DescentBB

TechPro wrote:I will still think that homosexual behavior is not normal behavior and not healthy.

Unhealthy
Just curious, what does that mean? Like, as in if "I have sex with a girl nothing will happen, but if I have sex with a guy I will have a heart attack" unhealthy, or "God's holiness dictateseth thateth homosexualityeth is badeth for thy spiriteth!", unhealthy?

I could see the religious part (I still think it is the most bigoted teaching ever), but if your talking about physical unhealthiness, then please show me how this is worse than heterosexual behaviour. I'm sure my sexual fetishes could top that "unhealthiness" factor in five seconds.

Ok, so now the truth is admitted Techpro.

You know, it would have saved everyone a lot of time if you just revealed your retarded cookie-cutter-christian homophobic biggoted beliefs at the START instead of pretending you actually had any points to back yourself up with.
Thx for wasting my time, and just being a round-about jerk, jerk.

TechPro wrote:It is my opinion that the difference here is: Choice. An infertile person could propagate if they were not infertile whereas a homosexual (assuming the homosexual is not infertile) could propagate but chooses not to.

Have you actually ever talked to a homosexual? Most don't see their homosexuality as a 'choice', but something that they are and can't do anything about. And really, at least the homosexuals I know do have tried to be "normal", most often for the first 20 to 30 years of their lives, until they have come to terms with that they only like men and that hey never will have children. Also, science seems to agree, homosexuality seems to a large part determined by genetics, and not by any 'choice' people make.

Finally, if it is choice what decides if you are allowed to marry, what about couples who decide that they don't want children. Are they also excluded from marriage? Do you really want people to make a solemn oath to (try to) reproduce before they enter the bond of marriage.

edit: didn't read this far:

I don't think homosexual behavior is normal. For that reason I don't think a homosexual union can possibly form a healthy "family unit". That's my opinion.

So the whole 'choice'-issue is moot now?

The only grudge I have against homosexuals is that too many of them think they don't have a choice for their sexual orientation. Which to me screams out 'weak minded', because love is very much controllable if you actually put brain-power towards it. But I only have this kind of grudge to those people that see their sexual orientation as a problem, so I have no objections to allowing gay marriage.
And of course, I have the same grudge against people of any sexual orientation that complains about how they're in love with an individual person but doesn't want to be too.

roid wrote:Ok, so now the truth is admitted Techpro.

You know, it would have saved everyone a lot of time if you just revealed your retarded cookie-cutter-christian homophobic biggoted beliefs at the START instead of pretending you actually had any points to back yourself up with.
Thx for wasting my time, and just being a round-about jerk, jerk.

Tsk, tsk. Down to name calling are we? Also, I believe I DID state my opinion at the start. Maybe you didn't notice.

Pandora wrote:

TechPro wrote:It is my opinion that the difference here is: Choice. An infertile person could propagate if they were not infertile whereas a homosexual (assuming the homosexual is not infertile) could propagate but chooses not to.

Have you actually ever talked to a homosexual?

Yes, I have.

Pandora wrote:Also, science seems to agree, homosexuality seems to a large part determined by genetics, and not by any 'choice' people make.

Wouldn't mind seeing a reference or two on this

Pandora wrote:So the whole 'choice'-issue is moot now?

As far as I'm concerned, yes.

Every gay person I've talked to would laugh in your face, Tech, if you were to tell them that homosexuality is a choice. (Not talking about the fakers)

You don't have to teach your children to avoid homosexual behavior. If they aren't gay, they won't be interested in it...

All your responses reek of ignorance. (Actual definition, not stupid common usage)

Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

Human rights come from the Mother Of All... Donii, who gave birth to all. She is the Earth Mother.

Techpro, I'm really surprised by the words I'm hearing from you. Homosexuality is known to be caused by either environmental or genetic elements, or even a combination of both, and is common in humans and animals. I don't quite understand the environmental issue but prisoners comes to mind and I think some \"turn gay\" by force… not choice. Genetically, there is no turning back for a gay person and by age four the die is cast. Some grow up in total denial, marry the opposite sex, have children, and become model citizens, but sooner or later they will come out of the closet, or get caught having an affair.

BTW…. What would you do if one of your children told you he was gay and all the physco docs can’t change him? Although he had no choice, would you love him any less?

(If he was straight, would you still stop him from marrying an Atheist?)

Bettina

Spidey wrote:Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

It came from human reasoning and emotion. When humans found out that killing each other was unproductive they made laws and it grew from that.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Spidey wrote:Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

It came from human reasoning and emotion. When humans found out that killing each other was unproductive they made laws and it grew from that.

Bee

That sounds like extrapolation rather than historical fact. A humanistic fairytale. Since when did humans in general come to know that killing each other was unproductive?

How/where did you get that idea?

TIGERassault wrote:The only grudge I have against homosexuals is that too many of them think they don't have a choice for their sexual orientation. Which to me screams out 'weak minded',

That's too easy to undermine: How many people here CHOSE to be straight?
How many of you CHOSE to be Gay for a while (ie: they chose to find their own sex attractive, and chose to find the opposite sex unattractive) - then they were into it for a while, and then they just woke up one morning and Chose to be straight again (chose to find the opposite sex attractive, and chose to find their own sex unattractive). Anyone?

Afterall it's a choice - if Gays can choose to be Straight, then Straights can choose to be Gay.
I'm sure it's just coincidence that everyone here who is saying that it's a choice - has NEVER made that choice themselves.

If you'll excuse me i'm going to go off and CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to ceiling fans - man this sexuality stuff is so easy, since everything is a choice i'll never be lonely again as i can just choose what i'm attracted to! When i find myself without ceiling fans, i'll just CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to chairs, or trees, or clouds, or the colour orange. Since i can now CHOOSE what turns me on, i'll never have to go without again.
</sarcasm>

Sexuality is not a choice - it's a discovery.
You never CHOSE to be straight

Spidey wrote:Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

Human Rights are a contemporary invention. They are rights granted by a culture - based on the ideals of that culture, they are much like laws.

You could say they have a biological basis, but i believe (unless pressed*) it's more based on culture - as all humans are relatively the same biologically yet cultures throughout history can differ vastly in their respective local "Human Rights".
Religion is a part of culture.
I wonder if this is where the term "God Forsaken Place" comes from - reference to places that do not recognise the same Human Rights as the Christians who visited, thus if Human Rights were thought of as "God Given" - then God must have missed that place for some reason. It effectively shows that Human Rights are subjective, and CULTURE is everything.

Most nations agree to a same basic Human Rights thesedays because international communication allows nations to reach censensus. Things such as the United Nations.


*and Thorne does seem to be pressing.

Bet51987 wrote:Techpro, I'm really surprised by the words I'm hearing from you. Homosexuality is known to be caused by either environmental or genetic elements, or even a combination of both, and is common in humans and animals. I don't quite understand the environmental issue but prisoners comes to mind and I think some "turn gay" by force… not choice. Genetically, there is no turning back for a gay person and by age four the die is cast. Some grow up in total denial, marry the opposite sex, have children, and become model citizens, but sooner or later they will come out of the closet, or get caught having an affair.

I'm still waiting for someone to reference something to back that up. So far, several are calling my position as "reeking of ignorance" but no one has provided anything to support their claims.

Bet51987 wrote:BTW…. What would you do if one of your children told you he was gay and all the physco docs can’t change him? Although he had no choice, would you love him any less?

(If he was straight, would you still stop him from marrying an Atheist?)

Bettina

My love for that child would not change in any way. Also, I wouldn't be bothering with any 'physco docs' (I assume you meant 'psycho') because how they wish to live their life is their choice. I would be encouraging the child to pursue and work out his/her life in the manner that brings them the most joy, whatever (or wherever) that may take them ... and no, I wouldn't stop them from marrying whoever they choose.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Spidey wrote:Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

It came from human reasoning and emotion. When humans found out that killing each other was unproductive they made laws and it grew from that.

Bee

That sounds like extrapolation rather than historical fact. A humanistic fairytale. Since when did humans in general come to know that killing each other was unproductive?

How/where did you get that idea?

It is well known that early humans had a need to socialize and cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. They knew that pleasure was not only good but productive, and that pain and killings were unproductive. This I learned in school and there is a lot of information on the web that you can google if you choose to believe any of it.

You also used words like "fairytale" and "historical fact" yet you think I should believe that human rights and my emotions came from some invisible "God".

Bee

TechPro wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:BTW…. What would you do if one of your children told you he was gay and all the physco docs can’t change him? Although he had no choice, would you love him any less?

(If he was straight, would you still stop him from marrying an Atheist?)

Bettina

My love for that child would not change in any way. Also, I wouldn't be bothering with any 'physco docs' (I assume you meant 'psycho') because how they wish to live their life is their choice. I would be encouraging the child to pursue and work out his/her life in the manner that brings them the most joy, whatever (or wherever) that may take them ... and no, I wouldn't stop them from marrying whoever they choose.

Thank you for the typo correction. Now, if you would, as you said, encourage your gay child in his pursuit to have a happy life with a same sex partner then I'm sure that you would apply that to the rest of the gay population. If that is the case, then whether you consider it a "choice" or not is irrelevant..

Bee

I believe human rights or lack thereof come as a direct result of what we are. Rights are something that is inherent, by definition. They must be. The real dispute on that point is one of origin. I believe that we were created by God, and that there is a great deal of evidence to the fact.

I believe that your emotions/attractions are also a result of what you are. Man or woman.

Is God conveniently \"invisible?\" Or are our 4 dimensions: length, width, depth, and time also creations of God? The Bible says that God exists outside of time. \"Eternal.\"

Spidey wrote:My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

We haven't even determined how rights can come from a creator, even assuming that one exists.

Jeff250 wrote:

Spidey wrote:My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

We haven't even determined how rights can come from a creator, even assuming that one exists.

It's a real shame that the founding fathers didn't foresee the absolute abandonment of wisdom in our generation, or they could have spelled that out for us.

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

Human Rights are a contemporary invention. They are rights granted by a culture - based on the ideals of that culture, they are much like laws.

You could say they have a biological basis, but i believe (unless pressed*) it's more based on culture - as all humans are relatively the same biologically yet cultures throughout history can differ vastly in their respective local "Human Rights".
Religion is a part of culture.
I wonder if this is where the term "God Forsaken Place" comes from - reference to places that do not recognise the same Human Rights as the Christians who visited, thus if Human Rights were thought of as "God Given" - then God must have missed that place for some reason. It effectively shows that Human Rights are subjective, and CULTURE is everything.

Most nations agree to a same basic Human Rights thesedays because international communication allows nations to reach censensus. Things such as the United Nations.

Quoted for Truth

=================================================

Here is a thought, assuming that god didn't grant us rights, of what humanity should technicaly do.

We should stop all entertainment activities, such as movies and such. This will allow the population to focus on manufacturing. Then, we have slavery again, and enslave enough people for the workforce. The workforce would be made of food, and industry, and such; nothing like toys or game, purley what we need. We would also orchestrate people into the military, for protection against anyone else, and to stop rebellion. We would also force smart people to become scientists, to progress our technology. This would insure our survival, as we can gain new technologies, and be highly efficient at producing what we need.

This is technically what we should do. It would allow the human race to live on, and assuming the whole world succumbed to this system, we could expand into space with the same goals. We could even advance technology to fight off any alien species, and just keep expanding as we grew.

Can anyone object to this without using the words "human rights"? I doubt anyone can. Why was the forced labor that the Nazis or Soviets used a bad thing, without using the words "human rights"?

This is assuming there is no god, no afterlife, nothing after we die. Only the survival of the human race.

(I hope there is an afterlife, and I don't know if there is a god)

Bet51987 wrote:... Now, if you would, as you said, encourage your gay child in his pursuit to have a happy life with a same sex partner then I'm sure that you would apply that to the rest of the gay population. If that is the case, then whether you consider it a "choice" or not is irrelevant..

Bee

Nicely reasoned, however I think it MUST be relevant to anyone to whom my opinions and beliefs are important. I would hope that if my child has affection, trust, even love for me as a parent, then he/she would consider my opinions and beliefs to be VERY relevant to consider in their decision making process.

In the end, he/she can make the choices they wish. I would hope (and pray) that I've been a parent well enough that my opinions and beliefs are well known as he/she makes their choices.

wow. just wow.

quite a few people here would make Fred Phelps proud.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's a real shame that the founding fathers didn't foresee the absolute abandonment of wisdom in our generation, or they could have spelled that out for us.

We've had discussions about this before here. Essentially, the problem is, by what right does God establish rights? (If you don't need a right to establish rights, then anyone can establish rights.) It does not seem as though God can establish his own right to establish rights, because he has to already have the right to establish rights logically prior to establishing his right to establish rights!

But then at least one right comes from outside of God (the right to establish rights). For example, one might say that any creator has the right to establish rights over his creation; thus, God can establish rights over his creation. But if that right comes from outside God, then why can't other rights come from outside God too? Like that any person has the right to freedom of expression and such.

So in other words, if you're willing to give the same amount of skepticism that you give to non-God origins of rights to the God origins of rights, you're going to find that they're all problematic and that there is no quick fix by just believing in anything.

Dakatsu wrote:

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

Human Rights are a contemporary invention. They are rights granted by a culture - based on the ideals of that culture, they are much like laws.

You could say they have a biological basis, but i believe (unless pressed*) it's more based on culture - as all humans are relatively the same biologically yet cultures throughout history can differ vastly in their respective local "Human Rights".
Religion is a part of culture.
I wonder if this is where the term "God Forsaken Place" comes from - reference to places that do not recognise the same Human Rights as the Christians who visited, thus if Human Rights were thought of as "God Given" - then God must have missed that place for some reason. It effectively shows that Human Rights are subjective, and CULTURE is everything.

Most nations agree to a same basic Human Rights thesedays because international communication allows nations to reach censensus. Things such as the United Nations.

Quoted for Truth

=================================================

Here is a thought, assuming that god didn't grant us rights, of what humanity should technicaly do.

We should stop all entertainment activities, such as movies and such. This will allow the population to focus on manufacturing. Then, we have slavery again, and enslave enough people for the workforce. The workforce would be made of food, and industry, and such; nothing like toys or game, purley what we need. We would also orchestrate people into the military, for protection against anyone else, and to stop rebellion. We would also force smart people to become scientists, to progress our technology. This would insure our survival, as we can gain new technologies, and be highly efficient at producing what we need.

This is technically what we should do. It would allow the human race to live on, and assuming the whole world succumbed to this system, we could expand into space with the same goals. We could even advance technology to fight off any alien species, and just keep expanding as we grew.

Can anyone object to this without using the words "human rights"? I doubt anyone can. Why was the forced labor that the Nazis or Soviets used a bad thing, without using the words "human rights"?

This is assuming there is no god, no afterlife, nothing after we die. Only the survival of the human race.

(I hope there is an afterlife, and I don't know if there is a god)

Pandora was talking (must have been in another thread) about mirror neurons, empathy (and altruism maybe). I believe this gives a biological basis to The Golden Rule, because to watch other people hurt - we ourselves feel hurt. So if we must watch other people (ie: if we are forced into close proximity, such as in a society) - we strive to keep them from being hurt, for our own psychological wellbeing.

One may call this a basic "Human Right", but one of the things it's fed by is the avoidance of empathic pain, which is selfish but that's the nature of nature. So you could arguably call it "Instinct", much like a Mother's love for a child.

This is technically what we should do.

This isn't really a given. Coz you can't really put a purpose to humanity - there's nothing we "should" do. This is commonly argued about though, the question of whether suicide should be legal.

I think what we *should* do is whatever we want to do. This would make me happy. I don't think being forced to do things against my will will make me happy, i'm not willing to sacrifice my freewill just to get to space - it kindof destroys the whole purpose. I may as well just be kept in a cage buried under the earth alla 12 Monkeys.

Just because we have no real "God Given Rights" doesn't mean enslaving one another is now suddenly OK. I don't want to enslave you, you don't want to enslave me, nothing has changed by taking God outof the equation - so these Rights must have been based on something more solid the whole time. They do have a kindof biological basis.

roid wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:Ok Roid

My question still stands…”Can Science grant you rights?” (Paraphrase) Because we still have to determine where Human Rights come from if not from a “Creator”.

Human Rights are a contemporary invention. They are rights granted by a culture - based on the ideals of that culture, they are much like laws.

You could say they have a biological basis, but i believe (unless pressed*) it's more based on culture - as all humans are relatively the same biologically yet cultures throughout history can differ vastly in their respective local "Human Rights".
Religion is a part of culture.
I wonder if this is where the term "God Forsaken Place" comes from - reference to places that do not recognise the same Human Rights as the Christians who visited, thus if Human Rights were thought of as "God Given" - then God must have missed that place for some reason. It effectively shows that Human Rights are subjective, and CULTURE is everything.

Most nations agree to a same basic Human Rights thesedays because international communication allows nations to reach censensus. Things such as the United Nations.

Quoted for Truth

=================================================

Here is a thought, assuming that god didn't grant us rights, of what humanity should technicaly do.

We should stop all entertainment activities, such as movies and such. This will allow the population to focus on manufacturing. Then, we have slavery again, and enslave enough people for the workforce. The workforce would be made of food, and industry, and such; nothing like toys or game, purley what we need. We would also orchestrate people into the military, for protection against anyone else, and to stop rebellion. We would also force smart people to become scientists, to progress our technology. This would insure our survival, as we can gain new technologies, and be highly efficient at producing what we need.

This is technically what we should do. It would allow the human race to live on, and assuming the whole world succumbed to this system, we could expand into space with the same goals. We could even advance technology to fight off any alien species, and just keep expanding as we grew.

Can anyone object to this without using the words "human rights"? I doubt anyone can. Why was the forced labor that the Nazis or Soviets used a bad thing, without using the words "human rights"?

This is assuming there is no god, no afterlife, nothing after we die. Only the survival of the human race.

(I hope there is an afterlife, and I don't know if there is a god)

Pandora was talking (must have been in another thread) about mirror neurons, empathy (and altruism maybe). I believe this gives a biological basis to The Golden Rule, because to watch other people hurt - we ourselves feel hurt. So if we must watch other people (ie: if we are forced into close proximity, such as in a society) - we strive to keep them from being hurt, for our own psychological wellbeing.

One may call this a basic "Human Right", but one of the things it's fed by is the avoidance of empathic pain, which is selfish but that's the nature of nature. So you could arguably call it "Instinct", much like a Mother's love for a child.

This is technically what we should do.

This isn't really a given. Coz you can't really put a purpose to humanity - there's nothing we "should" do. This is commonly argued about though, the question of whether suicide should be legal.

I think what we *should* do is whatever we want to do. This would make me happy. I don't think being forced to do things against my will will make me happy, i'm not willing to sacrifice my freewill just to get to space - it kindof destroys the whole purpose. I may as well just be kept in a cage buried under the earth alla 12 Monkeys.

Just because we have no real "God Given Rights" doesn't mean enslaving one another is now suddenly OK. I don't want to enslave you, you don't want to enslave me, nothing has changed by taking God outof the equation - so these Rights must have been based on something more solid the whole time. They do have a kindof biological basis.

The only reason I took out god is so no one could say "Because god gave us rights". I guess I should of made that clear. I meant why should we have them? The reason is we want to be happy, and to be allowed to do whatever we want makes us happy (except kinky bondage, but then again there is the safe word ).

roid wrote:That's too easy to undermine: How many people here CHOSE to be straight?
How many of you CHOSE to be Gay for a while (ie: they chose to find their own sex attractive, and chose to find the opposite sex unattractive) - then they were into it for a while, and then they just woke up one morning and Chose to be straight again (chose to find the opposite sex attractive, and chose to find their own sex unattractive). Anyone?

Afterall it's a choice - if Gays can choose to be Straight, then Straights can choose to be Gay.
I'm sure it's just coincidence that everyone here who is saying that it's a choice - has NEVER made that choice themselves.

If you'll excuse me i'm going to go off and CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to ceiling fans - man this sexuality stuff is so easy, since everything is a choice i'll never be lonely again as i can just choose what i'm attracted to! When i find myself without ceiling fans, i'll just CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to chairs, or trees, or clouds, or the colour orange. Since i can now CHOOSE what turns me on, i'll never have to go without again.
</sarcasm>

Sexuality is not a choice - it's a discovery.
You never CHOSE to be straight

The reason I said 'weak minded' isn't because I thought these people in question were too stupid to choose, but that they never realised how to be able to choose in the first place.

Of course, I bet I'm really annoying some people by being so vague, but I don't have time to explain it now.

Today I decided to turn gay and boink men!

TIGERassault wrote:

roid wrote:Sexuality is not a choice - it's a discovery.
You never CHOSE to be straight

The reason I said 'weak minded' isn't because I thought these people in question were too stupid to choose, but that they never realised how to be able to choose in the first place.

Of course, I bet I'm really annoying some people by being so vague, but I don't have time to explain it now.

I've heard Gay people say they wished they wern't Gay - it would have made their lives a lot easier.
Gay youths are 4x - 14x more likely than straight kids to commit suicide. (Someone needs to clue these kids in that it's a choice! lawl)

The very concept of "the closet" refers to people who hide their true sexuality from others and even from themselves. Some Gay men have gotten married and had kids before they finally decide they can't hide it anymore.

So if anything Gay people are statistically more likely to want to Choose - but they soon realize it doesn't work that way. They have essentially been there, and that's why they are the loudest opponents to the "Being Gay is a choice" brigade - because they know what they're talking about from closet experience.


The only people who can choose anything are Bisexuals, and all it does is allow them to fit in easier, they still can't choose to NOT be Bisexual. Gay people are by definition not Bisexual. I don't hear people arguing about Bisexuality being a choice - only about being Gay.

Tech, I've nothing but the words from the mouths of gay people. You know, the one's you're telling what you think? They think you're funny!

Bet51987 wrote:

TechPro wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:BTW…. What would you do if one of your children told you he was gay and all the physco docs can’t change him? Although he had no choice, would you love him any less?

(If he was straight, would you still stop him from marrying an Atheist?)

Bettina

My love for that child would not change in any way. Also, I wouldn't be bothering with any 'physco docs' (I assume you meant 'psycho') because how they wish to live their life is their choice. I would be encouraging the child to pursue and work out his/her life in the manner that brings them the most joy, whatever (or wherever) that may take them ... and no, I wouldn't stop them from marrying whoever they choose.

Thank you for the typo correction. Now, if you would, as you said, encourage your gay child in his pursuit to have a happy life with a same sex partner then I'm sure that you would apply that to the rest of the gay population. If that is the case, then whether you consider it a "choice" or not is irrelevant..

Bee

Actually, I think what TP is saying is that he would strongly DIScourage them, and force them to make a choice between him, his opinions, and their sexual preferances. Banning gay marrige, then, would be one way of discouraging.
Choice or not, what real reason is there for banning gay marrige?

Hmm... how to explain...
I guess the easiest way to describe it would be 'self hypnotism'.
To put it simply, all of a person's interests and opinions are formed by a combination of their environment (mostly other people; I mean, you did notice how people's perceptions of what's 'sexy' is more often than not change to what the media says is sexy), including your own thoughts. So by thinking out loud to yourslef (thinking, not necessarily talking) that X is a good/bad/beautiful/attractive/etc thing, it doubles for both your environment and your mind telling you it, and thus can change the way you think about something.
Heck, didn't you ever hear of someone changing sexual orientation when forced into a uni-sex group? Even Bet's prisoner example...

Also, when I say it's choosable, I don't mean every straight/gay person became straight/gay out of choice, but just came about that way, in the same way you didn't go 'hmm, I think I'll start being attracted to girls now' at some point in your life; although I do think there are some people that chose to change sexual orientation in their sub-concious without being completely aware of it.


Either that, or some sort of over-exosure to radiation on my parents' behalf that I wasn't aware of made me have some sort of mutated superbrain...

Definitely over exposure to something...

Ok Roid, I think I understand your thinking.

But I must point out that I believe you are working from a flawed premise…that being that the founding fathers used terminology such as “The Creator” because science hadn’t been invented yet. This is false; the Founding fathers used such words because they believed in “The Creator” not because they were not enlightened.

Remember…science was around long before the American Revolution, and many of the founders were very enlightened towards such things.

Also remember, many of the great scientists believed in God, Einstein and Galileo come to mind. Therefore Science and the belief in god are not exclusive to one another.

I also have to say, you guys that have discarded “God” from your lives and then think you have accomplished something have simply abandoned an aspect of humanity.

Your math…Atoms + Molecules + DNA = Humans = Blobs of animated flesh
My Math…Atoms + Molecules + DNA + Spirit = Humans = Spiritual Beings

Spidey wrote:Also remember, many of the great scientists believed in God, Einstein and Galileo come to mind.

Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

And your point is?

It's at the very least misleading, if not completely incorrect, to cite Einstein as a believer in God. (The \"God\" that Einstein believed in is nothing like the God that you're trying to show is compatible with science.) Actual statistics regarding what scientists believe hurt your argument even further.

I never said how “many” Scientists believe in God, so that site is moot. My point is simply that science and “God” are not mutually exclusive, personal or otherwise.

But the more important point was that the founders were not a bunch of unenlightened bible thumpers with a limited vocabulary. They chose to give “The Creator” the credit for those rights because they were believers…not ignorant of science.

As far as the type of “God” I am trying to make compatible with science…well any God can be compatible with science unless you believe in the narrowest version of God, who is to say that science is not a tool of The Creator? Who can say that evolution is not just the way God created man? Ok if you are a strict believer in a God that created earth in 6 days then I concede that point…but personally I believe in a different God.

back then - perhaps even the most enlightened minds in specific sciences would have believed in God. Atheism would have been more a philosophy, there would have been less evidence backing it up relative to now.

Nowadays we have plenty of non-magical explanations for things. Back then we didn't. Back then you didn't have to be a bible thumper to believe in God - you simply had to be as ignorant as everyone else was back then (relative to now).
They were relatively ignorant times.
In a few hundred years we'll look back at now and think we were relatively ignorant too. The world continues spinning, Progress continues.

well any God can be compatible with science unless you believe in the narrowest version of God

i kindof agree, as it's mostly those with narrow visions that i have trouble with.
The God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller. Some people just refuse to admit the gaps are being filled, denial.

I find it disturbingly provocative that you identify yourself together with humanity in the 1st-person plural, Roid. Do you presume there is a connection, or is it just a habit of martialling greater importance for your life and views?

I may have mentioned it before, but I think it's incredible that you suppose you can claim the founding fathers of my country for your world-view, when they clearly professed differently. The number and degree of assumptions you feel so free to make amazes me.

It can see that, given your world-view, it has a ring of plausibility, but that makes it no less foolish for being absolutely unfounded and unprovable.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I find it disturbingly provocative that you identify yourself together with humanity in the 1st-person plural, Roid. Do you presume there is a connection, or is it just a habit of martialling greater importance for your life and views?

i look human, so people think i'm human. i just go with it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I may have mentioned it before, but I think it's incredible that you suppose you can claim the founding fathers of my country for your world-view, when they clearly professed differently. The number and degree of assumptions you feel so free to make amazes me.

It can see that, given your world-view, it has a ring of plausibility, but that makes it no less foolish for being absolutely unfounded and unprovable.

i never said this... did i? i don't think i said that. I was just giving an explanation to Spidey on WHY the founding fathers talked like they talked. I never said they were Atheists or Homosexuals or anything.

although...

Hehe, I have no qualms with your identifying yourself as a human.

Roid wrote:i never said this... did i? i don't think i said that. I was just giving an explanation to Spidey on WHY the founding fathers talked like they talked.

You've suggested that the founders' use of "our Creator", and "God given" was merely because the humanistic world-view you subscribe to didn't exist yet. What you're doing is dismissing Christianity from having played any vital role in our history, based on the assumptions of your humanistic world-view. You must assume that humanism could have played the role equally well, if not better?

Roid wrote:The expression "God Given human rights" was used - because no other expression existed at the time.

Roid wrote:The limits to our understanding at the time was that God gave us everything.

Roid wrote:Thus language reflected that, simply because that was the common language of the time and there were no known alternatives.

Roid wrote:Evolutionary Psychology was not known of back when the American Constitution was written. Thus "God" was the official explanation written into the document instead.

Someone stop me if I've misconstrued all of these.

Your assumptions place far too little importance on their belief in a creator as being what shaped their convictions. I may not be the best example, but you know (roughly) the degree to which it shapes mine (from some of the things I've read, I consider them to have been better men than I am). Do you assume that America would have simply been America minus "God" if their convictions concerning a creator had been otherwise?