Swiss iPhone rumor; BlackBerry Thunder; Apple gay-friendly - Page 9

Then how do you explain righteous indignation at things unrelated to yourself? Let's say you see peaceful protestors being beaten. Let's say you see a rape being committed. If it has nothing to do with you, why would you be righteously indignant, even pained by those sorts of things? Because there IS a universal, moral law. If there weren't, you wouldn't care a whit what happened to a woman being raped. You'd say, "Oh, that's different. Don't see that every day." But you wouldn't be bothered by it. And the person who DID care would be no better than the person who DIDN'T care.

Any sane person would be outraged because they wouldn't want to see their mother or sister raped. That's exactly what he was saying about there being a genetic selection for altruism.

What I find really ironic about this thread is that there is not a single straight person arguing any of these points. There are no straight people here denouncing gays. Why? 'Cause they don't give a rat's ass. Why should they?

OTOH, we have a "former" gay and a 35-year-old virgin (who's apparently terrified of his own sexuality) arguing against homosexuals.

Hmmm.

Kids and their wacky trends.

Preference is not a probability of randomly choosing A or B. Preference is what determines whether you will choose A or B given all other things being equal. If you are presented two equally suitable people, a man and a woman, and you choose the man, your preference is towards the man. You will never choose the woman given the preference. If later, presented with the same choice of equal candidates, you choose the woman, your preference has changed since that is the deciding factor. The degree of preference is what determines how far you can make one choice less equal than the other while still having the lesser of the two be chosen.

There is nothing, outside of speculation, that suggests universally that people's sexual preferences can't change one way or the other over time. Now, I've not said that there aren't contributing factors, such as in utero hormonal programming, that could be influencing these (it's foolish to think there aren't); but I've also already said that the further you move away from the state of indifference, the less likely you are to have desires to move towards the opposite end.

Oh you idiot...


I swore I was done with this until you spew this ignorant shit. Your argument is so painfully flawed I want to reach through my iMac and beat you to death with a stainless steel dildo. Millions of women in the world are raped and people just shrug and walk away... hell some areas of the world, IT'S ENCOURAGED!! I was raped by my stepfather when I came out (to straighten me out), not only did the cops do NOTHING (as he was a cop at the time) they threatened to put ME into juvenile hall. What's really funny, he was a Christian that spewed the same bullshit you do.

And human beings are not cogs. We are not interchangeable. Therefore, "all things being equal" is irrelevant, since a man and a woman that you might want to date are not going to be interchangeable. Every human has quirks.

That's why you may prefer men but end up with a woman--she may satisfy your needs & desires better than the men you have met up to this point. Because no two people are identical.

Yet, overall, because Joe prefers men, he will likely end up with more male dates than female dates.

Your tastes may change over time, but that's pretty subtle in the big scheme of things ("I used to hate mushrooms but now I like them" is pretty minor compared to "I used to avoid it but now I like raw human flesh" or "I used to like men but now I like women". Those are damn big differences.)

I wouldn't call a "50/50" bisexual indifferent. I would think s/he would be equally attracted to both sexes, not equally indifferent to them.

hmmm...maybe you're just annoyed that your brother managed to meet someone while you're stuck with Pam and her 5 lovely daughters for the rest of your sad life?

Indifference means you are equally satisfied with either A or B, it doesn't mean you don't care for A and B.

Study more social sciences sometime; they are based upon theoretical constructs like these. No, they can't be made to fit 100% of the time, but we also aren't dealing with Calculus and Physics here either.

I'm sorry this happened to you. It was totally and completely wrong. Your stepfather was not what he professed. Remember that Jesus had the harshest criticisms for the Pharisees and Sadducees who beat people over the head with the faith, but didn't obey the rules themselves. That's the definition of a hypocrite -- acts the part on the surface only.

However, you are supporting the argument I was making. Your rape is not my idea of wrong or your idea of wrong. It's wrong. Period. Absolute Truth exists, and part of that Truth is that sex by force is wrong. This is not a morality that changes. It is a morality that some people, some times, and some cultures have ignored our outright flaunted. But the truth is in their hearts, and they are guilty of it.

Understand that Jesus feels your pain. He does.

It does mean you do not care for either

"indifference |ɪnˈdɪf(ə)r(ə)ns|
noun
lack of interest, concern, or sympathy"

Rape is wrong because human beings have decided it is wrong. Period. It has nothing to do with the fairy tale you have chosen to believe in.

way off tack....this thread has degraded to meaningless
what about rim and touch screen? what about apple responding did apple predict this from rim or surprised? wihout a good os will rim really compete or fall away

1. It is not possible to prove much of anything. Virtually everything we believe has an element of faith. To believe that absolute proof is possible is actually illogical.

2. There are, however, a number of laws in effect. Laws govern how things work. Laws remain in effect whether you believe in them or not. Your desire, your opinion, and your illogical desire for "fairness" (which is actually a relative term at best) do not change the fact that a law exists. Example: You can argue that the law of gravity is unfair, or postulate that it really does not exist, but on the world you live in, it is foolhardy and unproductive to disagree with the "law" of gravity.

3. Stuff/principles/laws that exist do not require your understanding or agreement in order to work. Air and electricity would be good examples. Regardless of what you (or scientists) choose to believe about them we cannot see either, we do not fully understand either, but we can operate adequately as long as we go along with the the fact that both air & electricity exist.

4. God also exists, although no one can prove it to you. If He exists then whatever He chooses to establish as right & wrong (with Him or against Him) is fact and exists as a law. He has chosen to communicate through the Bible. You may choose to reject all this, but if He exists, your opinion of Him and His laws are of no relevance. Likewise your opinion of the Bible and other "faith based" stuff is equally irrelevant.

So what is the point? Homosexuality is denounced in the Bible. Entire civilizations have been destroyed for, among other things, homosexuality (along with other forms of immoral behavior). You can choose to disagree but the truth remains truth and your mind, like mine, is not capable of logically arriving at much of anything. So why not try faith?

Which God is that. Zeus? Shiva? Jewish? Muslim? Thetans? You theists keep inventing new ones every few thousand years. If it was true - wouldn't you all agree on one god or another? You can't even agree on THE TRUTH. Some of you hate Gays, but half the Anglican church *is* gay. They sing YMCA on Sunday.

Yawn yes, no one can disprove any one of these silly God versions. But so what? No one can disprove the flying spaghetti monster. They are equally childish stories.

Have you noticed how each culture invents a slightly different version? Does this not suggest that it is a cultural invention. Designed with the specific intention of beefing-up mere human law with some supernatural authority.

Here's the thing you guys keep missing.

Faith is evil. Or at the very least, faith paves the way to evil.

Faith is about willingly rejecting rationality in favor of pre-written scripture. Morally that is indefensible. Morality demands that your actions should be evaluated on the basis of consequence and context.

But the faithful are excused the difficult job of thinking though their actions. Instead they inherit a ready-made mix of prefabricated rights and wrongs. The consequences of this are nothing short of horrendous we see:

Churches who disregard genocide.
Religions leaders denouncing condom usage despite the threat of fatal disease.
Young women stoned to death for falling in love.
National heroes shamed into suicide because of their sexuality.

This is what faith does. This stuff is not just bad, it is pure evil, because it is performed deliberately by people who carry no remorse.

Instead of looking into their own conscience for guidance, they look to a old book full of myth, and prophecy and nonsense, written in a time of ignorance.

It's shameful

C.

I posted this fact earlier, but it needs to be reiterated:

More killings have happened in the 20th century in the name of atheism than all religious killings in history. Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. They killed in the name of atheism.

So don't blame religion. It is not the cause. Evil exists apart from 'religion', and more evil comes from non-religion than from religion. To blame religion for evil is flimsy cop-out on your part so that you don't have to deal with your own evil.


You acknowledge that evil exists. If that is the case, then there must be good. If good and evil exist, there must be a standard by which they exist. Relativism does not work here. You can't say that good and evil depend on the individual's definition of what is good or evil in his or her eyes. You just said that there is evil. What is the universal standard that determines what is good and what is evil? Science can only tell us the mechanics of what we can see and measure. Only God can determine morality, good and evil. Science will get you only so far. Faith will get you only so far. The Truth requires both.

There is no standard. It depends on which school of ethics you follow.


That is a fallacy because it is based on the unsound belief that god exists.

So let's say the band Insane Clown Posse, as part of their live stage act, took a live baby that they had purchased in a 3rd world country and dismembered it and threw the pieces out to the crowd. There is no standard for this being wrong? It depends on which school of ethics you follow?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html
92% of Americans that believe in God.

Doesn't seem like it's that unsound.

There were times when human beings have been sacrificed in religious rituals because making those offerings to god were the right thing to do. Only when you analyse those actions under a different school of ethics they become wrong.



You obviously do not understand what is necessary to make a belief or argument sound.

A thousand years ago 99.9999999999% of the earth population believed the earth was flat but it is not, is it?

As admin, I'm pretty sure I won't get an infraction for using a really large font-size to ask the following, again:

Which Scientists? When? Link to published paper?

(By 'published', I mean published in a peer-reviewed journal accessible through a source such as PubMed and not a paper published on the website of a religious group.)

http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/

Great movie.

It was so sad to see that one mother couldn't forgive her daughter until she committed suicide--but wonderful what the mother did afterwards.

Oh, you mean this paper that I keep on my nightstand for just such an occasion as this?

The study was referenced in a book I read, but I don't watch TV and have read many, many books. I have no idea where to look for this particular reference, short of re-reading a good number of books.

Note, however that there haven't been any people on the atheistic side offering citations for things 'scientists' claim.

Regarding the paper publication, I find your bias against religious folks interesting. You really aren't looking for an unbiased position, since you say it can't have been published by a religious group.

It was true for them at the time, wasn't it? We say it's round today, but maybe tomorrow, with more advanced science, we'll find out it's clover-shaped. Each view is valid within the context of its own school of thought, as you are saying.

God calls us to forgive people for sinning, but not to accept sin. A Godly mother is in a tough position in such a situation. She should love her daughter. She should forgive her daughter when she repents, which means to turn away from sin. But she can't accept her daughter's sin as being O.K. It is a gut-wrenching and spirit-wrenching thing to go through.

The daughter came out in a letter. The mother's response (also written) was that she would never accept her daughter's homosexuality. The daughter didn't contact her mom the following Mother's Day. Mom called her daughter a few months later, and still couldn't accept it. The daughter committed suicide a few months later, because she couldn't deal with her mother not accepting her. This is a good thing?

GLBT people are 7 times more likely to attempt suicide.

Left-handed people used to be considered evil, too. That's where the word "sinister" comes from.

Who are we going to demonize next?

No, it was never true. At the time people may have believed it was flat but the reality is that it has never been flat.


You have to be kidding. We say it is round because we have already found out that it is round. It is a fact not a belief. Facts do not change over time.

Your problem is that you have been blinded by your faith and clearly mistake beliefs for facts.

Read my post again. And notice I mention faith more than I mention religion.

Faith is the problem.

Stalin's actions were based on his faith. He held an unshakable belief in communism every bit as corrosive and damaging as any religion. Do you think Hitler or Pol Pot did not have faith? Watch Downfall to see Hitler full of messianic zeal.

Hitler, who was a catholic, did not kill in the name of Atheism, or Catholicism. But a philosophy. As did Stalin, as did Pol Pot.

You are right these evil philosophies didn't feature invisible sky fairies at the heart of their belief structure. But in many other ways they were religions. They demanded belief from their followers. They suppressed normal human compassion and replaced it with fantasy and zealotry.

When the Nazi guards were turning on the gas chambers, they were fuelled by the same sort of thinking which empowers Mullahs to throw stones at young girls or the rednecks who hurl abuse at gays.

Faith --> Evil

C.

That's the whole god damn point. Science has nothing to say in regards to religion, nor does it have anything to say in regards to atheism. Neither are a testable hypothesis.

You made a scientific claim which you obviously made up, audiopollution asked you to back it up with scientific evidence (since you voluntarily made a claim from the realm of science) and, shockingly enough, you don't have shit.

Hell, your claim may even be correct. Not something i have read up on myself, but the chances for amino acids to get together and perform the requisite reactions to make a protein without an enzyme should be highly unlikely, although it certainly wouldn't shock if it happened plenty of times back in our primordial soup. Of course, that's not a requirement for life beginning, as protein is not genetic material. I imagine you don't realize that either.

There are a number of theories of how life first formed on earth. Non of these, of course, deny God. Do you think that they do? Do you think God is out there just nodding its head like Barbara Eden? How old do you think planet Earth is?

You say that faith is the problem, but then you go to say that atheists like Stalin and Hitler have faith. (Hitler was no Catholic.)

So theists have faith. And atheists have faith. And anyone with 'a philosophy' has faith. That means everyone has faith. And you say faith is bad. So everyone is bad. That we can agree on, because we are all sinners in need of salvation. QED

Show me someone who doesn't have 'a philosophy'. We all have 'a philosophy', which you are calling 'faith.' Only someone with no idea of right or wrong, good or bad, wise or foolish, would be without 'faith', as you define it. Only a complete imbecile would not have 'faith', as you define it.

A few years ago my brother announced to the family that he was a 'furry'; someone who likes to dress up as a fox or bear or hedgehog or whatever, and hang out at furry conventions and online. Then a year later he announced he was gay, and was moving in with his furry partner.

My parents were worried about the furry business, and thought it was weird and disturbing. They didn't know that only 25% of furries are heterosexual. When he came out of the closet, my parents were shocked and saddened. They still are to this day, something like 5 years later. The two of them have been welcome at family gatherings, but the homosexuality or furriness have not been accepted as O.K. We can't consider his partner as family, yet they have been invited and have come to family Christmas get-togethers. My parents don't allow them to sleep together in the same room of their house, so they choose to stay at a hotel. Lately, though, they haven't been attending family get-togethers.

It's conceivable that he could commit suicide. It's not what we want or what anyone wants. However, we can't change God's rules and say that homosexuality is O.K. No parent wants their child to commit suicide. But at the same time, each of us has been given free will by God. The choice to put a gun to your head or to down a bottle of pills is a personal choice.

At a certain point, when a child does things that shouldn't be done, the parent has to let the child go. For the parents to disobey God, too, would be adding to the wrongs.

My parents' hearts are still broken to this day. They've pretty much lost their son. But there is one who has higher power, and they can't go against him even for the sake of their own son.

I honestly feel sorry for the people who believe in your non-Christian God, and let that misguided belief tell them what to do.

God (of a false prophet), or not, it is your parents' choice not to accept your brother. They choose not to. They are the ones in the wrong here. And a great amount of damage is done by people like that.

May 17th is the anniversary of the international declassification of homosexuality as a mental disease by the WHO in 1990.

Today there are marches and demonstrations around the world.

Please do all you can to end the disgusting bigotry shown by frugality and his parents.

Yes, but fundamentalist religious bigots' "faith" is not driven by their conscience, but by unsupported interpretation done by the church.

Not true at all. You don't need a pastor or anyone else to spoon-feed you any interpretation. A true believer simply reads the bible and learns for himself or herself. When that believer chooses a church, s/he chooses a church based on whether s/he believes that that church's beliefs are in line with the bible, not vice-versa.

I listen to my pastor, to speakers, to podcasts, and to Christian radio pastors and programs. It's a wide variety of viewpoints. But I filter it all through what God says in his word. If someone says something that's contradictory to what's in God's word (like, for instance, that homosexuality is not a sin, when everyplace in the bible that homosexuality is mentioned it is called out as a sin), then I don't listen to that pastor or teacher.

They accept my brother (their son.) They just don't accept what he's doing.

You don't understand how this has torn my parents' hears up. Their conscience tells them that it's wrong. Their choice is to go against their conscience, their faith, and what they believe is totally wrong. You want them to deny their essence for the sake of his perversions.

They can't do that in good conscience.

We atheists get this alot.

You say we-believe this. Whereas you believe that. They are equivalent. We are the same you and I.

No. Wrong. 100% Wrong. Go to the back of the class.

Atheism and skepticism are a LACK OF BELIEF. An utter avoidance of faith. Because faith is a psychological weakness. A disease of the brain where people willingly chose to believe things to be true, IN SPITE of any rational reason.
People believed in superiority of the Master Race, and the superior fairness of Communism, not based on rationality and logic and evidence. But on an emotional desire for them to be true.

When a scientist constructs a scientific theory, it's a bit like making a bridge. Each well-understood bit of science is like a steel girder. One rests on another. Sometimes there are unknowns and they require a little guess. A tiny leap of faith. Those are like gaps in the structure. We try to avoid the gaps. When we have gaps we try to fill them in.

Religion & cults try to make a bridge out of ONE GIANT GAP!

Scientific ideas, and rational philosophy have rules. One of these rules is they must be falsifiable.
If they can't be falsified, it is a pointless theory. It can't be tested. Science is humble, if you will.

Real scientific laws mean that one single observation can destroy the whole theory. Darwin, Newton, Einstein - all their stuff could be unravelled with a single repeatable observation.

They sky-fairy myth has no disproof. It is not humble. It makes lavish claims, and offers up no proof and no means of disproof. Nothing can happen which would convince the faithful that their belief system is flawed. Because the faithful are have replaced rationality with fiction.


C.

What you don't realize is that to your brother, that means they don't accept him. At all. And that's all that matters.

I'm so sorry that your parents are torn up about this. If they just stop listening to the church and do what they know is right (to simply love their son and allow him his own choices and support him in them), they won't have that pressure.

You have interpreted the Bible the way someone told you to interpret it. The way you have been intoctrinated to believe it is to be interpreted. There are plenty of very logical interpretations of the Bible that are just as clear as yours that say that nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuality is a sin, except perhaps in Leviticus (and there are many who believe that even in Leviticus, the "abomination" was in reference to homosexuality in idol worship, not in and of itself). Leviticus is already proven to be obsolete, and you can't possibly believe that eating shrimp or touching a menstruating woman don't deserve the death penalty under Leviticus but homosexuality does. You claim that times have changed, so you are allowed to eat shrimp. Well, times have changed, so you are allowed to be homosexual. The only thing stopping you from believing that is bigotry and false church and social indoctrination.

Mmm.... no. We have pictures from space that show a distinctly spherical, non-clover-shaped object known as Earth. We also have plenty of astronauts who've viewed Earth in its entirety from space.

When you say stuff like the above, it really harms your credibility. I guess if your faith tells you the Earth is a giant kazoo, then you automatically believe that we're all living on a giant kazoo, even if its easily scientifically provable otherwise.

This is part of why many ppl have stopped listening to the very religious on matters other than strictly moral ones... and even on morals, we're not so sure about you any more, since so many use their faith to justify their hatred, instead of looking in the mirror and recognizing the problem actually lies within themselves to a large extent.



.

So I guess I can kiss off any hope of a discussion on the Blackberry Thunder, eh?

Thanks AI, for burying that news item completely by putting it right next to what was obviously going to be a very controversial topic, i.e. homosexuality. On the plus side, for you anyway... you probably got a ton of hits off this.

Sigh.



.

Someone should bury this thread, its already to late...