Disbelief is not a choice

Wirelessly posted

DeafCaroline said:
Your belief that homosexuality is unnatural - it's not a fact either. It's just an opinion.




The writer was explaining the difference between one's biological attraction to another of the same sex and one's choice of religious belief that tells them homosexuality is wrong.




In other words, for most, sexual attraction is a biological urge. For everyone, religion is a theological choice.




That's rather factual.
Click to expand...
Actually, the writer is expressing like how homosexuals cannot convince themselves they are straight; the skeptics cannot continue the charade of amending the cracks in a theological pillar incompatable with their current understanding of the universe.
 
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted

In other words, you can only apply putty to patch the holes so many time before the drywall blows out and need to be replaced.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted



Actually, the writer is expressing like how homosexuals cannot lie to themselves they are not straight; the skeptics cannot continue the charade of holding up a system incompatable with their current understanding of the universe.
Click to expand...

As for the latter statement, I would imagine it's hard for a religious person to accept this. I mean the best they can do is simply "Well, that's your belief. I have faith in my beliefs. I don't need proof."

To be quite honest, that statement implies "As people get smarter and gain more understanding in their universe, people realize that they cannot be religious anymore."

Let's say that it is indeed true. The more one understands how the world works, the less likely they will be religious.

How can a religious person accept that? Isn't it somewhat insulting?
 
Wirelessly posted

Well, rejection of religion is when one is aboslutely fed up with the eternal struggle of finding the truth between theology and philosphy. That's all to it.




Others just simply modify their theologies. For example, the Anglicians changed their doctrines because while the underlining principles are fundamentally the same, they also know knowledge change over time. So, the "Young Earth Creation" is no longer accepted by the Church of England, but they still believe in the divine plan.
 
Last edited:
There was a time once when teaching evolution and about dinosaurs was forbidden in schools because it disproved the Bible's stance on creationism of humans. I don't think the goal of scientific discoveries was to insult religious people but it certainly proved some beliefs to be very false.
 
Wirelessly posted (droid)

Authority is afraid of critical thinking.
 
Wirelessly posted

DeafCaroline said:
There was a time once when teaching evolution and about dinosaurs was forbidden in schools because it disproved the Bible's stance on creationism of humans. I don't think the goal of scientific discoveries was to insult religious people but it certainly proved some beliefs to be very false.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about Anglicians is they were the first religious sect to accept Darwinism without second thought. So were the northern Baptists; and the Anabaptists; they too accepted it without much rift in their community.
 
When it come to two people loving one another no matter what sex they're
it's NO ONE BUSINESS! What the bible said or does not say should not give people the rights to threaten , intimate, or harm another human being because of who they chose as their life long partner!
The bible should be kept out people bedroom! People need to find something else to worried about , like the homeless people living under the bridges in their town. Winter is coming and they will need blankets or a warm place to sleep!
If people spend more taking care of the homeless than worrying about what people are doing in their bedrooms, we would have less homeless people!
I believe that bible does tell people to look out for their neighbors , I could be wrong , but I think there is something about this.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Let's say that it is indeed true. The more one understands how the world works, the less likely they will be religious.

How can a religious person accept that? Isn't it somewhat insulting?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, there are some things that are simply not within the grasp of human comprehensions. For instance, we know there is a Big Bang and it will probably ends in a Big Crunch or a Heat Death since there's a constant struggle between expansion of the universe and gravity to hold it altogether. However we don't know why the Big Bang occurred. We just how it occurred and when it occurred. Whether or not the Big Bang is a single origin event or it is part of an oscillating cycle is still very much for debate with strong evidences supporting BOTH sides oddly enough; so in essence we have the struggle between the watch-maker and cosmic reincarnation.

Quantum physics is another realm where it's interesting, but we may never understand it. However, the ultimate goal of science is a "theory of everything" as Stephen Hawkings put it.

But that's what secular humanism is; it's not even close to atheism as all it is just acceptance of new evidences, while adjusting one's spirituality to explain it.
 
:hmm: I thought we were not suppose to discuss religion and to "play nice".
 
souggy said:
Furthermore, there are some things that are simply not within the grasp of human comprehensions. For instance, we know there is a Big Bang and it will probably ends in a Big Crunch or a Heat Death since there's a constant struggle between expansion of the universe and gravity to hold it altogether. However we don't know why the Big Bang occurred. We just how it occurred and when it occurred. Whether or not the Big Bang is a single origin event or it is part of an oscillating cycle is still very much for debate with strong evidences supporting BOTH sides oddly enough; so in essence we have the struggle between the watch-maker and cosmic reincarnation.

Quantum physics is another realm where it's interesting, but we may never understand it. However, the ultimate goal of science is a "theory of everything" as Stephen Hawkings put it.

But that's what secular humanism is; it's not even close to atheism as all it is just acceptance of new evidences, while adjusting one's spirituality to explain it.
Click to expand...

More like to go with it. A recurring theme in OBE (Out of Body Experiences) is that when one tries to figure it out, POOF, he/she is back to square one.
 
"it is just acceptance of new evidences, while adjusting one's spirituality to explain it."

That's true and the acceptance of evolution from the church proves that.

Not sure what Steinhauer is getting at with psychokinesis. Not sure how that relates to this thread.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Can you state in your own words what exactly is DeafCaroline wrong about?

All she said that "Sexual attraction is a biological urge." Is that what you are saying is wrong? When you are attracted to a woman, that is a choice? Not a biological urge?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying DC is wrong in her statement that "sexual attraction is a biological urge."

The writer, Noise, makes these statements as facts:

"whereas sexual orientation is not a choice"

"the great weight of science indicates"

"determined entirely by biology"

Without any actual proof, Noise can not be allow to make these statements as facts. That is what my objection to is. The actual truth is that the great weight of science knows there is no acceptable way of knowing a person at birth.

BTW......I never said a person could NOT use his/her body parts for other than the intended purpose. You are totally free to take your fist and pound it into your face.....ain't anyone going to stop you.
 
Rolling7, I have a feeling that you won't object to statements like:

"Biologically, a man has sexual urges for women only and vice versa. Anything else is a choice made by perversions or deviations in the mind."

Right?
 
Deaf caroline, that means that a person can move something with her mind. So, if you can do that, move his hand. Silly joke but it made me laugh.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Rolling7, I have a feeling that you won't object to statements like:

"Biologically, a man has sexual urges for women only and vice versa. Anything else is a choice made by perversions or deviations in the mind."

Right?
Click to expand...

I'm so tempted to jump in but since we can't discuss religion in relation to scientific evidence, I'll refrain. :)
 
Daredevel7 said:
Rolling7, I have a feeling that you won't object to statements like:

"Biologically, a man has sexual urges for women only and vice versa. Anything else is a choice made by perversions or deviations in the mind."

Right?
Click to expand...

The only statement biologically acceptable is that the penis was meant to fit into the vagina and ejaculate semen into her to possible fertilize one of her eggs.
Any other use of the penis or vagina is not the intended purpose but as I said ain't anybody stopping you.
 
rolling7 said:
The only statement biologically acceptable is that the penis was meant to fit into the vagina and ejaculate semen into her to possible fertilize one of her eggs.
Any other use of the penis or vagina is not the intended purpose but as I said ain't anybody stopping you.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you on the first statement. However, I disagree with you in the bolded statement. There is no proof that we can ONLY use penis and vagina for fertilization of eggs. In fact, I can name one already. Release of urine.

Show me proof that it is biologically unacceptable to use a penis and vagina for uses OTHER than fertilizing eggs.
 
Back
Top