Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh, the fact that our universe had a beginning does NOT lead to the only conclusion being a "personal creator". Who says it wasn't caused by a random event?
How did the conditions for such a random event come about?
Quote:
Logic is made up of concepts that exist outside of time, space, location, etc, so that proves an "ultimate mind" or creator? Really?
How did the conditions for such a random event come about?
Uh, randomly? Blind chance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
How do they exist?
So you're saying with all of our congnitive powers as a species, man is not capable of thinking thoughts that are not tied to time, space, location, etc. without the intervention of some sort of super magic? Is that what I'm reading?
I think the possibility that man invented "god(s)" to explain things we don't understand is far more likely than the possibility that there is any sort of personal creator. Feel free to point to evidence that suggests otherwise, though. The Bible is not a valid source, though.
I don't have to. I can disprove the only alternative--a non-personal creator.
Quote:
Uh, randomly? Blind chance?
That doesn't account for the things that needed to exist prior to such a random event.
Quote:
So you're saying with all of our congnitive powers as a species, man is not capable of thinking thoughts that are not tied to time, space, location, etc. without the intervention of some sort of super magic? Is that what I'm reading?
Logical absolutes are not dependent on man to exist. If you and I didn't exist, they still would.
Quote:
I think the possibility that man invented "god(s)" to explain things we don't understand is far more likely than the possibility that there is any sort of personal creator. Feel free to point to evidence that suggests otherwise, though. The Bible is not a valid source, though.
I haven't been quoting Bible passages. But I have demonstrated your inability to answer how we can account for logical absolutes.
You also have not answered the question of how the universe exists without a creator.
Don't feel bad...Dawkins, Hitchens and the gang can't give a reasonable answer either. Atheism is just not a logical intellectual position to take. You guys believe the craziest things on faith alone.
Last edited by Calvinist; 04-26-2011 at 02:51 PM..
I don't have to. I can disprove the only alternative--a non-personal creator.
No, you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
That doesn't account for the things that needed to exist prior to such a random event.
Such as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Logical absolutes are not dependent on man to exist. If you and I didn't exist, they still would.
I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. That still doesn't offer any proof of a supreme creator, however. If one thing (god) can have always existed, why not another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
I haven't been quoting Bible passages. But I have demonstrated your inability to answer how we can account for logical absolutes.
I never claimed you had been quoting the Bible, did I? I simply said it was not acceptable to use as "evidence".
So, because something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same sense, that proves there is a supreme creator? How, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
You also have not answered the question of how the universe exists without a creator.
Don't feel bad...Dawkins, Hitchens and the gang can't give a reasonable answer either. Atheism is just not a logical intellectual position to take. You guys believe the craziest things on faith alone.
Can the universe exist without an intelligent creating being? Yes, I believe it absolutely can and does.
A "reasonable answer"? So, to you, an old man on a chair in the sky is a reasonable answer to how the universe, and little ol' us, came to be?
I think we'll disagree on what is and isn't reasonable, then.
Anti-discrimination laws (such as denial of service laws) are a different beast than civil marriage law. Our country has made it illegal for businesses that accommodate the public (restaurants, laundry mats, etc) to discriminate by denying service to people simply because of some characteristic. Most of these characteristics are inherent aspects of the person - race, sex, nationality - and even one characteristic that is a choice - religion. Similar laws prevent discrimination based on these same characteristics when it comes to employment and to businesses that provide housing.
Homosexuals have been and still are subject to discrimination in these areas. Considering the discrimination they face and the fact that sexuality is an inherent aspect of a person, gay activists did and still do advocate that the same anti-discrimination protection be extended to sexual orientation. You claim gay activists won this battle early on. That's partially true - many places have added sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws. However, many have not. Sexual orientation is not covered in any federal level non-discrimination law and at least area wise, most places in the US do not offer such anti-discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I notice you post a lot in the Nebraska forum. In Nebraska, there is no protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the law. Any dry-cleaner or grocery store or bank in Nebraska can refuse service to a homosexual simply because he or she is gay. Any employer can fire an employee they discover is homosexual simply because he or she is gay.
The same with housing. Lets say I move to Omaha and want to rent an apartment. I've toured it and as I'm sitting at the landlord's desk about to sign my lease I mention that my boyfriend will love coming to visit because it's close to his work. The landlord could grab the lease and say "Get out. I'm Christian and disagree with homosexuality, so I don't rent to homosexuals" - that would be perfectly legal.
Now lets say I move to Omaha and buy an apartment building. I show an apartment to a prospective tenant, and as he's about to sign he mentions how great the place is because it's near his church. I could not grab the lease and say "Get out. I'm gay and disagree with Christianity, so I don't rent to Christians" - that would be illegal.
Here's an article about how last year Omaha decided to continue to allow such discrimination to be legal:
You must have me confused with someone else. I rarely even check in to the Nebraska forum, let alone "post there frequently". My last post in that forum was so long ago that I don't even remember it. I don't think gay people need government mandated protections (which are not the same as extending benefits to them as legally married partners) and I applaud the Omaha City Council for being brave enough to vote down the ordinance.
As for your statements that gays are still discriminated against in housing and employment--I find that hard to believe. You offer only some unlikely "what-ifs" that you pulled out of a hat. If it does occur, it is a rare event. The same could be said about women, older people, the long-term unemployed, immigrants, non-immigrants, and countless other people who may be passed over d/t employer bias. (I have yet to stay at a Comfort Inn where I saw anything other than Indian employees.) Many, many employers now voluntarily extend full benefits to their gay employees who are in domestic partnerships. My friend's daughter is a SAHM with two small children conceived artificially is in a long term lesbian relationship and her partner's employer--a multi-national high tech company with many thousands of employees--gives full benefits to them as a family. Many large companies, and perhaps even smaller ones, are now doing this without any government mandates forcing them to do so.
The way I see it, bias knows no biases--anyone who belongs to the "wrong group" may be the victim of bias and no amount of government interference is ever going to change the way people think. We have too much interference already from government--so much that global businesses are finding it much easier to go offshore rather than try an conform to the severe restrictions placed on them in this country.
You must have me confused with someone else. I rarely even check in to the Nebraska forum, let alone "post there frequently". My last post in that forum was so long ago that I don't even remember it.
I just searched for your posts in "US Forums" on here to try and get a sense of where you live. They were almost all in the Nebraska forum. I didn't check dates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
I don't think gay people need government mandated protections (which are not the same as extending benefits to them as legally married partners) and I applaud the Omaha City Council for being brave enough to vote down the ordinance.
So what's your overall stance on anti-discrimination laws? Do you believe they shouldn't exist at all or do you just think that the gays don't deserve anti-discrimination protection but other groups of people (men, women, Christians, Jews, Muslims, the disabled, Irish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Blacks, etc) do?
I just find it a bit odd that a Christian or a Muslim or a black person can legally discriminate against a gay man for being gay, but a gay man cannot legally discriminate against a Christian or a Muslim or a black man for being Christian, Muslim, or black. What do you call that - "special rights"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
As for your statements that gays are still discriminated against in housing and employment--I find that hard to believe. You offer only some unlikely "what-ifs" that you pulled out of a hat. If it does occur, it is a rare event. The same could be said about women, older people, the long-term unemployed, immigrants, non-immigrants, and countless other people who may be passed over d/t employer bias. (I have yet to stay at a Comfort Inn where I saw anything other than Indian employees.) Many, many employers now voluntarily extend full benefits to their gay employees who are in domestic partnerships. My friend's daughter is a SAHM with two small children conceived artificially is in a long term lesbian relationship and her partner's employer--a multi-national high tech company with many thousands of employees--gives full benefits to them as a family. Many large companies, and perhaps even smaller ones, are now doing this without any government mandates forcing them to do so.
The way I see it, bias knows no biases--anyone who belongs to the "wrong group" may be the victim of bias and no amount of government interference is ever going to change the way people think. We have too much interference already from government--so much that global businesses are finding it much easier to go offshore rather than try an conform to the severe restrictions placed on them in this country.
It's not rampant (well - the military until recently excluded) , but gays certainly are discriminated against in this country in this manner (especially in rural areas). It doesn't happen 100 times a week, but people certainly are fired simply for being gay in this country (spend a few hours searching news archives - you'll find the stories). Hell, just look back a few decades when Anita Bryant and her crew of crusading anti-gay bigots got laws passed that required all known or discovered gays be fired from certain jobs (such as teachers).
Just a few years ago my boyfriend and I were denied service at a motel in Montana when I asked for a room with 1 queen sized bed instead of 2 doubles:
I just searched for your posts in "US Forums" on here to try and get a sense of where you live. They were almost all in the Nebraska forum. I didn't check dates.
Try this link http://www.city-data.com/forum/search.php?searchid=28907547 Last six months for ALL posts.
Quote:
So what's your overall stance on anti-discrimination laws? Do you believe they shouldn't exist at all or do you just think that the gays don't deserve anti-discrimination protection but other groups of people (men, women, Christians, Jews, Muslims, the disabled, Irish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Blacks, etc) do?
There were clear abuses against blacks for many decades in this country. Although I was very young, I remember the "Whites only" bathrooms and drinking fountains. I remember when they had to sit in the backs of buses. I remember when they could not be served in restaurants. Those kinds of abuses definitely needed to be corrected. Ditto "equal pay for equal work". If a crime is committed against a person, prosecute the person who committed the crime under existing law. We already have laws against assaults. It is now to the point where this whole idea of "protected groups" has gotten so out of hand in this country, it is ludicrous.
Quote:
I just find it a bit odd that a Christian or a Muslim or a black person can legally discriminate against a gay man for being gay, but a gay man cannot legally discriminate against a Christian or a Muslim or a black man for being Christian, Muslim, or black. What do you call that - "special rights"?
And I find this statement to be downright silly. Some few-and-far-between people just don't like gays. That's just the way they are. Deal with it. No legislation is going to make them like you and will probably only make it worse. Most people don't give a hoot or a holler who you screw and most are as eager to take money from you as they are from anyone else.
Quote:
It's not rampant (well - the military until recently excluded) , but gays certainly are discriminated against in this country in this manner (especially in rural areas). It doesn't happen 100 times a week, but people certainly are fired simply for being gay in this country (spend a few hours searching news archives - you'll find the stories). Hell, just look back a few decades when Anita Bryant and her crew of crusading anti-gay bigots got laws passed that required all known or discovered gays be fired from certain jobs (such as teachers).
Just a few years ago my boyfriend and I were denied service at a motel in Montana when I asked for a room with 1 queen sized bed instead of 2 doubles:
"Just a few years ago"?? That's rather vague. Public acceptance has changed a lot since that happened. However, there is always more than one way to skin a cat. Either take the room with two doubles and push them together or go to another motel with a manager who is eager and willing to take your money. Problem solved.
there are plenty of mutations...and you can see the MODERN SOCIETIES of it...heck even our POTUS is a mutation (mulato)
so SHOW ME( bet you cant) the CIVILIZATIONS or SOCIETIES of the actualy mutations over the 'evolutaionary scale'
sorry but showing me a freak like alice (which has been proved NOT to be in our chain) is not proof
there are humans with 6 fingers or toes...is that evolution??? nope its a freak mutation
or are you going to say a woman who also has a penis is evolution too????
Mark Wahlberg (actor, aka Marky-mark) has a third nipple...is that evolution????
Being mixed race is not a mutation. There are several types of mutations, point mutations (transitions and transversions), nonsense mutations (which arrive from point mutations), frameshift mutations, missense mutations, silent mutations (both of these also arrive from point mutations), insertions, deletions, etc. Sorry my genetics is a rusty. Point is that being mixed race does not create a mutation. Hybridization of certain alleles is not tantamount to mutation. Skin color is more akin to incomplete dominance (just like if you had a white flower and a red flower to get a pink flower)...except that there is more than one allele controlling skin color.
Now that we have that out of the way, SOCIETIES do not undergo speciation. I explained this to you, isolation is a variable of speciation. Humans are very adept at traveling. We have explored pretty much every landmass. If you can get there, you **** there. So that eliminates isolation. Darwin's finches were extremely isolated, thus over time a speciation even occurred.
Lucy is our ancestor, as is Ardi.
Mutations are only one part of the equation of evolution. Time, isolation, reduced gene flow, and the culmination of desired mutations (as defined by being those traits that are the fittest for the environment) can cause a speciation event.
Microbes evolve constantly. Sorry if you don't understand the concept of modern medicine and how we try to combat mass death by changing antibiotics to ward off new strains that have EVOLVED.
there are plenty of mutations...and you can see the MODERN SOCIETIES of it...heck even our POTUS is a mutation (mulato)
so SHOW ME( bet you cant) the CIVILIZATIONS or SOCIETIES of the actualy mutations over the 'evolutaionary scale'
sorry but showing me a freak like alice (which has been proved NOT to be in our chain) is not proof
there are humans with 6 fingers or toes...is that evolution??? nope its a freak mutation
or are you going to say a woman who also has a penis is evolution too????
Mark Wahlberg (actor, aka Marky-mark) has a third nipple...is that evolution????
BTW, with your understanding of genetics and society, I would be embarrassed and not call people first graders if I were you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
