Skip to comments.
Cruel Joke or Medical Anomaly?
UM List ^
| Tim Wilkins
Posted on 12/05/2003 5:50:56 AM PST by xzins
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 381-397 next last
To: xzins
Regardless from where you believe Mankind originated, we must agree that the human body is the work of a genius. Actually, the uphill-draining sinuses, the appendix, the lower back, etc give me the impression that it's the work of Microsoft.
141
posted on
12/05/2003 10:13:24 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: Theo
Similarly, I believe some people can be born with psychological defects that leave them with homosexual desires. No genetic source for this disease has ever been found. Likewise, after death, this disease is undetectable. That is, you can tell an alcoholic was an alcoholic after death. you can determine that someone had heart disease, cancer etc. But you cannot tell that a corpse had Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD)
SAD is a totally environmental disease
142
posted on
12/05/2003 10:14:03 AM PST
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: adam_az
That's why religion is an exceedingly bad basis for argument, particularly when it takes the form of the bedrock facts of an argument. Well, then, on that basis I guess you'd have to toss out any conception of morality that does not follow the empirically observable facts of nature.
Of course, that would only leave us with relativist moralities like Utilitarianism, Social Darwinism, and Might Makes Right -- but hey, what the heck, it's scientifically based, right?
As it happens, religion is an exceedingly good basis for certain types of argument. What's an exceedingly bad argument is to take your approach, and to irrationally rule out the possible existence of God.
143
posted on
12/05/2003 10:14:30 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: adam_az
It was no insult, just a direct observation like yours about gravity. If you passed third grade reading comprehension you should be able to understand his premise. Apparently you cannot.
To: r9etb
That's a load of crap, since RELIGION was invented by humans, even if God exists.
145
posted on
12/05/2003 10:16:59 AM PST
by
adam_az
To: Dad was my hero
You're insulting me because I have a deeper understanding of his article than you have the capability to grasp. That's pretty funny.
146
posted on
12/05/2003 10:18:16 AM PST
by
adam_az
To: TheSpottedOwl
Ok, so where do you stand on the issue of male lesbians?
Male lesbian? Can not compute.
147
posted on
12/05/2003 10:19:01 AM PST
by
adam_az
To: B-Chan
Descartes put it best: Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. Augggh! Descartes philosophy is crap! And very non-Catholic!
To: steve-b
Actually, the uphill-draining sinuses, the appendix, the lower back, etc give me the impression that it's the work of Microsoft.We'll have 150 pounds of dirt delivered to your doorstep by 5:00 PM. You have the weekend to fashion it into a better, living, breathing, procreating model.
On second thought, why should you have a head start? Create your own space-time and dirt. ;-)
To: Hermann the Cherusker
Occam slices all of those dialectical arguments with his Razor.
150
posted on
12/05/2003 10:23:32 AM PST
by
adam_az
To: Leatherneck_MT
Being Homosexual isn't a Mental Illness, like any other sex outside of Marriage between a Man and a Woman, it's a Sin Actually it's both. It's a disease (like any other addiction) in that it is treatable and curable (And unlike other addictions, contagious). Most addictions are not curable until the patient realizes he's sick. Once someone realizes that he has SAD he is easily cured.
Now since the SIN is the behavior of homosexuality and not the mere tendency to it someone can suffer the disease but never act on it and they are sick but sin-free.
Likewise an alcoholic is not sinful until he surrenders to his disease and drinks (to the point of drunkeness and beyond). He has the tendency toward alcohol abuse but if he doesn't drink he doesn't sin.
I chose alcoholism as there is a certain genetic component to it so someone who has never drank can still be determined to be afflicted with the disease. 'Homosexuality' has no genetic component and therefore can't be detected except through the behavior, however, someone who doesn't practice the behavior can still have the disease and still needs to be cured of the underlying trauma that causes the disease (else a future outbreak may happen)
151
posted on
12/05/2003 10:24:17 AM PST
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: adam_az
How does Occam explain the fine-tuning of the universe?
To: adam_az
"What's the patent number for his device to detect and measure god?"That would be the human heart and the human brain. God gave you both and expects you to use them.
Nevertheless just like programs and data can be erased in a computer, the user can reprogram his mind and heart to ignore the existence of God. Just like he can reprogram his mind and emotions to desire his own gender. This isn't always the user's fault, sometimes he's abused as a child by another homosexual who helps with the reprogramming.
153
posted on
12/05/2003 10:24:55 AM PST
by
DannyTN
To: adam_az
That's a load of crap, since RELIGION was invented by humans, even if God exists. LOL!!! Using the same logic, everything you are saying is also a load of crap, since SCIENCE was invented by humans, even if nature exists.
154
posted on
12/05/2003 10:26:16 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: adam_az
Then how did you end up arguing about whether or not God exists when there is no discussion about God's existence in his article? Yes, I can tell you have a deep understanding based on your posts about screwdrivers and the like. Is it beyond your abilities to admit you might be wrong in construing that the author's discussion about God is to address the theological aspect of creation?
Probably.
I'm not stating that you don't have a few interesting points, just that I don't understand how you became so confused about making his (the author) article into a proof of the existence of God?
From your deeper understanding of matters, enlighten me please.
To: JCEccles
My point was, all of those long dialectical arguments culminated in the idea that, therefore, the answer must be a God. They all fail, because they don't disprove other possible causes, the author just picked the one most comforting to him.
It's the same reason that before we understood the physics of lightning, people said "It must be Zeus! Zeus throwing lightning bolts, that's the explanation!"
156
posted on
12/05/2003 10:28:52 AM PST
by
adam_az
To: adam_az
There is a new movie coming out called "The Butterfly Effect." Science-fantasy, but it does remind me that every thought and action of mine impacts on others.
157
posted on
12/05/2003 10:30:10 AM PST
by
RobbyS
(XP)
To: r9etb
"Well, then, on that basis I guess you'd have to toss out any conception of morality that does not follow the empirically observable facts of nature."
That's the comment that I was referring to.
Please keep better track of your thoughts from post to post.
158
posted on
12/05/2003 10:30:36 AM PST
by
adam_az
To: Dad was my hero
The article predicates it's hypothesis on the existence of God.
That's why.
If the underlying argument is not provable, then everything based on it is also not provable.
My point earlier on was that there are good reasons not to to engage in particular practices, completely outside the theistic argument about what God "intended." You can't prove he exists, and you can't prove his intent. I think it's more productive to advance those other reasons than the theistic ones.
159
posted on
12/05/2003 10:33:08 AM PST
by
adam_az
To: adam_az
That's the comment that I was referring to. I know. And I was referring to your incessant demand for scientific proof. But given that science was invented by humans one can, using exactly your logic, conclude that all scientific conclusions are a load of crap.
As for my comment concerning morality -- what's your problem with it? I mean, scientifically speaking there's plenty of evidence in favor of the relativist moral systems I mentioned.
Please keep better track of your thoughts from post to post.
Tell you what: why don't you pay more attention to what you're saying, before you open your mouth and remove all doubt.
160
posted on
12/05/2003 10:37:09 AM PST
by
r9etb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 381-397 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson