are 32
possible digits for each position. These combinations are the numbers 0-31, but
they could be signified (in ascending order) first by the symbols A-Z and then
by the symbols 2-7. So A represents 0, Z represents the number 25, 2 represents
the number 26, 3 represents 27, etc. Because of the ubiquitousness of the
decimal system, it is common that numbers are written in base ten, and unless
otherwise indicated, most numbers encountered are normally assumed to be decimal
numbers. However, any real number can be represented with any
base.
Define atheism however you want, but then know that many, if not most, people
who call themselves atheists are not atheists by your definition. I think that
atheism is best defined as a lack of theism (belief in any gods) because it
seems more semantic to me and, to my knowledge, most people who consider
themselves atheists define atheism as such.
So basically, homosexuality is wrong in your opinion because God created
sexuality for the purpose of procreation and, obviously, humans can't reproduce
in homosexual relationships. God's views on homosexuality, according to you,
remind me of the Catholic Church's, actually. The difference between that view
of morality and the more modern views is that more modern views say that if it
causes harm unnecessarily, it's bad, while views such as those of the Catholic
Church say that if it doesn't have a purpose, it's immoral. I can sympathize
with this to an extent in that I don't think people should do things just
because they feel like doing them for the purpose of feeling pleasure, but I
would hardly call it immoral. A waste of time or purposeless maybe, but not
immoral.
I can understand why God might not want humans to be homosexual, but then he's
to blame for not thinking of a better way to encourage humans to reproduce other
than through pleasure and for allowing humans to have biological tendencies
towards homosexuality (at the very least, heterosexuality isn't ingrained
strongly enough in humans if God doesn't want homosexuality).
Quote by kokuyubut to say you hate being
female just because of such prejudice doesn't seem right (though i respect your
opinion) if i'm not mistaken, such perception is lead by stereotypes
too.
I don't hate being female as I'm not female. What I am saying is that, in our
current society, there are many more advantages to being male than there are to
being female (or, rather, there are more disadvantages to being female than
there are disadvantages to being male). Both sexes have many disadvantages, but
there are just fewer I'm aware of for males. That's not a stereotype, that's a
fact.
Quote by kokuyui would like to say that we
humans are actually bisexuals. it's only because of stereotypes (again!) that we
look at each other differently with all sorts of terms (hetero, homo...etc....).
anyone agree?
It would be better to say that all humans have at least a slight bisexual
tendency. I don't know how accurate it is, but I've heard of the Kinsey scale
which relates to this.
Quote by kokuyuanother question i have
been pondering for quite a long while: how would a girl/woman look like if all
gender stereotypes are removed from her?
Gender stereotypes aren't the only thing that determine how people dress, so I
can't even take a guess at this.
kokuyu: Pants are gender-neutral attire and they're also very practical. I don't
know, I just can't see the value in dresses of any sort and I don't like how
dresses are called "feminine" when "feminine" implies
something that is an inherent attribute of females, but it is actually just a
stereotype of female people. I'd really hate to be female because of how many
prejudices there are against them and they're strongly encouraged to wear things
like dresses and skirts, like stupid TV shows, become "stay-at-home
moms" and get married, they're viewed as objects by many, and in virtually
every profession from academic stuff to being a janitor, there is sexism against
them, to name a few things.
yothsothgoth: To my knowledge homosexuality has both a genetic and environmental
basis. I don't know too much about the cause and I think there needs to be more
research into the subject, but I think it's interesting.
Quote by DarkRoseofHell
I feel emoish... I HATE BEING A BOY..., its giving me bad thoughts on suicide...
...
What the hell? Why would being male or female matter? Your physical
characteristics shouldn't impact how you want to act. Besides, I don't see
what's so great about wearing dresses and whatnot. Pants are much better.
Quote by DarkRoseofHellAnd as for
Alex's article, not bad. Most of the parts I have to say is really true.
Quote: The author also argues that
people who are against homosexuality for various reasons arenâ??t
necessarily homophobes. I agree and the reasons they use to back this view up
are valid.
This part though just to avoid confusion is you could put what it is, just so
people know what you're fully talking about :P
You mean put the reasons that the Catholic article states?
I think judgment should be withheld until you're able to find out what actually
happened in a situation where there appears to be no explanation. Ideas on what
could have caused something like two people having similar dreams are fine, but,
unless those ideas are substantiated by evidence, it's kind of stupid to believe
that aliens gave you those dreams or something.
Yes, I've had "experiences like those" I think. I don't try to explain
them if I can't. I just try to keep them in mind (or more recently, record them)
in case I figure out why in the future or just for the sake of it.
Yep. Our GSA got a lot of support this year for the event. They even made a really big cloth and hung it up from the second floor (with permission of course) so they advertised the event pretty well too.
We even have "safe zone" signs in most of the classrooms.
Wow, this is an excellent layout...
Nope, a few hundred people did it.
I've been lurking around every now and then for a while. :P
Sorry that some people have at least a little respect for human beings, unlike yourself.
I did the Day of Silence at my school, but it was gay rights-specific.
Great, now maybe you all with stop wasting your time trying to reason with him like someone suggested a while ago.
I laughed when I read Kuroimisa's post on his userpage. She completely destroyed him. And then EternalParadox's message made it perfect.
Edit: Aw, my thread got closed. And just after Kingray100 got muted so it might actually get on topic again.
Or rather there's little reason to believe there's an afterlife and much more reason to believe that the concept of an afterlife is something humans invented thousands of years ago to cope with death or at least explain what happens to "you" after you die.
Yay for gender stereotypes!
BobaFett2ha, I disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care. Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be scientists or have some ideas that are scientific. Where religion and science conflict is that religions make assumptions and that everyone is just supposed to believe no matter how crazy or baseless they are. With scientific ideas, however, people propose an idea and then vigorously try to test its validity and disprove it. If you apply that to religious ideas, you completely destroy them because they're only substantiated by coincidence, wishful thinking, and subjective experience.
Sort of related: you all might want to check out The Enemies of Reason. I saw it a while ago, and it's excellent. You can find links to it on the Wikipedia page for it on Google Video. It's 2:00 A.M. (not when I originally wrote this) and I've been doing school-related work all day, so I don't feel like posting the links myself. Find them if you want. :P
Merry Christmas Eve.
Edit, 2007-12-24: Can we do this on each other's guestbook instead of on the group's if you want?
Edit 2, 2007-12-24: On second thought, I have too much work to bother with you anymore. Feel free to post on ProgramZERO's guestbook if he wants to keep trying to get you to think, but I'm pretty sure it's futile. Hope you have fun spreading ignorance across the world. Maybe--if you're lucky that is--the world will be ruled by Christian theocracy. Except this time they'll have nuclear weapons and even more powerful propaganda, among many other things.
Do have some of trouble understanding what I'm saying? It's not very difficult. Perhaps you should try a little bit harder. If you know anything about the English language, you know what a boyfriend and a girlfriend are and you would not call someone who is merely a friend and who is male a "boyfriend". If you want to though, feel free to, but I've got the feeling that you're just trying to annoy me because you don't want to confront what I'm actually saying so instead you get off topic like this, as usual.
In the end, I know that all you'll be able to say is that homosexuality is wrong because God doesn't like it since that's not the way God intended for people to have sex. I doubt you consider a male having a male boyfriend to be moral, even if they don't have sex, and that's what I'm trying to verify.
If you knew you could easily stop a dagger from hitting your friends all the time, I don't see why you'd be angry with the person who threw it. Perhaps you wouldn't want them to try to hurt your friends, but if it's completely within your power to stop it, then the one you should be most upset with is yourself for not stopping it. When people die, they're "taken away" from you, but they wouldn't, supposedly, be taken away from God so God has no reason to be upset at their death. In fact, God should be happy that they now have a much better quality of life after dying.
The basis for the judgment depends on one's goals. If you don't want people to suffer, you try to prevent suffering. That's the basis for an individual's morality.
Because I want to. It's called empathy, you may have heard of it. Here's a pretty good definition: "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." I am able to empathize with others, so therefore I can sort of tell what they're feeling and I can try to prevent them from suffering.
So if you're correct,that still leaves:
It's surprising to me that something inspired by God that is completely perfect would be able to be abused like that.
Why would I know who coined the word and how is that relevant?
It's called a scientific consensus. Of course there will be some disagreement and of course there are some ID proponents who are scientists, just as there are some astrologists who are scientists. The difference is they are far fewer in number than in the general population.
This might be useful to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design
-ism can denote a condition or quality, not a belief.
-ism:
1. State; condition; quality: pauperism.
2. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism.
3. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism.
4. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
I'm not "going back" to my original reason. I have more than one reason. You should be able to understand this, but I guess you just can't.
What they're saying is that humans can't choose to be gay or straight, i.e., they can't choose which gender their attracted to. You might as well say, "secular atheist deterministic physical materialism". It's getting kind of annoying now. What's the difference between physical determinism and determinism?
No, the reason you call it homosexual is between it's a love between two people of the same sex. A heterosexual relationship that is non-sexual would be like a boy who has a girlfriend and a homosexual relationship that is non-sexual would be a boy who has a boyfriend. There isn't necessarily any sex involved, but it's still homosexual because it's two people of the same sex who are in the relationship instead of the opposite sex.
I don't think I can make it much clearer. Those people in the anime you listed were angry because someone they cared for was injured, killed, etc. and they couldn't stop it. God can stop suffering if God wishes and when people die, they're still "alive" from God's POV. While those anime characters might have an excuse to be angry, God doesn't because it is well within his power to prevent any suffering he wants and being dead does not prevent God from seeing you like it would a loved one.
I don't see how what I'm saying is circular, you might be misinterpreting what I'm saying, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying what's necessary depends on the situation. If it's necessary to have children, then it's not immoral to have children even if it causes some suffering for the mother. If it's necessary to kill a guy to prevent him from blowing up a hospital, then it's not immoral to shoot him. There's nothing circular about judging each individual situation.
No it's not an appeal to the law of God, it's understanding that people suffer and that suffering has a negative effect on people, and therefore should be avoided and eventually eliminated.
If by a "Biblical basis" you mean, "Jesus said to be nice to people," that's not enough if you take into account that the Bible never once condemns slavery, but instead merely regulates it (to my knowledge, that is).
Biblical contradiction?
No because science is defined by scientists, and, unlike Christianity, Wicca, atheism, etc. you can't be a scientist by saying you accept the principals of science like the scientific method. Of course, you could always make a religion like Sciencity and have the followers call themselves Scientists, but that would just be confusing because words are meant to describe concepts. All I'm saying is atheism seems to make most sense describing a particular concept because of what it means when you break the word down and because atheists describe atheism as a lack of a belief in any gods. Your free to define it however you want, but it will just be confusing if you don't use the "right" definition because when you talk to an "atheist" you'll actually be talking to an "agnostic."
I'm not saying they self-identify with it. The reason I think Buddhists, babies, the mentally disabled, etc. should be considered atheists is because of my other reason--what the word means when you break it down. That and that just because Christians, for example, don't identify with theism doesn't mean they're not theists. You can be something without identifying with it.
From the APA: "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
God could easily prevent the environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.
Well, I can't say I disagree with you because I don't think people should have sex except for procreation too. However, the difference is I don't think it's immoral, I just think it's pointless. If you do something pointless, you're not necessarily doing something that is immoral. I recall reading somewhere that it sex helps to "bond" people (for lack of a better word) as well. I don't know if that's true nor do I remember where I read it, but that's a possible reason for homosexuals to have sex. Do you think married couples should be able to have sex if the male does not intend on impregnating the female? And do you think it's okay for homosexuals to be in a non-sexual relationship that is more than just being friends?
No, you're not wrong. God, however, isn't a person, has the power to prevent suffering if he wills it, and I wouldn't think someone dying would matter all that much to him if they go to Heaven. I'm just saying the anger of those individuals was justified (not necessarily how they expressed that anger), while God's anger isn't because God has no excuse.
Homosexuality != (does not equal) Sex between two people of the same sex. See first reply too. :P
That isn't a flaw in my definition. What is necessary depends on the situation. If our goal is to continue to exist, it is necessary to procreate. Since that seems to be one of our goals, procreation is necessary. The necessity of procreation appears to outweigh the suffering it causes individuals and eliminating that suffering should be one of humanity's goals.
In regards to slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
The main point to take away from that page is that when people in the northern United States (the abolitionists) were fighting against the southern slaver-owners, the slave-owners had a Biblical-basis for their ideas because the Bible condoned slavery. The abolitionists had to fight using reason and appeals to human compassion to overcome the many slave-owners in the Bible Belt of the United States. Different cultures having different ideas about morality and those people in the South were certain owning slaves was moral as were the Japanese samurai who thought it was honorable and moral to kill yourself after being defeated. As these go against compassion and reason and only worsened the condition of humans, they were eventually removed from society as humanity progressed.
Dictionaries are based on common usage, and most commonly, when people refer to atheism, they're talking about the belief that no gods exist. I don't think atheism should be defined by people who don't look at what those who consider themselves atheists believe (or don't believe) and base the definition on that. If everyone, except for those who consider themselves to be Wiccans, defined Wicca as the belief that Jesus lives in Antarctica, that would not be a good definition of Wicca, IMHO.
I'm not going back to it, it still is one reason I support defining atheism that way, but I have more than one reason.
Many people don't have the choice of being heterosexual in that, because of various circumstances (some they were born with, some not) they feel compelled to be homosexual. That's hardly a choice. In this circumstance, it would be much better if God made only one sex of human, for example. That would have also saved us a lot of trouble with women being oppressed, harassed, etc. (and sometimes just the opposite even). Giving humans a bit more intelligence and altruism would have been nice too, just enough so that we would all understand why we should be nice to each other and didn't have the urge to kill or hurt each other would be good. We could still choose not to, but we would have no desire to.
I don't mind, I wasn't offended.
So what's wrong with homosexuals loving each other if God's standard is love?
Don't worry, I try to assume good faith so you don't need to bother referencing everything.
No, those actions were taken out of anger, not out of love for a friend. The anger was a result of the fact that someone they cared for died and their inability to prevent that death. God, on the other hand, would have no such excuse.
Homosexuality violates God's standard that we should love God because God didn't design humans to be homosexual just as Einstein didn't write pages of his books to be used as toilet paper? That makes no sense because homosexuals aren't pages in a book, they're human beings. One male loving another male instead of a female human isn't at all like using a computer as a hammer either. I'm not sure if I should bother talking about this anymore because I don't want to deal with someone who's sexist as well.
Note that ProgramZero said morality was relative, not absolute. I personally detest hedonism, for example. This is because I think hedonism will lead to a sad society based entirely around pleasure that won't have any concern for learning or progress.
I would say that pregnancy would be "immoral" if it wasn't necessary in that people shouldn't hurt themselves.
I noticed you used the word "normal" before "person." There are many people who don't think the "moral law" is necessary or have different ideas of morality. In Japan, for instance, samurai often committed Seppuku. Does your god consider Seppuku immoral even though Japanese people had the "moral law" inside of them?
I know enough to know that trying to compare numbers like that person did makes no sense. :P
I could be wrong of course. This is based off of my experience and the only example I recall of someone not defining atheism that way was the owner of EvilBible.com, but I don't like that site very much anyway. I just think that because a- means "non" or "without" and theism means belief in any gods, atheism should mean non-belief or without belief in any gods.
I think kaireon is trying to say that if Christianity is shown to be false, then will you continue to be a Christian? Not necessarily through new scientific discoveries.
I don't think most Christians self-identify with theism either, but they're still theists. The fact that I think most self-identified atheists don't define atheism as the denial of gods existence isn't my main reason. I just think it's semantic and the most logical definition for the word.
I'm not "blaming God" for anything. I'm just saying that if God wanted everyone to be heterosexual, God could have prevented people from becoming homosexual with ease.
Rationalize my beliefs? I don't believe any of those things are God's fault nor do I blame God for them. It's merely under the condition that God exists and is thus hypothetical as far as I'm concerned. If God existed, it shouldn't have been very hard to design humans so that they couldn't drown or choke on the very thing that nourishes them.
I'm surprised this group doesn't have more members.
Did everyone die?
For morality, one needs to set a "standard" of some sort. If I believe causing others to suffer unnecessarily is immoral, then stabbing people is something that would be unacceptable to me. If God exists, the same would be true for him as God would be the one dictating what is and is not moral based on God's "standard". While our standards are based on the environment we've been raised in and some biological aspects (which is why many people have differing views on morality, such as some religious terrorists who think it's okay to blow stuff up if they think their God wants them to), God's standards could be something like "homosexuality is immoral because my goal is to get people to reproduce." So homosexuality would be immoral in that God didn't want us to be homosexual as it doesn't have any "benefits," like producing children, which would be God's purpose for sexuality. (I just read the part of your post that says this. Looks like I was right. :P )
This isn't a rebuttal to 2+2=4. It's implied that you're using base 10 when you say, "2+2=4." If you're using a different base, it's like talking about different numbers as the numbers have different values. For example, 11 in base 2 has a value of 3 when converted to base 10. The Wikipedia entry provides a good summary:
Define atheism however you want, but then know that many, if not most, people who call themselves atheists are not atheists by your definition. I think that atheism is best defined as a lack of theism (belief in any gods) because it seems more semantic to me and, to my knowledge, most people who consider themselves atheists define atheism as such.
So basically, homosexuality is wrong in your opinion because God created sexuality for the purpose of procreation and, obviously, humans can't reproduce in homosexual relationships. God's views on homosexuality, according to you, remind me of the Catholic Church's, actually. The difference between that view of morality and the more modern views is that more modern views say that if it causes harm unnecessarily, it's bad, while views such as those of the Catholic Church say that if it doesn't have a purpose, it's immoral. I can sympathize with this to an extent in that I don't think people should do things just because they feel like doing them for the purpose of feeling pleasure, but I would hardly call it immoral. A waste of time or purposeless maybe, but not immoral.
I can understand why God might not want humans to be homosexual, but then he's to blame for not thinking of a better way to encourage humans to reproduce other than through pleasure and for allowing humans to have biological tendencies towards homosexuality (at the very least, heterosexuality isn't ingrained strongly enough in humans if God doesn't want homosexuality).
I don't hate being female as I'm not female. What I am saying is that, in our current society, there are many more advantages to being male than there are to being female (or, rather, there are more disadvantages to being female than there are disadvantages to being male). Both sexes have many disadvantages, but there are just fewer I'm aware of for males. That's not a stereotype, that's a fact.
It would be better to say that all humans have at least a slight bisexual tendency. I don't know how accurate it is, but I've heard of the Kinsey scale which relates to this.
Gender stereotypes aren't the only thing that determine how people dress, so I can't even take a guess at this.
An observation about reality that challenges the literal interpretation on something in the Bible?! That's unheard of! :P
kokuyu: Pants are gender-neutral attire and they're also very practical. I don't know, I just can't see the value in dresses of any sort and I don't like how dresses are called "feminine" when "feminine" implies something that is an inherent attribute of females, but it is actually just a stereotype of female people. I'd really hate to be female because of how many prejudices there are against them and they're strongly encouraged to wear things like dresses and skirts, like stupid TV shows, become "stay-at-home moms" and get married, they're viewed as objects by many, and in virtually every profession from academic stuff to being a janitor, there is sexism against them, to name a few things.
yothsothgoth: To my knowledge homosexuality has both a genetic and environmental basis. I don't know too much about the cause and I think there needs to be more research into the subject, but I think it's interesting.
What the hell? Why would being male or female matter? Your physical characteristics shouldn't impact how you want to act. Besides, I don't see what's so great about wearing dresses and whatnot. Pants are much better.
You mean put the reasons that the Catholic article states?
I think judgment should be withheld until you're able to find out what actually happened in a situation where there appears to be no explanation. Ideas on what could have caused something like two people having similar dreams are fine, but, unless those ideas are substantiated by evidence, it's kind of stupid to believe that aliens gave you those dreams or something.
Yes, I've had "experiences like those" I think. I don't try to explain them if I can't. I just try to keep them in mind (or more recently, record them) in case I figure out why in the future or just for the sake of it.
I wrote this yesterday: http://me.asolis.net/archives/34
If anyone is interested in commenting on it or critiquing it, feel free to.