split personality of some forumers at EH?
-
This is quite dissapointing.
I'm not to sure what you are trying to drive at by bringing this up. It seems you have not answered any of SGfish's points at all. In fact I did notice you have not answered any of my points at all, what I am getting is a reiteration of your self-evident belief in a certain curious way of considering evidence which I might have pointed up in a lot of cases... isn't that self-evident at all.Originally posted by casino_king:Remeber the Gospel of Judas? Conveniently left out. So you see; whatever the bible is or you claim it to be; it is a bias inaccurate document.
And before we go too far about the Gospel of Judas, I suggest you actually gather the evidence from both sides before you make any claims about the biasessness and inaccuracy of the bible.
I have actually done my homework... have you?Roman Catholics as I understand it, have no problems accepting Evolution Theory as proposed by Charles Darwin and refined by others.
By my reckoning I don't have much of a beef with it at all. What I can't figure out is this pseudo-scientific religion arising from it that asserts that man is nothing more then an animal with no more rational basis for his being then naturalistic processes. And what is more is that this is a view that is touted as a 'real' belief set on what basis beyond science that now sought to make much judgement on other people's beliefs (they are all just fantasies). There is an incongruence in logic here.Evolution Theory and creation of the universe in six days cannot co exists unless you say that the creation theory is Christian/Jewish mythology. Parable even. Symbolic... at the level of personal beliefs, it is not a problem... so I say, shamelessly stay in your churches and temples and mosques to encourage each other in your fantasies... but keep out of public forums and schools until you show us the evidence.
First and foremost I must state that personal beliefs can never be absolutely kept personal. Or else I might just tell you to stuff your personal beliefs in evidence and carry on my way with absolutely no regard with whatever you are saying.
Secondly I might point out that any kind of belief when held by a person is personal. Who then is to be judge of that? What if I reject your standard as nonsense? Who is to stop anybody from suggesting that that science is fantasy relentlessly? And how shall you refute him unless there was an absolute system of belief that all have to appeal to?
I am unconvinced that you have paid any attention or consideration at all to anything that I have been trying to say. What is more it seems that you seem intent on disregarding anything regardless of how reasonable I may try to get it across to you. To date you have yet to answer my questions on the all-emcompassingness of the scientific method, and yet you carry on the very same way.
Have you bothered to read anything I wrote at all? I can't frankly believe that you have considered them properly for it would at least provoke some useful and progressive discussion from you. It seems that we are just circling around me raising points to every question you put and you raising the same but another religion-is-unverified-and-fantasy song. It is slightly tiresome and dissapointing, especially from somebody who claims to be the bastion of logic versus religious illogic.
It seems to betray a kind of faith on an equal level of religious fevour on your part... are you here to talk? Or monolouge? You seem to be convincing everybody else of the latter.
And I have yet to hear your response to my question on the scientific validity of the issue of humanistic freedom, which I suspect might have some far-reaching implications on your very stand. If I am wrong please do refute me, but please, not another shallow religion-is-personal-fantasy reply that is no different in lines from what I have already answered.
I do not believe in deadlock, and seriously I am starting to doubt your sincerity in here, as much as I have given you the benifit of doubt. -
Please consider the following and meditate on it:Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:This is quite dissapointing.
I do not believe in deadlock, and seriously I am starting to doubt your sincerity in here, as much as I have given you the benifit of doubt.
1. Make a distinction between "concepts" like "freedom" and entities like "God."
2. Understand well what it means to have "evidence" derived from the "scientific method" and evidence derived from some other means.
3. Understand well the concept of "the best of the alternatives."
4. Understand well the concept of "until new evidence come along."
5. Understand well the concept of "there is no real evidence but by faith I accept that it is eternal truth."
6. Understand how one should treat point 5 when one is in a public forum or school as opposed to when one is in a religious building among the believers.
OK I have given you some homework.... before you write anything else... please ensure that you have considered and understood the concepts I have given you. -
In response to point 2, i believe that i have shown evidence through the 'scientific method' in the previous post. I would like you to present evidence (based on the 'scientific method' mind you) on why do you think evolution is scientific? as far as most people are concerned, evolution is an unproven theory, with many flaws still left unanswered, as only microevolution, which leads to natural selection, is observed (and does not contradict the Bible), whereas macroevolution and any of its characteristics, which is required for stuff like monkeys to turn (or would you say, EVOLVE) into man, has not even been observed before.Originally posted by casino_king:Please consider the following and meditate on it:
1. Make a distinction between "concepts" like "freedom" and entities like "God."
2. Understand well what it means to have "evidence" derived from the "scientific method" and evidence derived from some other means.
3. Understand well the concept of "the best of the alternatives."
4. Understand well the concept of "until new evidence come along."
5. Understand well the concept of "there is no real evidence but by faith I accept that it is eternal truth."
6. Understand how one should treat point 5 when one is in a public forum or school as opposed to when one is in a religious building among the believers.
OK I have given you some homework.... before you write anything else... please ensure that you have considered and understood the concepts I have given you.
ditto for point number 5. Evolution is a totally unproven theory, hence why should it be taught in public schools anyway?
furthermore, there are many things that cannot be proven through the scientific method so far. such as the theory of gravitation. Gravity till today, cannot be explained, as quantum gravitation, derived from quantum mechanics, does not agree with the general theory of relativity about gravity. And mind you, these two theories have been observed and in most cases proven correct in most cases through experimentation, and they are far more accurate than any theory of evolution, and they do not contradict the Bible either.
You mentioning the gospel of Judas, I would like to say that it is a Gnostic text that is not canonical, and was written a long time after the canonical gospels, hence the document is unreliable as a source for the actual historical events in the life of Jesus. Furthermore it wasn't written by any of the apostles or anyone remotely close to them, and this disqualifies it as a reliable source. Furthermore, they do not corroborate with what Jesus said in the four gospels, and hence it was most likely just a Gnostic text written by some random person not closely related to Jesus or the apostles at all.
ST is right. I have read through the arguments, and you haven't really addressed our points, you're just saying you're right without giving evidence why. This isn't what scientific methodology is is it? -
But what abt non Christian families driving their homosexual children or members to suicide? Has anyone done a study on that & not just condemn the Christian family members? I think there are non Christian families who r just as dogmatic or strict?Originally posted by HENG@:1) Any family can dun allow him to step back home. The Community simply show hostility towards him as a whole. No need to be powerful or influential when everyone within the community are stauch xtians with firm beliefs do they?
2) Its the faith that teaches them its wrong and unnatural to be homosexual. Faith is, to quote "being told from the cradle that it's a virtue to believe in something in spite of lack of evidence". That same faith means people can end up believing and focusing on the wrong things. Within the field of psychology, it is well known that homophobia is often due to insecurity with one's own sexuality, due to repression of one's sexuality. Its not an agenda. It's an end result.
3) When we say homosexual suicides due to Xtian interference, don't only or primarily refer to suicide cases due to Xtian aid workers trying to help. It primarily involves cases where homosexual victims who have committed suicide have done so with motivating factor for suicide due to depression issues caused by the inacceptance due to a regligious belief(in this case xtian) of the victim by those around them(eg family, relatives, friends, community etc).
If u don't get a specific number, u dun mind taking a risk that u're going to cause someone's death, as long as that means u can hold fast to your beliefs n impose them on others?
4) Nope. I'm saying he is driven to suicide by his family. They THOUGHT they are doing the right thing, when they are actually causing harm. they did not force him to commit suicide. However, their actions led to a reduced quality of life for him, leading to depression and ultimately suicide.
And u still dun get it. In this case, the victim was non-xtian. his family was, not him. Its simple logic. U can get it or not? -
Can you quote any eg from the bible abt how did Jesus treat homosexuals in His time on earth? I cannot seem to find any egs.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:If the aim is making somebody miserable for the sake of misery, sadism or ignorance... then it's something that would be morally wrong. But if the whole point of bringing somebody through something really painful is for his ultimate good, then the causation of pain itself cannot be considered to be something that is bad in the larger context.
Now there is a problem with wanting to keep our personal beliefs to ourselves, and not bother each other with them.
First and formost it denys any sort of an absolute moral law that everybody is subject to, and that will cause a lot of trouble. Let me demostrate why:
Firstand formost by highlighting to me the misery that ignorant Xtians inflict on homosexuals you are in fact, highlighting to me the belief that such a thing is wrong and that all men should accept it. If this wasn't the case there there would be nothing to argue about... I would quite well simply go 'who cares about your standard? all that matters is what I believe'. But of course we hardly get people who do that, in fact I do see the point you are making.
Rather they (me) would try to appeal to some common logic that is shared to show why this way of looking at things comes closer to this absolute moral set of laws.
Now this is important considering personal beliefs. While personal views on absolute moral laws are in no way totally correct (we being fallen humans), they indicate strongly to us that there is a moral absolute out there that all men should listen to. Of course it's then not really a case of if people should keep their own view to themselves, but then a case of how close certain views get to this moral absolute.
Now this is the kicker: by accepting this principle, we are in fact saying that our personal beliefs should, and must matter to others. This would be impossible to deny. The real debate is not if we should keep to our own views, but rather whose view is closer to this moral absolute. This is the basis of all argument, and the very reason we are even arguing in the first place... that we begin with some common law above all of us and that we all must appeal to that we can disagree on in the first place.
The problem that arises if we insist that all personal beliefs should be personal we are saying that there is no absolute standard to judge any kind of personal belief. This then would destroy any kind of moral judgement on the 911 hijackers as they simply did what they were convicted to do. As would a murderer who says he has no reason to feel sorry for the killing of women and children as in his own value set, it is the right thing to do... away with all other personal beliefs. In fact such a notion helps, and not destroys homophobia... for homophobia is exactly such a mindset that assumes that one should just do whatever he feels is right about homosexuals without considering any other moral issues. This is of course different from the disagreement that Christians ought to take... I may disagree with what the Soviets in Stalin's regin are doing but that cannot mean that I hate all russians from that time with a passion.
Now let me say that I agree with you that rabid homophobia is a bad thing, and a stain on the reputation on the Church. For the first thing I doubt Jesus himself was homophobic. But the issue is this: Christians believe that homosexuality in itself is wrong, and that something needs to be done with it just as any other kind of sin needs something to be dealt with. The real issue is not if Christians should do something about it, but if it is in itself an issue that requires the attention of sin-fighting. To stop the mice-catchers one needs to be convinced the things in the cellar are not mice. Of course then much of Christianity considers the act of homosexuality such a 'mouse'. -
Precisely. I think non christians also condemn homosexuals. I dont think Christians only are guilty.Originally posted by HENG@:Let me ask u, would u like to live in a place where everybody refused to talk to u, are unfriendly to you, and treat u like a 3rd class citizen? No i dun think u would. Neither do homosexuals. U once again seem to forget they are humans like anyone else, and can feel upset or depressed at the insensitive things others say, REGARDLESS of what religion those "others" belong to. It doesn't mean they're non-Xtian means they dun care about being insulted and being discriminated against. Its got nothing to do with religion. Its got EVERYTHING to do with being HUMAN and behaving in a way HUMANS do when they feel insulted, discriminated against, and hostile against.
and please. don't come and tell me "if they're not xtian they shouldn't feel insulted..." u say that means u still cannot understand such a simple concept. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
Did I equate the concept of freedom to God? We are not even within a hundred miles of any kind of theism when we are talking about this. It is your assumption that I am trying to tie in every single argument to God... in fact I have taken great pains not to mention or suggest theism in many of my points, taking an effort to draw examples that are can be directly observed and experimented in real life. I do this for the sake of respecting and fairly considering your very own point of view, something I have yet to see you do to my own.
Please consider the following and meditate on it:
1. Make a distinction between "concepts" like "freedom" and entities like "God."
Now that we have gotten that out of the way the question is this: Is the secular humanist notion of freedom as a inalienable human right supported by the weight of evolutionary scientific evidence showing that Homo sapiens sapiens is but a naturalistic result of irrational processes having no more free will then the current sum of ultimately reductiable and controllable instincts? You have not broached this in any of your posts.2. Understand well what it means to have "evidence" derived from the "scientific method" and evidence derived from some other means.
I suspect I might understand this notion better then you, given they way I have been tryign to get you to consider this very statement in detail. And secondly I have yet to see you explain how you consider the way you consider the evidence, which is key is what you get out of it.[/quote]
You also appear to fuddle the idea of evidence for conclusion.
Finding a bone is evidence.
Making something out of it is another. If your own logical premises are flawed to begin with, you will make rubbish out of the evidence as much evidence as you might ever have.5. Understand well the concept of "there is no real evidence but by faith I accept that it is eternal truth."
You have answered your own question my friend.
Have your considered your own ontology? Of which you can never be certain of any real evidence of? Yet by it you make so many judgements.
What about your very reason? What naturalistic evidence can be found to reason reason itself?
Yet somehow you make your statements with a conviction that by your own arguments... come from thin air. You demand a form of absolutism while witholding it from the very things that allow you to make these statemets? It is a nonspeak for faith.6. Understand how one should treat point 5 when one is in a public forum or school as opposed to when one is in a religious building among the believers.
Answer my question on humanistic freedom as a right first then I shall reply, your answer may very well be my own. -
well i did say i condemn all homophobia did i not? but here we're talking about XTIAN families who drive homosexual family members to suicide.Originally posted by Raptured:But what abt non Christian families driving their homosexual children or members to suicide? Has anyone done a study on that & not just condemn the Christian family members? I think there are non Christian families who r just as dogmatic or strict?
How come everytime u XTIANS get accused of something u come and do the "but they also do that" act? So u think that if u're not the only ones guilty of a wrong-doing, that makes it acceptable? -
maybe u dun realise how bad a murderer who says hes not the only murderer around so he's not really guilty sounds.Originally posted by Raptured:Precisely. I think non christians also condemn homosexuals. I dont think Christians only are guilty.
typical small kid response. caught doing something wrong, say other ppl are doing it also. As though if lots of people do something, it makes it right. -
If i am homosexual, I think I will most likely move to a place which is more gay-friendly. It is common sense. But face it, this is Asia, and anti-gay sentiments is going to stay for a long time, not becoz of Christianity but becoz of culture.
U can do a survey here if u like; if the parents is christian, the child would most probably be a christian, unlike other religions this may not be the case.Originally posted by HENG@:1) neither do i see that in USA. however, u asked where there are communities that are predominantly Xtian, im answering to the point. don't go shooting off on another tangent. And fundamentalist Xtians dun run around hitting ppl on the head with bibles either. They just simply discriminate as a whole, against some people. and lower their quality of life.
Let me ask u, would u like to live in a place where everybody refused to talk to u, are unfriendly to you, and treat u like a 3rd class citizen? No i dun think u would. Neither do homosexuals. U once again seem to forget they are humans like anyone else, and can feel upset or depressed at the insensitive things others say, REGARDLESS of what religion those "others" belong to. It doesn't mean they're non-Xtian means they dun care about being insulted and being discriminated against. Its got nothing to do with religion. Its got EVERYTHING to do with being HUMAN and behaving in a way HUMANS do when they feel insulted, discriminated against, and hostile against.
and please. don't come and tell me "if they're not xtian they shouldn't feel insulted..." u say that means u still cannot understand such a simple concept.
3) Guilty? why would u need to feel im making u feel guilty? Unless of course u full well know inside that u ARE guilty of something.
I'll also ask u to stop assuming anyone who is against homophobia is gay. It smacks totally of ignorant and prejudiced, bigotted thinking.
4) I disagree. Religion is a personal choice, and just because u're born into a Xtian family dun mean u're Xtian. That is a rubbish argument really. So now u're discriminating against other religions also la. Child is not taoist/buddhist even if parents is, while child cannot not be Xtian if parents are. Why? because u're xtian huh? So other religions that are not yours do not enjoy the same day to day reality as your religion Don't I just love it when people like u start bandying Xtian supremacist attitudes around. -
Originally posted by HENG@:
This is a presumptous sweeping statement that is bigotted.
[b]
How come everytime u XTIANS get accused of something u come and do the "but they also do that" act? b]
Sometimes I feel u attack Christianity just to make urself feel good, not for the just cause u mention.
Probably more worthwhile for u to setup a support group for homosexuals. -
I also very guilty of this...Originally posted by HENG@:How come everytime u XTIANS get accused of something u come and do the "but they also do that" act? So u think that if u're not the only ones guilty of a wrong-doing, that makes it acceptable?
really, most people when cornered with any accusation will do this... probably this is what you can called... Human Nature (self preservation)...
-
how come i say something to u, u me to find evidence for u, u tell me something i must also go n find evidence for u?Originally posted by laoda99:If i am homosexual, I think I will most likely move to a place which is more gay-friendly. It is common sense. But face it, this is Asia, and anti-gay sentiments is going to stay for a long time, not becoz of Christianity but becoz of culture.
U can do a survey here if u like; if the parents is christian, the child would most probably be a christian, unlike other religions this may not be the case.
now u're trying to push a statement that goes against common sense and general logic, so u should do the survey to prove it.
meanwhile until u got the evidence to back it up, don't wave your xtian supremacist beliefs around thanks.
as for if someone is homosexual, u talk as tho its so easy to move out. the world dun need money to live in har? The problem is, u think gay need to live in a 'gay-friendly' place. This is exactly the sort of discrimination that comes from u Xtians. Gays dun need a gay-friendly place anymore than straight ppl need straight-friendly places. They just need a society where tolerance, acceptance and non-discrimination exists, where everybody has equal living rights. -
hahaha. so how come now u come n talk about human nature for this, when u condemn other human nature as sin?Originally posted by vince69:I also very guilty of this...
really, most people when cornered with any accusation will do this... probably this is what you can called... Human Nature (self preservation)... -
ahahaha. u've run out of ideas now is it? We know who the bigots are here ya? Its always so pathetic when people have to recycle words which have been used against them.Originally posted by laoda99:This is a presumptous sweeping statement that is bigotted.
Sometimes I feel u attack Christianity just to make urself feel good, not for the just cause u mention.
Probably more worthwhile for u to setup a support group for homosexuals.
So now im attack Xtianity to feel good, ohhhh so smart. steal what i say again about Xtians attacking homosexuality to make themselves feel good. Sorry leh. Doesn't work. How would i feel good having to get engaged in hot debate with some thick bigotted people all the time? I would much rather be chillin and not caring if the world lives or dies. I do it only because part of me cannot stand it seeing how u people contribute to the misery that this world already has too much of. Crocodile tears, can u spell it kids? -
1) I am human, so have human nature is normal....Originally posted by HENG@:hahaha. so how come now u come n talk about human nature for this, when u condemn other human nature as sin?
2) I do not take homosexuality as natural, its just an alternative life style choice, one of which I strongly dis-agree with.
Do I condemn Homosexuals? no,
I too am a sinner before I accepted Christ, so why would I want to condemn other people, but not condemning them does not means I have to accept their life style choice. -
u're wrong. its not a lifestyle 'choice'. u don't have a choice, except whether to live in denial for your entire life, or accept who u are.Originally posted by vince69:1) I am human, so have human nature is normal....
2) I do not take homosexuality as natural, its just an alternative life style choice, one of which I strongly dis-agree with.
Do I condemn Homosexuals? no,
I too am a sinner before I accepted Christ, so why would I want to condemn other people, but not condemning them does not means I have to accept their life style choice.
if u truely go and think, instead of relying on a book to tell u what is right or not, u'll realise from the 'naturality' stand point, its more natural than u think.
Some of the facts that are especially relavent to this are:
The ancient and current population number of the human species.
The current rate of increase of the human species.
The ability of nature to naturally control the population of any species(barring any intervention or disruption by cosmic forces) to ensure sustainable survival.
The existance of homosexuality within other species on earth, and the role it plays in maintaining balance with their environment.
The alternate reality if there were no homosexuals at all amongst humans, and extrapolating that alternate reality into the future. My hint for this would be that if u think that having your ability to love and breed freely and/or your ability to reproduce, all restricted and controlled by higher authority is natural, then by all means continue to despise nature's own workings.
Finally, i see u and i have different definations about condemnation and acceptance. You don't have to live the lifestyle yourself (indeed, why should you if u're truely straight?) but others are made that way, and for u to belittle them for having to live that way because thats the way nature(or God, going by yr belief) intends for them, is totally unbecoming of how any human being should behave to begin with, much less people who are supposed to be taught the lesson of love by Jesus himself. -
i think its more of the give and take, and reap what you sow ideology.Originally posted by laoda99:why was it crushed?
yeah....even my bro says he dun believe in something that dun require hard work....is it becoz men always want it the hard way?
i cannot picture myself working myself to death, and at the day, credit jesus/god for my achievements. -
this issue about homosexuality, and it being not natural.
how can you say that something is not natural when it happens without force?
the communities and majority of the people are heterosexual, and thats the normal to them.
for homosexuals, they feel more attracted to the same sex, and that is natural to them. how can you say that is not natural? it is only the minority.
homosexuality has been evident even thousands of years ago. in fact, in certain european countries, homosexuality is seen as a class and very high level of social status.
homosexuality is like any natural disaster you can think of, not that homosexuality is bad, but it can come to anyone naturally, just like how earthquakes can happen in california, or anywhere else. yet, earthquakes are considered natural, but they are not very normal, right? -
By bringing up GJudas I am simply pointing out that the Bible is a document where some baseless pre conceived beliefs and ideas are "supported" by Gospels and Epistles that are chosen because they are in tune with the baseless pre conceived beliefs and ideas rather than an unbias document containing all the available accounts. Worse of all it is the fantasized as some sort of "Holy Book."Originally posted by sgFish:In response to point 2, i believe that i have shown evidence through the 'scientific method' in the previous post. I would like you to present evidence (based on the 'scientific method' mind you) on why do you think evolution is scientific? as far as most people are concerned, evolution is an unproven theory, with many flaws still left unanswered, as only microevolution, which leads to natural selection, is observed (and does not contradict the Bible), whereas macroevolution and any of its characteristics, which is required for stuff like monkeys to turn (or would you say, EVOLVE) into man, has not even been observed before.
ditto for point number 5. Evolution is a totally unproven theory, hence why should it be taught in public schools anyway?
furthermore, there are many things that cannot be proven through the scientific method so far. such as the theory of gravitation. Gravity till today, cannot be explained, as quantum gravitation, derived from quantum mechanics, does not agree with the general theory of relativity about gravity. And mind you, these two theories have been observed and in most cases proven correct in most cases through experimentation, and they are far more accurate than any theory of evolution, and they do not contradict the Bible either.[/quote]
You are as confused as ever... I did ask you to meditate on [b]3. Understand well the concept of "the best of the alternatives. " I asked you what alternative you have other than "I cannot be this it cannot that..." Then what is it? Did anybody design and do any experiment on your hypothesis? Please understand and think before you write.
[quote]Originally posted by sgFish:
You mentioning the gospel of Judas, I would like to say that it is a Gnostic text that is not canonical, and was written a long time after the canonical gospels, hence the document is unreliable as a source for the actual historical events in the life of Jesus. Furthermore it wasn't written by any of the apostles or anyone remotely close to them, and this disqualifies it as a reliable source. Furthermore, they do not corroborate with what Jesus said in the four gospels, and hence it was most likely just a Gnostic text written by some random person not closely related to Jesus or the apostles at all.
I asked very simple questions: If you say that you have the evidecne; where is it? Is the evidecne derived in the way that is acceptable? The way that is universally acknowledged as the "correct" method. the method that has brought mankind from the caves into the modern age. You people are trying to bring people backwards 5000? years to the time the Bible was imagined. To go back to the system of making claims based on fantasy and imagination?Originally posted by sgFish:ST is right. I have read through the arguments, and you haven't really addressed our points, you're just saying you're right without giving evidence why. This isn't what scientific methodology is is it? -
We were talking about good evidence; evidence derived through the principles of the scientific method and you asked about "freedom." So I am pointing out to you that "freedom" is a "concept." Are you saying that "God" is merely a concept? A product of human thought?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Did I equate the concept of freedom to God? We are not even within a hundred miles of any kind of theism when we are talking about this. It is your assumption that I am trying to tie in every single argument to God... in fact I have taken great pains not to mention or suggest theism in many of my points, taking an effort to draw examples that are can be directly observed and experimented in real life. I do this for the sake of respecting and fairly considering your very own point of view, something I have yet to see you do to my own.
See? you are totally condused. You now seemrd to admit that "God" "Heaven" "Hell" are merely children of the human brain... since you choose to link it with the other child of the human brain "freedom."Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Now that we have gotten that out of the way the question is this: Is the secular humanist notion of freedom as a inalienable human right supported by the weight of evolutionary scientific evidence showing that Homo sapiens sapiens is but a naturalistic result of irrational processes having no more free will then the current sum of ultimately reductiable and controllable instincts? You have not broached this in any of your posts.
quote:2. Understand well what it means to have "evidence" derived from the "scientific method" and evidence derived from some other means.
I suspect I might understand this notion better then you, given they way I have been tryign to get you to consider this very statement in detail. And secondly I have yet to see you explain how you consider the way you consider the evidence, which is key is what you get out of it.
You also appear to fuddle the idea of evidence for conclusion.
Finding a bone is evidence.
Making something out of it is another. If your own logical premises are flawed to begin with, you will make rubbish out of the evidence as much evidence as you might ever have.
quote:5. Understand well the concept of "there is no real evidence but by faith I accept that it is eternal truth."
You have answered your own question my friend.
Have your considered your own ontology? Of which you can never be certain of any real evidence of? Yet by it you make so many judgements.
What about your very reason? What naturalistic evidence can be found to reason reason itself?
Yet somehow you make your statements with a conviction that by your own arguments... come from thin air. You demand a form of absolutism while witholding it from the very things that allow you to make these statemets? It is a nonspeak for faith.
quote:6. Understand how one should treat point 5 when one is in a public forum or school as opposed to when one is in a religious building among the believers.
Answer my question on humanistic freedom as a right first then I shall reply, your answer may very well be my own. -
As much as u argue for equal living rights, I think "straight" pple will also argue they have a right to live somewhere without gay pple. So how?Originally posted by HENG@:how come i say something to u, u me to find evidence for u, u tell me something i must also go n find evidence for u?
now u're trying to push a statement that goes against common sense and general logic, so u should do the survey to prove it.
meanwhile until u got the evidence to back it up, don't wave your xtian supremacist beliefs around thanks.
as for if someone is homosexual, u talk as tho its so easy to move out. the world dun need money to live in har? The problem is, u think gay need to live in a 'gay-friendly' place. This is exactly the sort of discrimination that comes from u Xtians. Gays dun need a gay-friendly place anymore than straight ppl need straight-friendly places. They just need a society where tolerance, acceptance and non-discrimination exists, where everybody has equal living rights.
I think u like to use "u xtian, u xtian, u xtian" without looking at yourself. I can also say "u potato u potato u potato" but i never say. -
u sound as if vince is gay....wuahahahahahaha
Actually i really dun mind gays around me, what they do is really not much of a concern to me.Originally posted by HENG@:u're wrong. its not a lifestyle 'choice'. u don't have a choice, except whether to live in denial for your entire life, or accept who u are.
if u truely go and think, instead of relying on a book to tell u what is right or not, u'll realise from the 'naturality' stand point, its more natural than u think.
Some of the facts that are especially relavent to this are:
The ancient and current population number of the human species.
The current rate of increase of the human species.
The ability of nature to naturally control the population of any species(barring any intervention or disruption by cosmic forces) to ensure sustainable survival.
The existance of homosexuality within other species on earth, and the role it plays in maintaining balance with their environment.
The alternate reality if there were no homosexuals at all amongst humans, and extrapolating that alternate reality into the future. My hint for this would be that if u think that having your ability to love and breed freely and/or your ability to reproduce, all restricted and controlled by higher authority is natural, then by all means continue to despise nature's own workings.
Finally, i see u and i have different definations about condemnation and acceptance. You don't have to live the lifestyle yourself (indeed, why should you if u're truely straight?) but others are made that way, and for u to belittle them for having to live that way because thats the way nature(or God, going by yr belief) intends for them, is totally unbecoming of how any human being should behave to begin with, much less people who are supposed to be taught the lesson of love by Jesus himself. -
yeah...lots of bigots here, but u sound like the biggest one now.
Why not u go chill out? I think u are picking on the wrong guys.Originally posted by HENG@:ahahaha. u've run out of ideas now is it? We know who the bigots are here ya? Its always so pathetic when people have to recycle words which have been used against them.
So now im attack Xtianity to feel good, ohhhh so smart. steal what i say again about Xtians attacking homosexuality to make themselves feel good. Sorry leh. Doesn't work. How would i feel good having to get engaged in hot debate with some thick bigotted people all the time? I would much rather be chillin and not caring if the world lives or dies. I do it only because part of me cannot stand it seeing how u people contribute to the misery that this world already has too much of. Crocodile tears, can u spell it kids? -
ok.....u are more self-centered......Originally posted by coffeeortea:i think its more of the give and take, and reap what you sow ideology.
i cannot picture myself working myself to death, and at the day, credit jesus/god for my achievements.
mebbe thank ur mum/dad?