|
On October 23 2011 02:17 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke. Lol. That was a theory which seemed appropriate because it fit SOME of the data and was somewhat influenced by anti-gay politics. Regardless, further work has discovered that, in fact, this is not true because there are significant differences between people who are mentally sick. While it was a supported hypothesis, it turned out it was false. And you know how? By people doing more and more work to try to support or dismiss the hypothesis. It was never an established "fact" it was an arbitrary classification. It's such a different quality of work than the work people cite for parenting, for instance. But you know what? continue to retreat and think "oh science was wrong before, therefore it's always wrong!" because it's certainly easier than actually reading ALL the work to understand why it's no longer thought this way. The earth isn't round because we used to believe it was flat.
Your super science has classified homosexual people as mentally ill for ages and many psychiastrist and psychologists still hold this to be correct. My point is that you would only ever define psychology and psychiatry as a precise science as long as backs up your opinions. You don't see the double standard in using a science that has defined homosexuality an illness and still defines homosexuals as abnormal to support gay rights?
You're also comparing psychology and geology which is absolutely no basis for a discussion. You cannot compare intagible things with hard sciences, don't you get it? If you go to university and argue your points like this you'll be flunked immediately.
|
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
|
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
|
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True.
2. No.
3. No.
4. True, lacking context.
5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then.
6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
|
On October 23 2011 22:31 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs. 1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
In the past being religion was pretty much forced upon you or you would be removed from society (or stoned to death) because the religious folk couldn't handle people disagreeing with their beliefs.
i.e. intolerance
Bring any of those scientists into a modern society and I highly doubt any would still be religious.
|
That's true, but there were still many scientists who were devout and controversial (Galileo).
|
All of this back and forth about science it crazy. Nobody thinks science is flawless, they just think it is the best foundation for drawing conclusions. The major strength of science when placed against tradition and religion is that science changes as new information comes to light. It is this willingness to not only accept fault but constantly question assumptions that has created the colorful history of science as well as earned the field so much respect.
Basically the sentiment that people are putting forward when they use scientific studies is not that people with different opinions are wrong, but that they dont understand the reasons you have your differing opinion. Academia has trained us to understand that baseless claims and anecdotal evidence are not as valuable as a more comprehensive view when forming opinions. This means that whenever a person forms an opinion based entirely on feelings, personal experience or faith when there is legitimate evidence to the contrary they should expect to be dismissed.
If I am to put my two cents in on the issue, I dont think you have to trust anybody in such a polarizing issue. It all reminds me of the birther movement. I saw an interview with a super far right personality who basically said that there is no way Obama could be illegal because if he were then Hilary's hit squad of investigators and lawyers would have had him knocked out long before he had the chance to be in the general election. On that same note, if there was unbiased, clear evidence that gay marriage or gay families were bad then you know every conservative media outlet would be driving a nail in the coffin of the gay movement. If you believe that on the whole people act according to human nature then very little is left to chance.
|
Behold, for tomorrow I vote on your marriage 
|
On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years.
Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs.
How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
|
On October 23 2011 22:26 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand.
As for:So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True.
2. No.
3. No.
4. True, lacking context.
5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then.
6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond.
1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death).
For you Christians: Lev. 20:13
2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________".
For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1)
3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most).
For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48.
4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you.
" Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato
If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted.
Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways
For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13.
5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again?
6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true.
That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it.
EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@
|
On October 23 2011 22:31 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs. 1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
Er. What? Most people in the last 2000 years have been religious so that's hardly an argument. There was no naturalistic explanations for the creation of the universe (like the big bang theory), so most "atheists" were most likely "deists." Why are we debating the entire idea of religion? Seems pretty off-topic honestly.
And considering that science is all about discovering the order and logic of the universe, I don't see how that is different between the religious and nonreligious.
Edit: (why did you put muslims in parentheses anyway? There have been plenty of influential scientific thinkers that were Muslim. And Buddhist. And Hindu.)
|
Ohhhh. All this religion and sexuality has me all riled up. Give me release!
|
On October 24 2011 02:42 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 22:26 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws? You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand. As for: Show nested quote +So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True.
2. No.
3. No.
4. True, lacking context.
5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then.
6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world. I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true. That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it. EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@
I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
|
On October 24 2011 04:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 02:42 Kickstart wrote:On October 23 2011 22:26 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws? You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand. As for: So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True.
2. No.
3. No.
4. True, lacking context.
5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then.
6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world. I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true. That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it. EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@ I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
You said you were against gay parenting. How is that not anti-gay?
|
On October 24 2011 04:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 02:42 Kickstart wrote:On October 23 2011 22:26 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws? You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand. As for: So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True.
2. No.
3. No.
4. True, lacking context.
5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then.
6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world. I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true. That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it. EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@ I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
Is it honestly possible to give arguments based on logic for you anti gay people?
So far I've never heard any. Remnants of a fascist and religious past basically.
|
On October 24 2011 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke. So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years. Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs. How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
|
On October 24 2011 04:57 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke. So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years. Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs. How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus. I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
What does any of this have to do with gays right to marriage?
None's trying to convince you to go gay. Just to let them have the right of getting married.
How can you be against this without being religious?
|
On October 24 2011 04:53 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 04:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 24 2011 02:42 Kickstart wrote:On October 23 2011 22:26 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws? You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand. As for: So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True.
2. No.
3. No.
4. True, lacking context.
5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then.
6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world. I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true. That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it. EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@ I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions? Is it honestly possible to give arguments based on logic for you anti gay people? So far I've never heard any. Remnants of a fascist and religious past basically.
Yeah, if you're against gay parenting, you're a facist, anti-gay, reactionary, religious psycho. There are no other valid opinions than yours, keep on believing it.
|
On October 24 2011 05:02 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 04:53 Euronyme wrote:On October 24 2011 04:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 24 2011 02:42 Kickstart wrote:On October 23 2011 22:26 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote:
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age. I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws? You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand. As for: So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True.
2. No.
3. No.
4. True, lacking context.
5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then.
6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world. I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true. That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it. EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@ I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions? Is it honestly possible to give arguments based on logic for you anti gay people? So far I've never heard any. Remnants of a fascist and religious past basically. Yeah, if you're against gay parenting, you're a facist, anti-gay, reactionary, religious psycho. There are no other valid opinions than yours, keep on believing it.
Never said anything about psycho, otherwise you're pretty much spot on
I don't see how it has anything to do with you? What exactly would the problems be with gay parenting and marriage?
Edit. I don't consider any opinion that is stripping a minority of their rights for arbitrary reasons valid.
|
On October 24 2011 04:57 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke. So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years. Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs. How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus. I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
But you're the one ignoring science. How can you say you're not ignoring science and then you proceed to give me an explanation of why you are ignoring science?! When I point to evidence of psychology evolving and suggesting that homosexuality is not abnormal, you claim it is a soft science (completely ignoring neurobiological studies of course). You JUST dismissed science ffs.
Why can't I use the same science to argue gay rights exactly? Why can't I be objective and see where the evidence leads me? Look at reality, then discover your beliefs.
You have nothing to support you. You have no evidence to back you up. And I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will ever convince you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
