How many of you (us) are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgendered?

Quote: Calder

I'm wondering why a board devoted to gambling needs such a distinction. Do lesbians gamble differently than straights?

While the board focuses largely on gambling, It's also about Las Vegas. I don't know how lesbians gamble, but I know they may look for different things when it comes to certain non-gambling activities. I wouldn't mind a section for locals, for example, even if the math is the same for them as it is for tourists. But maybe they'd want to discuss topics related to living in Vegas

Bad post, sorry. If a mod can delete this, I'd appreciate it.

Quote: AZDuffman

If they are only having sexual relations with people of the oppisite sex then they are straight. It is about behavior, not some biology no one has proven yet.

I think that's the problem with some mundanes: you don't see past the surface.

These kinds of things, homosexuality and transgenderism, are deep-seated mind or mind/body issues, not just a simple matter of behavior.

A man desperate for sex at some woman-free environment, like prison or a naval vessel, who takes to having sex with other men is no more gay than you are. Because given the choice he'd take a woman over a man every time. Likewise a gay man trying to fit in and repress his sexual rpeferences does not turn straight even if he forces himself to have sex with women only.

There is a choice on whether to act on certain feelings one has. There is no choice about having such feelings.

Quote: Nareed

I think that's the problem with some mundanes: you don't see past the surface.

These kinds of things, homosexuality and transgenderism, are deep-seated mind or mind/body issues, not just a simple matter of behavior.

A man desperate for sex at some woman-free environment, like prison or a naval vessel, who takes to having sex with other men is no more gay than you are. Because given the choice he'd take a woman over a man every time. Likewise a gay man trying to fit in and repress his sexual rpeferences does not turn straight even if he forces himself to have sex with women only.

There is a choice on whether to act on certain feelings one has. There is no choice about having such feelings.

Huh?

I would say that a man who chooses to have sex with another man is bi-sexual, at the least. It may not be his preference, but it is a choice. One can always take matters into their own hands. I mean, if I had a five year stint aboard the USS suck-my-dick, I would never, never, make the choice to say to my roommate Bob, "hey, bend over, I miss women."

I would say the same for a gay man? If he's choosing to have sex with woman, then he's bisexual.

My thought is that the combination of actions and thoughts completes one's sexuality. If I'm screwing my wife while fantasizing about her brother, then I'm bisexual. If I'm screwing her brother while fantasizing about my wife I'm still bisexual. If I'm screwing my wife while fantasizing about Scarlett Johanssen then I'm straight (and if I'm fantasizing about my wife, then I'm an angel). If I'm screwing my brother-in-law while fantasizing about, oh I don't know, Rob Blagoyovich, then I'm gay (and sick).

I think I just made myself sick.

--

In any case, I don't think the thoughts about being gay is a choice. You're attracted to what you're attracted to. Given that "gay" exists outside of the human species, some of it is genetic in origin.

Quote: boymimbo

Huh?

I would say that a man who chooses to have sex with another man is bi-sexual, at the least. It may not be his preference, but it is a choice.

Because the desire isn't there. It's an act borne of desperation, not sexual attraction.

Quote: Nareed

I think that's the problem with some mundanes: you don't see past the surface.

These kinds of things, homosexuality and transgenderism, are deep-seated mind or mind/body issues, not just a simple matter of behavior.

A man desperate for sex at some woman-free environment, like prison or a naval vessel, who takes to having sex with other men is no more gay than you are. Because given the choice he'd take a woman over a man every time. Likewise a gay man trying to fit in and repress his sexual rpeferences does not turn straight even if he forces himself to have sex with women only.

There is a choice on whether to act on certain feelings one has. There is no choice about having such feelings.

A man having sex with other men by choice is at the least bisexual, more properly gay. Or if he goes with other men when women are not available I would also classify him as "trysexual." ie: He will try anything.

Years ago if a man had feelings for men or a woman for women, they saw a psyciatrist or some other counsler who rightly tried to fix it, since it is not natural behavior. Since the mid 1970s this seems to have changed, along with lots of other things in society that "aren't the person's fault." So instead of teaching someone to fix the behavioral problem they are taught to "deal with it and keep self-esteem."

The connection seems to be an overly-high sex drive coupled with low self-control. Put most guys in an all-male envrionment and they will wish a woman was around. Few, however, will say "well, only guys around so why not?" Some, however, will. Compare prison with say a submarine. Even xcepting forced rape (a crime of control not sex) more guys in prison will hook up with each other than on the sub. It is a self-control issue. People end up in prison due to lack of self control and get put on subs because of it.

But it is still a choice.

Quote: AZDuffman

A man having sex with other men by choice is at the least bisexual, more properly gay. Or if he goes with other men when women are not available I would also classify him as "trysexual." ie: He will try anything.

If you chose to define homosexuality as simply "having sex within one's gender," you'd be wrong. A homosexual relationship involves a great deal more than just sexual attraction, just like heterosexual relationships do.

Quote: Nareed

If you chose to define homosexuality as simply "having sex within one's gender," you'd be wrong. A homosexual relationship involves a great deal more than just sexual attraction, just like heterosexual relationships do.

So by that logic a gay bar or gay bath house is not for "homosexals?"

Based on average number of partners alone, homosexual relationships are based far more on sex than heterosexual ones. The gay lobby wants Mr and Mrs America to think gay relationships are the same as straight ones and gay behavior is the same as straights, just with members of the same sex (MOSS.) Look beyond the "approved" surface and you see more partners and more casual sex.

Sorry, I don't buy the "more complex" argument. You have sex with members of your sex, you are homosexual.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, I don't buy the "more complex" argument. You have sex with members of your sex, you are homosexual.

So if you choose to eat a salad you're vegetarian?

I don't dispute that homosexuality is abnormal. I dispute that it's wrong or immoral.

And before you start knocking on bath houses, you may want to look at escort services, the former governor of New York, Bill Clinton, and those profitable "porn-slappers" on the Strip. Because straights do like to stick theirs all over the place, too.

Quote: Nareed

So if you choose to eat a salad you're vegetarian?

I don't dispute that homosexuality is abnormal. I dispute that it's wrong or immoral.

And before you start knocking on bath houses, you may want to look at escort services, the former governor of New York, Bill Clinton, and those profitable "porn-slappers" on the Strip. Because straights do like to stick theirs all over the place, too.

If you ate nothing but salad you would be a vegetarian.

I will continue to knock on bath houses because they are about one-time sex with some stranger, possibly several sessions with several strangers in the same day. Yes, there are escort services and porn-slappers. Prostitution is the oldest profession after all. But they do not compare. The nubmer of straights who use these services will be smaller than the percentage of gays who use a bath house or some other similar service.

Sorry, I just find the pracitce of something so against basic biology wrong.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, I just find the pracitce of something so against basic biology wrong.

Hmm. So what cellular processes don't work on gay men? Because that's basic biology.

I found such ignorance of basic facts to be wrong.

Quote: Nareed

Hmm. So what cellular processes don't work on gay men? Because that's basic biology.

I found such ignorance of basic facts to be wrong.

I believe that queers have an inherent medical/psychological problem because of some unfortunate chemical imbalance in their heads. They seem to find comfort having women as "just friends" because those type female would feel safer being around them rather than some gigilo. And there's a reason so many of these men also have a number of other mental/social problems to go along with their medical issue. You'll find a higher percentage of them are atheists, lots of them take drugs to ease "the pain", and while none of them have ever been able to rationalize it even to the most honored scholars, they would rather ravish a man's smelly, hairy body than enjoy the comforts of a soft pleasant-smelling woman....ie., the way GOD intended it to be.

Quote: JerryLogan

They seem to find comfort having women as "just friends"
.

Women are nicer and more understanding than men. why wouldn't they be friends. Why are you so threatened by Gay men, Jerry, its very puzzling. Like 'god' intended? Homosexual behavior is rampant in nature, what are you talking about.

Quote: EvenBob

Women are nicer and more understanding than men. why wouldn't they be friends. Why are you so threatened by Gay men, Jerry, its very puzzling. Like 'god' intended? Homosexual behavior is rampant in nature, what are you talking about.

The puzzling part of your post is in how you think I said I was threatened by them. I could crush most of them with one hand if they bothered me. Homosexual behavior may be rampant in nature, but so is alcoholism and drug use. God did not intend for any of that behavior to be normal, and thankfully, it isn't.

I watch TV at times where the Martha Stewarts and certain Food Channel cooks have their friends over for a day of meal prep and chat. A good portion of them are gay men, and people like Marth Stewart are obviously afraid of real men because of her failures in marriage and from being a convicted felon/ ex-con.

Quote: JerryLogan

Homosexual behavior may be rampant in nature, but so is alcoholism and drug use. God did not intend for any of that behavior to be normal, and thankfully, it isn't.

Bob meant actual nature - squirrels, rabbits, monkeys...

I'm pretty sure bonobos do not snort coke in the wild, but they do engage in homosexual behavior.

Quote: JerryLogan

The puzzling part of your post is in how you think I said I was threatened by them. Homosexual behavior may be rampant in nature, but so is alcoholism

You don't have to say it, every post you make screams it. And alcoholism is not rampant in nature, alcohol is poison to most animals.

That quote "opinions are like assholes" has taken on a new and deeper meaning for me lately.

Here comes a late night rant...

Homosexuality is natural. Just because the Bible says it's a sin or it's been hidden in shame in society for hundreds of years doesn't make it wrong today. Geez, what would the forum members say when Galileo came around and discovered the moons of Jupiter, thus destroying the notion that the sun is at the center of the universe, or hey, you can count cards at blackjack!???

Look at the animal kingdom. Homosexual behavior has been known to occur in apes, giraffes, elephants, dolphins, penguins, lions, sheep, to name a few species. In most cases, the rate hovers around 10 percent, the same as it is reported to be in humans.

I have gay friends. I have straight friends. My best's friend sister -- now a dude. One of the gay friends has had the same partner for 15 years now, which is longer than most marriages these days. I don't think my gay friend had a choice to be gay. He just is. To ostracize him for being so is just ignorant and wrong.

The reason why homosexuality HAS TO BE taught in schools today to be 'normal' is because of idiots like members of this forum with their heads in their asses to say that being gay is wrong and a menace to society and that gays should feel ashamed because they happened to be one of the percentage of the population attracted to the same sex. It's discrimination -- my notion is that you are born with "gay" tendencies, just like another is born with dark skin. If we could all just accept that gay people are just another part of our great society, then perhaps the gay community would just simmer down as they would have no point, no agenda.

Just look at some studies in the animal kingdom, and perhaps the overwhelming scientific evidence might convince you... but then again, global warming ain't real either. It's all part of the LEFT WING agenda.

Can we just stop this left wing diatribe? Until we find the gay gene it is all bs.
God said it was wrong, up until 50 years ago it was a disease, what changed? PC is what changed and the left wingnuts taking hold of the media and jamming this down our throats.

Quote: DeMango

Can we just stop this left wing diatribe? Until we find the gay gene it is all bs.
God said it was wrong, up until 50 years ago it was a disease, what changed? PC is what changed and the left wingnuts taking hold of the media and jamming this down our throats.

Some other fun law the Big Guy gave us.

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) - Understandable, the chocolate and white milk would get mixed.
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) - I keep my opium crop and corn crop apart.
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) - All spandex here
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) - Never said no waxing
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) - Imagine all the dead 13 year olds
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18) - No red wings?
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) - I can see offing Harry Potter but Samantha Stevens Rocks.
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9) - Stop bad mouthing whores. OK? Enough.
People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18) - this one I can understand.

I am all for picking and choosing Gods laws. It's like a spiritual buffet.

Quote: DeMango

Can we just stop this left wing diatribe? Until we find the gay gene it is all bs.
God said it was wrong, up until 50 years ago it was a disease, what changed? PC is what changed and the left wingnuts taking hold of the media and jamming this down our throats.

It's a behavioral characteristic, it's relatively common among not only the human species, but many others as well, and it's neither "right" or "wrong" or "sinful" or anything else judgmental. It's just something some people choose to do. Various societies have treated it with varying degrees of tolerance. Many people claim that their mythical "God" forbids it, but they don't produce any evidence of that other than a few passages in the Bible, which is just a book.

As to some people finding that it makes them uneasy, I would say that that alone is no reason to persecute gays. But nonetheless, many macho-men go out looking for gays to beat up and/or kill, because, I suspect, those macho-men are unsure of their own sexuality themselves, and "beating up fags" provides them with self-reinforcement. I would prefer a world where we don't beat, torture or kill other people (or otherwise deprive them of basic human rights) just because they live some part of their lives differently than we do.

Quote: DeMango

God said it was wrong, up until 50 years ago it was a disease, what changed?

Can you stop your fanatical diatribe? Until you present solid evidence of God's existence, it's all bs.

Quote: Nareed

Can you stop your fanatical diatribe? Until you present solid evidence of God's existence, it's all bs.

Although I share your view of God's non-existence, refering to it as "BS" is uncalled for.


I'll respond to the point of the question:

Quote:

...up until 50 years ago it was a disease, what changed?

What changed was many things. Civilization has advanced a lot in the last 50 years - a lot more than in any 50 year span in history.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Civilization has advanced a lot in the last 50 years - a lot more than in any 50 year span in history.

I would be careful about this. There's no doubt that scientific advancements have been great. But there's all kinds of doubt about whether or not the human condition (or human psyche or human propensity-to-screw-things-up or whatever phrasology works best for you) has advanced at all.

That's why I said "civilization" rather than something like "mankind."

For what it's worth, I'll clarify: The biggest change (and the one to answer the question at hand) is the advancement in the exchange of information, thoughts and ideas. Not to mention a general increase in tolerance of minorities of all types.

---

On a side note, when I hear someone mention that gayness is a genetic disease, I tend to respond that they should be happy that the gays are voluntarily taking themselves out of the gene pool.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Although I share your view of God's non-existence, refering to it as "BS" is uncalled for.

Maybe it is. The rhethorical trick is to throw back the same words at the other side, just changing the subject which needs to be proved.

BTW on JL's posts, by his own reasoning straight women are insane to preffer to have sex with smelly, hairy men. A sane woman ought to be a lesbian.

Quote: Nareed

Can you stop your fanatical diatribe? Until you present solid evidence of God's existence, it's all bs.

I think there was a thread on this a while back. It had lots of pretty good points, but one of them was: some poeple will look at any amount of evidence to the contrary of a belief they hold dear, but will still cling to that belief.

If someone (in this case, Nareed) says, "present solid evidence of God's existence," I always respond with, what particular piece of evidence would, beyond a shadow of a doubt and to the point where you would not disbelieve at any point in the future, make you believe in God? And, if unambiguously shown this evidence, would you immediately fall to your knees?

Usually, the person's answer just dodges the question. But sometimes he/she says something that hints at why they "don't believe." I put it in quotes because they really do believe in a God but are mad at him for some reason - "a good God wouldn't let [whatever] happen" or something like that. I'm not God but I would imagine that, if God is, in some ways, be like a parent or counselor, then he would appreciate an honest "dialogue" (whatever form that might take) with someone who is really angry at him.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

If someone (in this case, Nareed) says, "present solid evidence of God's existence," I always respond with, what particular piece of evidence would, beyond a shadow of a doubt and to the point where you would not disbelieve at any point in the future, make you believe in God?

Any kind of unambigous, solid, measurable evidence of the deity described in the Bible (either part). Not arguments, logic chopping or protestations of ignorance.

Quote:

And, if unambiguously shown this evidence, would you immediately fall to your knees?

No. The religion I was raised in does not require prostration.

Let's turn the question around. The Greeks and Romans believed in the gods of Olympus, not to mention the heroes like Achilles and Hercules, and whatever creatures inhabitted Hades. The Mayans believed in the Lords of Xybalba. The Egyptians believed in Ra, the Sun God, and a host of other deities.

What is your basis for rejecting these beilefs and these religions, and instead embracing the Judeo-Christian God? Can you prove for certain Zeus, Ra, Tlaloc, and every other deity do not exist? Can you show me the evidence to support such proof?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

That's why I said "civilization" rather than something like "mankind."

For what it's worth, I'll clarify: The biggest change (and the one to answer the question at hand) is the advancement in the exchange of information, thoughts and ideas. Not to mention a general increase in tolerance of minorities of all types.

Heh, not to be argumentative, but I would still apply the same amount of care to the clarification. Science brings us the Internet and forums like this, but as we've seen pages and pages written about, there's oftentimes no advancement in the exchange of information, thoughts, and ideas. Man's propensity-to-screw-things-up is just as present as ever.

I would agree that there's a general increase in tolerance of minorities, but I would also provide context. This means that the "toleration of minorities" in, say, the age of the Egyptians or Persians or Greeks or Romans was no issue at all as such demographic separations were not made, but only used as descriptions; i.e., describing someone as a Moor but not attributing stereotypes.

Someone once said, "God invented time, men invented watches." I think something similar can be applied to demographic divisions: God invented people, men invented demography.

This is not meant to argue the existence of God or how the creation came into being. It is meant to make the point that demography is a relatively modern invention and, while the "toleration of minorities" is better than it was, say, 60 years ago, it's a lot worse than it was, say, 2,500 years ago when such distinctions weren't even made outside of physical descriptions.

My $0.02.

Quote: Nareed

Any kind of unambigous, solid, measurable evidence of the deity described in the Bible (either part). Not arguments, logic chopping or protestations of ignorance.

No. The religion I was raised in does not require prostration.

Let's turn the question around. The Greeks and Romans believed in the gods of Olympus, not to mention the heroes like Achilles and Hercules, and whatever creatures inhabitted Hades. The Mayans believed in the Lords of Xybalba. The Egyptians believed in Ra, the Sun God, and a host of other deities.

What is your basis for rejecting these beilefs and these religions, and instead embracing the Judeo-Christian God? Can you prove for certain Zeus, Ra, Tlaloc, and every other deity do not exist? Can you show me the evidence to support such proof?

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Usually, the person's answer just dodges the question.

Also, thanks for telling me which God I've embraced (if any). I've actually already disclosed this but I get the sense that you're assigning all sorts of motive and background to me, so I'll have to refer you to the threads where I've already disclosed this. I think you posted in that thread and I don't recall you having a reaction then, but I'm not sure, and I can't find it immediately. It's a pretty active forum.

So it makes me wonder why there's a reaction now. If you've already assigned all sorts of motive and background to me and trying to make this about me by "turning it around" for the sake of dodging the question, that's okay, but it would just be more honest to say something like, "I'm dodging the question" or "It's none of your business, can we go back to talking about blackjack now?" and not assign all those "reasons" to try to discredit me as a "source."

FWIW, the question I meant to pursue is not whether or not you believe in a God or in a particular God (you mentioned Judeo-Christian), but whether or not you're open-minded to the existence of a God at all. If you're not, that's okay, just say it: no matter how much or what evidence is presented, I *WILL NOT* ever believe in God. Don't hide behind some quasi-intellectual, impossible-to-meet, ambiguous standard of "any kind of unambiguous, solid, measureable evidence ..."

Or, tell us what "unambiguous, solid, measureable evidence" looks like: a rabbit appearing out of thin air? all fighting in the world stops instantaneously? the descent of the Judeo-Christian messiah from the clouds? every blackjack hand you're dealt being A-J?

Not to be a KillJoy, but I think the God / No God tangent should be split off to a new topic.

So here: Do you beleive in God?

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

So it makes me wonder why there's a reaction now. If you've already assigned all sorts of motive and background to me and trying to make this about me by "turning it around" for the sake of dodging the question, that's okay, but it would just be more honest to say something like, "I'm dodging the question" or "It's none of your business, can we go back to talking about blackjack now?" and not assign all those "reasons" to try to discredit me as a "source."

Don't engage in projection. It's unbecoming.

If you're not jewish or Christian, I apologize. In the West when somenoe says "God," 99 times out of 100 he refers to the Biblical, Judeo-Christian God.

I am not dodging the question. All sorts of cultures have believed at one time or anotehr in all sorts of deities and gods, and this includes the Biblical God. If you believe in one, why do you? Why not in the others? What makes your god so special his existence is not to be questioned?

Quote:

FWIW, the question I meant to pursue is not whether or not you believe in a God or in a particular God (you mentioned Judeo-Christian), but whether or not you're open-minded to the existence of a God at all.

I am not "open" to the existence of any god or deity because there is NO evidence for such things. Just like I'm not "open" to the existence of ghosts, goblins, pixies, or the validity of Tarot or astrology. because there is no evidence of any kind to support any of it.

Quote:

If you're not, that's okay, just say it: no matter how much or what evidence is presented, I *WILL NOT* ever believe in God. Don't hide behind some quasi-intellectual, impossible-to-meet, ambiguous standard of "any kind of unambiguous, solid, measureable evidence ..."

I resent that remark and I should demand an apology.

Thomas Jefferson once said he'd sooner believe a Yankee professor would lie, than stones would fall from the sky. He was wrong, because stones do fall from the sky. but he was right in demanding more evidence than a simple eye-witness testimony, because he was presented with an extraordinary claim.

I would accept real evidence. An argument is not evidence. An account of miracles by people 2,000+ years dead is not evidence. I don't believe in Ares or Achilles simply because there is a book that tells of their actions. An admission of ignorance is not evidence.

Evidence is material and can be measured at least qualitatively. You know what evidence is. Show me yours.

Let's try a different way ...

One of the questions I originally asked was, "if unambiguously shown this evidence, would you immediately fall to your knees?"

Your answer was, "No. The religion I was raised in does not require prostration."

I liked that, that was honest and unambiguous. I guess I just had hoped to get a similarly honest and unambiguous answer to the other question. If that's not going to happen, that's fine, it's just a stupid internet forum and probably not worth pursuing any further.

As to the other points, yes, I know what evidence is. I also believe that people who cling to a dearly-held belief will reject evidence to the contrary in order to hold to their beliefs. In this sense, evidence doesn't matter. The condition of the heart matters.

I've already gone into what I believe and why, I'm just too lazy to go back and find it. I do recall you participated in that discussion. But restating it here would, I think, be an exercise in futility. I think that, despite me saying clearly and unambiguously that I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of a God, but am trying to figure out whether you're open to it, you don't believe that. I think that because you still assign motive and belief to me.

Quote: Nareed

If you believe in one, why do you? Why not in the others? What makes your god so special his existence is not to be questioned?

Quote: Nareed

You know what evidence is. Show me yours.

I don't think comments like that come without assigning motive and belief. Like you say,

Quote: Nareed

Don't engage in projection, it's unbecoming.

Finally, I think doing that is a way to dodge the question via "discrediting the source." Here's what a dodge looks like to me:

Quote: Nareed

I am not "open" to the existence of any god or deity because there is NO evidence for such things.

OK, so you're not open because there's no evidence. But ...

Quote: Nareed

I would accept real evidence.

Telling us there's no evidence but you would accept real evidence only *sounds* intellectual. You've already told us there's no evidence. Then, when I ask what "real evidence" is to you, I don't get what it is, but a few examples of what it isn't:

Quote: Nareed

An argument is not evidence. An account of miracles by people 2,000+ years dead is not evidence. I don't believe in Ares or Achilles simply because there is a book that tells of their actions. An admission of ignorance is not evidence.

Suppose I gave you evidence. You say you would accept it, but how do I know? You've already said there's no evidence, and you won't tell me what you think is "real evidence." I'm chasing a ghost! In other words, it's a dodge.

If you're not convince-able, that's fine, just say it. Don't pretend to be intellectual or in some sense remotely open-minded about the issue, because everything points to the probability that you're not: 1) you affirmatively state there's no evidence, 2) you won't tell us what "real evidence" is, 3) you assign belief and motive to me, 4) you have tried twice to make it about me when I've already disclosed that, and 5) you affirmatively state you're not open to it.

If you're not open, I would say that means you're closed. Again, that's okay, just ...

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Don't hide behind some quasi-intellectual, impossible-to-meet, ambiguous standard of "any kind of unambiguous, solid, measureable evidence ..."

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Telling us there's no evidence but you would accept real evidence only *sounds* intellectual. You've already told us there's no evidence. Then, when I ask what "real evidence" is to you, I don't get what it is, but a few examples of what it isn't:

When I say there is no evidence I mean no evidence has been presented. I don't mean there can't be any.

I don't say what evidence I'd accept because I don't know what evidence may exist. I'm telling you arguments and alleged eye-witness accounts of uncertain provenance do NOT constitute evidence. If we were talking about String Theory, or magnetic monopoles, I know what the evidence would be like. When it comes to God, I've no idea.

I will ask you, once, to please stop attacking my intelelctual integrity and to stop putting words in my mouth (which is also called projection). I will not ask a second time.

Quote: Nareed

When I say there is no evidence I mean no evidence has been presented. I don't mean there can't be any.

I don't say what evidence I'd accept because I don't know what evidence may exist. I'm telling you arguments and alleged eye-witness accounts of uncertain provenance do NOT constitute evidence. If we were talking about String Theory, or magnetic monopoles, I know what the evidence would be like. When it comes to God, I've no idea.

Of course, arguments aren't evidence. Those are just ways of presenting and debating evidence. Any argument you hear boils down to just that. If you hold a dearly-held belief and are not open to change, it wouldn't surprise me that any amount of argument wouldn't change that.

As for the statement that eyewitness accounts aren't evidence, I would say that they are. Eyewitness accounts, even of uncertain provenance are often entered into evidence, even today. And I daresay that most of what we know of history is based on eyewitness accounts.

It is good to have a healthy skepticism, but it is not good to have an absolute one. Again, it comes to the topic to which the evidence applies and the pre-assignment of motive ("uncertain provenance") to the eyewitness giving the testimony. I would guess that you don't assign "uncertain provenance" to ALL eyewitness testimony and history you read. I would further guess that you largely assign "uncertain provenance" to any accounts of history that don't align with what you already believe: in this example, "I see there's no evidence, so any eyewitness testimony from 2,000 years ago is NOT evidence but instead is of uncertain provenance."

These guesses could be wrong, but I don't think they are. I don't believe that you, as a functional human being, disregard ALL eyewitness testimony in the same way you pre-disregard that from 2,000 years ago ... or more specifically, eyewitness accounts of miracles from 2,000 years ago. Again, I don't know, but if, say, someone who witnessed the "miracle" of the big bang wrote it down and it was somehow preserved over the last 13 billion or so years, you would not treat it with similar disregard.

(I say "miracle" of the big bang because, to that eyewitness, the appearance of something out of nothing would be a "miracle.")

The reason why can only be guessed, but my guess would be because it aligns with what you already believe. Even though much closer to current times, the 2,000 year old eyewitness testimony is disregarded.

This is an example of why I believe that, sometimes, evidence doesn't matter, and that pretending it does is a dodge.

Quote: Nareed

I will ask you, once, to please stop attacking my intelelctual integrity and to stop putting words in my mouth (which is also called projection). I will not ask a second time.

I'm not sure what this means or what consequences you think challenging you will rain down on me since I've pursued it pretty hard. If it's time to stop, I'm okay with that. I would say, though, that pointing out what I think is an area of closed-mindedness in you that you think isn't closed should not be construed as an attack on your integrity. None of us acts perfectly, and none of us thinks perfectly. But not being perfect is far different than having no integrity. I don't think your thinking lacks integrity. I think you highly value open-mindedness and have a hard time seeing that you are closed-minded on something. But what I think doesn't matter.

Also FWIW, I don't think being closed-minded on something is necessarily bad. After all, I'm closed-minded on a flat earth, a geocentric universe, and the concept of "sometimes evidence doesn't matter". But I'm not closed to the possible existence of a God.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

As for the statement that eyewitness accounts aren't evidence, I would say that they are. Eyewitness accounts, even of uncertain provenance are often entered into evidence, even today. And I daresay that most of what we know of history is based on eyewitness accounts.

However, for most of human history, eyewitness accounts provided "evidence" that the Earth was flat and, later, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Fully-explained heliocentrism is slightly less than 500 years old, and it was almost heresy when Copernicus published it because it directly contradicted the bible.

So, as with many other things, you must pay heed to the observer and not merely that which is observed. If the observer has no possible explanation of what he's observed, nor comprehension of its underpinnings, he's probably not going to make a very good witness. History has shown that humans often make up a bunch of voodoo to explain things they don't comprehend, like the sun being driven across the sky by a guy in a chariot pulled by four flying horses. In pre-Hellenistic times, everyone "knew" that's how sunrise happened.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke, 1961

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

As for the statement that eyewitness accounts aren't evidence, I would say that they are. Eyewitness accounts, even of uncertain provenance are often entered into evidence, even today. And I daresay that most of what we know of history is based on eyewitness accounts.

In history there are multiple accounts from multiple sources. When it comes to religion there is one account and one source. So with religion thEre is no corroboration. History is also based on documents written at the time, artifacts made and used at the time, etc.

If all we knew of Napoleon was what some French Imperial fanatic wrote, without corroborating testimony from other sources, including other French sources, what credence woul you give his story?

Quote:

These guesses could be wrong, but I don't think they are. I don't believe that you, as a functional human being, disregard ALL eyewitness testimony in the same way you pre-disregard that from 2,000 years ago ... or more specifically, eyewitness accounts of miracles from 2,000 years ago.

Aside from there being only one scource, the state of scientific knowledge of the time was extremely low. The Greeks and Romans, at least, encouraged inquiry and philosophy. So maybe a coupe of weeks worth of severe rains are interpreted as a universal flood. Or take the story of the tower of Babel. God manages to look stupid by fearing men could reach heaven. Otherwise why hasn't He struck down airplanes and space vehicles?

Quote:

The reason why can only be guessed, but my guess would be because it aligns with what you already believe. Even though much closer to current times, the 2,000 year old eyewitness testimony is disregarded.

Are you incapable of accepting I believe that for which there is evidence?

You want to talk about the Big Bang? Ok. there is indirect evidence that points to it: the universe's expansion, the background microwave radiation, and other things. This suggests something like the Big bang took palce, perhaps, several billions of years ago. but there are many open questions, from the size of the universe, to the composition of matter, to the formation of galaxies, to lots of other things. So I can accept it pending further evidence.

Quote:

I'm not sure what this means or what consequences you think challenging you will rain down on me since I've pursued it pretty hard. If it's time to stop, I'm okay with that. I would say, though, that pointing out what I think is an area of closed-mindedness in you that you think isn't closed should not be construed as an attack on your integrity.

I don't have an open mind. An open mind is a like a trash disposal that blindly accepts anything fed its way. A closed mind is one too tired of thinking that won't accept anything.

I have an active mind. I think critically about what I see, hear, sense, read, etc. I don't blindly accept any claim too far outside the norm that knowledge and experience have taught me. I certainly don't accept the existence of God just because a book claims he exists, as there are several such books making the same claims for other gods. And I certainly don't base my life on such claims.

As to consecuqnces, the ones available to any civilized person. What did you expect?

Quote: Nareed

Hmm. So what cellular processes don't work on gay men? Because that's basic biology.

I found such ignorance of basic facts to be wrong.

Show me how two gays can have a child, the reason for sex in nature.

That is the basic fact of it all.

Quote: AZDuffman

Show me how two gays can have a child, the reason for sex in nature.

Show me how an infertile couple can. Why, the same way:

1) adoption
2) host mother with or without in-vitro fertilization.

Gee! I make them sound almost human!

Quote:

That is the basic fact of it all.

No. Sex is a consequence of cellular activity.

BTW, straight sex as practiced today is unnatural. Most people use some form of contraception. If straight couples had sex the way "nature intended," women would menstruate only a handful of times in their lifetimes, because the rest of the time they'd be pregnant or menopausal.

Given the fortunes made by the makers of tampons, well, you get my drift.

Quote: Nareed

Show me how an infertile couple can.

I'm pretty sure you know that this is a kibbitz. But since you brought it up, let's explore it a little.

An infertile couple can't have children because something has gone wrong with the sexual reproduction process (starting with attraction, whatever that may look like for peacocks or dogs or other lower life forms) as prescribed by nature/evolution/God/whatever.

I wasn't ready to throw all homosexuals under that bus. If you were, I would suggest that you tap the brakes on that.

But like I said, I think you know it's a kibbitz, meant to confuse and obfuscate. I don't think you believe that homosexuality and an infertile couple are the same thing in any way other than they can't conceive and bear children.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I'm pretty sure you know that this is a kibbitz.

It isn't.

You, on the other hand, double posted on two threads.

Quote: Nareed

It isn't.

You, on the other hand, double posted on two threads.

Yeah, the double posting was a tech glitch, I've already contacted Wizard about it. Are you trying to tattle or something?

OK, so you don't think it's a kibbitz. Do you think that homosexuality is a breakdown in the natural reproduction process in the same way infertility is, and the two situations are parallel in every way? Again, I'm not throwing homosexuals under that bus, but it seems like you are. What's your thinking behind that?

Anyway, it looks like you're searching for the weakest reasons (accidental double-post due to tech glitch) to try to find fault with me. Hey, there are all sorts of things wrong with me, if you're ready to discredit me because of imperfections, one double-post is the least of them.

I strongly suspect, though, that the "imperfection" you find is "ICS doesn't think the exact same way I do, so I'm going to find all sorts of minor stuff to avoid/justify not dealing with him." That's okay, just be honest with yourself about it.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Anyway, it looks like you're searching for the weakest reasons (accidental double-post due to tech glitch) to try to find fault with me. Hey, there are all sorts of things wrong with me, if you're ready to discredit me because of imperfections, one double-post is the least of them.

Stop fishing for personal attacks, will you? I don't do that anymore.

If I wanted to, though, I'd go after your nick with a vengeance. It's not as if soccer (a.k.a. "sucker") is hard to discredit on its own merits (or lack thereof).

But I don't do that anymore.

Im super straight.

Quote: bjgod

The dont come from africa they come from Sumaria. Every culture and most modern religions can trace Homo sapian back to sumaria. Even those first to people in the bible the suamrians were worshiping a couple of people named adamu and eveo as the first of their species thousands and thousands of years before the bible was even a sparkle in anybodys eyes!

Where is Sumaria? I know Samaria and Sumatra but not Sumaria.

Quote: pacomartin

Where is Sumaria? I know Samaria and Sumatra but not Sumaria.

I think he may have meant Sumer.

Quote: JerryLogan

Lots of votes, very few replies.... I think I know one member who wouldn't want to share how he watches the hockey games with us.

Cmon Gerald