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.
The point simply being that if you prefer men, you prefer men. It doesn't change over time. Again, "preferring men" does not mean you don't ever date women or won't end up marrying one. It just means you prefer them, on average.
Again, that preference doesn't change over time. If it does "change", it's because of societal or family or religious pressures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
My brother chose homosexuality. He got into 'furriness' (look that perversion up for yourself if you like) and through that became gay. His partner is also a furry.
I love my brother as a brother and as a human being made in the image of God. However, I hate his sin and cannot condone it.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Faith is evil. Or at the very least, faith paves the way to evil.
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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor
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?
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.
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.)
Comments
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.
OTOH, we have a "former" gay and a 35-year-old virgin (who's apparently terrified of his own sexuality) arguing against homosexuals.
Hmmm.
Genocide was all the craze back in the day. Now it's practically taboo.
Kids and their wacky trends.
It was an example. The numbers are irrelevant.
The point simply being that if you prefer men, you prefer men. It doesn't change over time. Again, "preferring men" does not mean you don't ever date women or won't end up marrying one. It just means you prefer them, on average.
Again, that preference doesn't change over time. If it does "change", it's because of societal or family or religious pressures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
My brother chose homosexuality. He got into 'furriness' (look that perversion up for yourself if you like) and through that became gay. His partner is also a furry.
I love my brother as a brother and as a human being made in the image of God. However, I hate his sin and cannot condone it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indifference means you are equally satisfied with either A or B, it doesn't mean you don't care for A and B.
It does mean you do not care for either
"indifference |ɪnˈdɪf(ə)r(ə)ns|
noun
lack of interest, concern, or sympathy"
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Here's the thing you guys keep missing.
Faith is evil. Or at the very least, faith paves the way to evil.
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.
If good and evil exist, there must be a standard by which they exist.
There is no standard. It depends on which school of ethics you follow.
Only God can determine morality, good and evil
That is a fallacy because it is based on the unsound belief that god exists.
There is no standard. It depends on which school of ethics you follow.
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?
That is a fallacy because it is based on the unsound belief that god exists.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
... some scientists ...
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.)