Does religion short-circuit the thought process? As a standard, I mean. I know for a fact a couple of our posters have some blown logic circuits.

At least two posters here consistently reject data which has been presented repeatedly to these forums which contradicts their opinions. I'm thinking of the homosexuality debates taking place left and right around here, where one or two people continue to assert homosexuality as "unnatural" despite a plethora of scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexual contact occurse elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

In topics past I've posted articles and even a book review or two which cover the subject, yet these posters--both of whom have been around long enough to have seen those posts, and one of whom those posts were directed at--continue with their insistence that homosexuality is "unnatural".

So I shall indirectly call them out: Is it stupidity, or are you really that hateful?

Will there be a point to posting evidence in support of assertions if a religious paradigm requires denial and deflection?

Is there a point to having any more debates about homosexuality, since the apparent haters are determined to ignore scientific evidence in order to continue their discriminatory horsepucky?

Furthermore, as each writes from a religious perspective, are we really expected to respect that religious perspective that seems to invite stupidity, symptoms of psychological disorder, or outright hatred?

I might remind all here that religion is "unnatural" in the fact that no other animals practice religion.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Religion isn't exactly based on logical thought.

Having a debate with a really religious person can often be like banging your head against a wall. they refuse to consider for a second any other point of view. they just run with the assumption that it's obvious their religion is the one true faith.

here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=13066) spiff

;)

and i of course am more curious about the motivations of the "debunkers"
who are these modern day crusaders?

;)

Note that Green, being rather guilty of this, is avoiding this thread. Funny.

Religion is good. It only turns you into freaky nutcases like Green when you twist it to abuse your own mind.

I suspect that, for every religion, there is a brand of fundamentalism that is fine-tuned to the mentally and emotionally challenged, and fully compatible with racism and xenophobia.

Perhaps i should elaborate. It's not just religious people, atheist can be the same way. it's just that most of the closed minded people i've met have been religious. Being nonreligious does not automatically mean that your reasoning is superior to that of a religious person.

but look at the examples of religious people on this forum, some of them don't exacly scream "logical argument". too much flaming and "cause i said so". of course the atheist can do that to. maybe it's not just religion that short-circuits the thought process. maybe it's just being closed minded and a bit too hardcore. one can become a fanatical zealot about anything i suppose. :(

tiassa, I don't hate gays. Also can you show me logically how homosexaulity is justified? As I stated before their is no justification in opinion, their is only right and wrong, the light of understanding or the darkeness of ignorance, be it willfull or wrought of bonds. The "christian god" as you would call him, demands reasoning, and understanding of his word, neither does he accept anything less. For the carnal mind this impossible, which is why he gives the holyghost, for it is written

1 Corinthians 2:11

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
King James Version

binary

Also can you show me logically how homosexaulity is justified?

uhh, it feels good? it results in orgasms? happiness? marriage? productive lives? decent haircuts? killer gourmet food? designer clothes? must i go on?

;)

ps: logic impedes erections

Agree with spookz. Logic does not bring you a love partner. Logic will not get your gene passed on.

I'm getting use to these substanceless comments, it's just about all I see on sciforums. Is there noone here that finds treasure in the judgement of the understanding of knowledge, and beauty in the depths of it's wisdom. Or must it always only be to distraction, as a drunkard not willing to be sobered.

Originally posted by Binary
I getting use to these substanceless comments,

welcome to sciforums! resistance is futile!

:D

---Also can you show me logically how homosexaulity is justified?---

why does it need justification? i've never heard anyone askin to justify heterosexuality...

BinaryAlso can you show me logically how homosexaulity is justified? As I stated before their is no justification in opinion, their is only right and wrong, the light of understanding or the darkeness of ignorance, be it willfull or wrought of bonds. Well it seems to me that there's nothing to justify, but I would think that the fact that homosexual contact between organisms occurs in nature should be enough to indicate the degree of fallacy inherent to calling homosexuality "unnatural".The "christian god" as you would call him, demands reasoning, and understanding of his word, neither does he accept anything less. Actually, the Christian God demands faith. It is not necessary to understand, writes Perdurabo, it is enough to adore.1 Corinthians 2:11Incidentally, Binary, can you show me logically how faith in the Bible and its God are justified?

Because what you've ended up posting is actually part of the point. I can pull words out of a book here and there, such as the Perdurabo line above. But to put faith in the Bible or Perdurabo or anything else as definitive reality is merely an opinion and a choice.

And I suppose the question to be put to you, then, is: Do you feel that homosexuality is unnatural, especially in light of the fact that homosexual contact occurs elsewhere in nature?

You're not actually on the list. I'm thinking of two people specifically, and no, Green World is not yet on that list, either. I'm perfectly happy, I suppose, to come out and slam them directly, but we've had so many topics lately in which posters have targeted their enemies directly (e.g. NPA/GW) that I'd rather discuss it as an abstraction.

Seriously, I don't understand what motivates people--especially those I have in mind--to simply ignore information put before them and go on with their propagandous assault on the good character of their fellow human beings. It really does seem hateful when one seeks to alienate another based solely on superstition and presumption.

Remember, the clear majority of people are "autosexual" before they are "heterosexual". Very often, a person's first orgasm has nothing to do with sexual preference, and everything to do with the body and mind activating its sexuality. One of the great reasons to pay attention to the sex industry (e.g. upper-tier pornography) is that you occasionally get some good data out of them. I know of many women who claim to have had their first orgasms on see-saws, horseback, bicycles, and swingsets. Ask any properly qualified sex therapist.

Incidentally, I just looked up a nonscientific poll, and while I don't entirely trust the numbers, nearly half (47%) of the respondents (103/female) mark their first orgasm at age 10 or younger. I'll look for some better numbers. I won't be surprised if the same general result comes up, but I can't believe that 14% of women had their first orgasm at age 4. (reference (registration required) (http://www.surveyheaven.com/viewPolls.cfm?queID=8767))

Like I said, though, ask a properly qualified sex therapist.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I'm getting use to these substanceless comments

This right after a reply full of Bible qoutes...:rolleyes:

I wonder how well one could defend christianity without operating under the assumption that the bible is correct and holly.

i was 8ish when i started pulling my winky
i know! tiassa start a first orgasm poll!

:D

tiassa start a first orgasm pollWith occasionally brilliant invective and occasionally poetic scorn, I am fully capable of lowering the bar at Sciforums a dubiously admirable degree.

But I will not be held responsible for a "First Orgasm" poll.

I can only do a certain amount of collateral damage before my conscience drills me right between the eyes.

:D,
Tiassa :cool:

Note also folks that GW is no longer with us.

So I take it, this is just a thread to lure in unsuspecting ignorants, soley for the bashing?:bugeye: Ahwell, with the given replys, it dosen't seem to be dedicated to reason anyway.

Tiassa:

I see that we are almost at the 5000th post, when you hit that I will cheers with one cold brew for ya!

The gay debate, for one we all know it's purely natural, though some theist don't accept it, what gets me is theists trying to rehabilitate them from their evil ways. What a crok!!

Binary: don't feel that Tiassa's post was ment to lure you, everyone is entitled to their opinions, though ancient text does not make good argument, so in esence it's pointless to assume it's wrong because it said so!.

BTW, there were many homosexuality activity in the days of ancient past, have you studied the Greeks?.

I didn't say "me", and he didn't say me. If you have perhaps read some of my post in other threads, it is possible you already no I don't blieve in opinions, just right, wrong, or currently indeterminate. A man will always do what he believes is right, be it good or evil. The ability to exercise judgement is one that must be sought individually, for it can only be gained through understanding, and that not established through the manifestation of knowledge, but through the discerning of the recipient.

Quote: "So I take it, this is just a thread to lure in unsuspecting ignorants, soley for the bashing?

Since you claim that ignorance was lured I really thought you meant yourself!!!!!. Seen how everyone here has been bashing you!.

Originally posted by Binary
Also can you show me logically how homosexaulity is justified? As I stated before their is no justification in opinion, their is only right and wrong, the light of understanding or the darkeness of ignorance, be it willfull or wrought of bonds.

Why should any activity that occurs between consenting adults, and that harms none, require justification?


The "christian god" as you would call him, demands reasoning, and understanding of his word, neither does he accept anything less.

I disagree - what the Christian god demands is blind faith. Furthermore, according to 1 Corinthians 1:17-27, one must actually be foolish to be able to understand the gospel!

The point is actually simple. Some months ago, a couple of posters, myself included, pointed out to another poster that the claims of homosexuality being "unnatural" because only humans do it was a fallacy. That particular poster still, to this day, pushes the "unnatural" line, and cannot manage to discuss reasonably, seriously, or respectfully the issues related to homosexuality that s/he introduces. This inability is somehow tied to the religious nature of the poster's position.

In one of the many current homosexuality topics, another poster who happens to be religious responded to the assertion of fact that homosexuality occurs in nature by calling it nonsense.

Denial is an ugly color, especially in a debate like this.

- Left-Handed Bears and Androgynous Cassowaries (http://www.zeal.com/exit.jhtml?cid=1004151&wid=60315809&so=&xr=/website/profile.jhtml%3Fcid%3D1004151%26wid%3D60315809)
- The "Natural Crime Against Nature": Homosexuality Behaviors in Animals (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm) (note, this article relies in part on numbers compiled by the author of the prior article)
- The Naturalness of Homosexuality (http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/natural.html) (will a Christian website suffice?)

I understand that people have serious problems, especially when it comes to homosexuality. But one of the things we need to do if we're going to bother discussing those problems is deal with reality. It seems pointless to go on and on with the "unnatural" litany unless it's merely for spite. Just as early Christians demonized first the Jews, then the pagans, and eventually their brethren as Satanic; just as Muslim extremists in the modern day must paint people as evil in order to separate them from God's consideration as a means of justifying excessive violence--so, too, does the "unnatural" litany seek to create a false image of homosexuals as separate from common humanity. The repeated accusation of "unnatural" is merely an attempt to justify spite and persecution. If "they" are "outside nature", then who cares what happens to them?

And I think we've had enough of that kind of crap. It's not a relevant point as it is not true. And yet people persist; what compels me to make these points is the fact that the two posters who have warranted my ire have been here long enough to have been through this discussion before. And yet they persist in the "unnatural" litany as if they themselves were gods--if they don't accept it, it must not be true. If they are not capable of coping with reality, then it must not be real. This is, at least, what it looks like. And I would hope that it stops--here and now.

It's not about baiting anyone. If I want to bait anyone, I'll call them out by name.

However, there is one issue that I must address directly:

Binary

I'm sorry if you feel oppressed, conned, persecuted, or otherwise treated negatively. That is not my intention. However, there is something which I chose to not address earlier, and which I feel might clear up a few things.

You wrote: I don't hate gays. Also can you show me logically how homosexaulity is justified?

Now, I ducked it before because it grates a nerve when people start off with the phrase, "I don't ...."

And I won't call it hate. But I would call it disrespect. Severe disrespect. Can you logically explain to me why homosexuality needs to be justified?

That one would presume to require justification of consenting behavior between competent adults is something that intrigues me. I can't figure out why, aside from superstition, one would be so presumptuous.

Please, by all means, help me understand: Why does homosexuality require justification in the first place?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

When it comes to arguing about homosexuality of an individual, or as a whole, there is always going to be some person who is homophobic, and his opininons, arguments are based on this premise.

Ancient authors of the bible may have had seen homosexuals as unatural phenomenon, therefore including it in the sin categories. Religious teachings start in a very early age of an individual, and depending on parents, enviorement, peer pressure, an individual may develop homophobia at a very early age as well, to the point of pure hatred.

Ancient authors of the bible may have had seen homosexuals as unatural phenomenon, therefore including it in the sin categoriesI generally don't take much issue with the Old Testament. If I consider the alleged conditions of the Hebrews' existence--wandering in a desert (stop me if you've heard this one)--then prohibitions against homosexuality seem rightfully placed, alongside prohibitions against wasted seed. In the anthropomorphization of the concept, I can even understand how the human prejudice against a statistical minority--and, let's face it, in the case of sodomy, an act that one must be somewhat ... cultured, as such ... in order to appreciate the beauty of--results in "God" hating the act. It makes sense to me that the people of the Old Testament could and would bear such a classification.

I'm less forgiving of the Pauline evangelism, but what are you going to do? Nonetheless, it is people of the modern faith who must consider the issues of today. It is still they who choose to construct such arguments as would lead to the persistent reclassification of other human beings as outside nature in order to justify persecution. Even witchcraft was termed unnatural. Ironically, much of what was called witchcraft is part of today's "natural healing" complement. And I'm not even talking about the New Age bent; that association is symptomatic of the same cultural prejudices we're talking about. But somewhere in my library, for instance, I have a reprint of an 1890's volume by some woman of otherwise little historical significance whose name escapes me now, but is merely a compendium of how to use common barks, leaves, fruits, and household spices to treat common illnesses. Seriously, can you imagine being hanged, drawn and quartered, and then burned to ashes for the crime of aromatherapy? ;)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool: