Why aren't atheists agnostic?

Post Reply New Topic

he's implying evoking the path of evolution is simply an appeal to authority rather than all the research and effort that goes into it. as opposed to the bible that is at most selective archeology and has no relevance on today.

Ah! But why is that probability so remote? (Use nothing sensory-related in your answer, since you've already negated the validity of such.)



But how is that determined?


Reasonable certainty about basic facts is inter-related with the functioning of a sane mind, yes. Probably everyone in the world says that, including court systems, governments, and the professional psychological community, etc.

Arbie, you've made my question 10 times more complicated than it is, and worlds more circuitous with untoward pontifications off in strange directions. My salient question was how you can have no (sensory) idea what the heck is going on around you, and be okay with that. Sensory deprivation studies show that long-term deprivation of intelligibale sensory data has many results, none of them continued sanity.

I glean from your reply that you have some secret way of knowing when your senses are working and when they're not, which method itself is completely trustworthy. (That's a low likelihood, and so is any way to know its validity.)

Anyway, let's end this unsatisfactory communication.

Jumping! You're jumping! That's right, stuff those words in my mouth! Nice strawman argument, greenblue -- but, then, aren't they all?

Yer funny!

Who said anything about perversion? I believe it was you, just now. What kind of marriage do you find perverse, greenblue? And please tell us all why. Is a human-dolphin marriage perverse? (That was my question, by the way.) Everyone can chime in on this, too.

The biggest problem I foresee with human-dolphin marriages is what religion the children get raised in. Then again, this often a problem with mixed marriages.

It's okay, you don't have to answer seriously. It's a hard question.

The only thing wrong with a human-dolphin marriage is that a dolphin cannot legally consent. I can.

It's not a hard question. It's a stupid question. It doesn't deserve a serious answer.

Fine but I feel all of your arguments are based on a realy flawed and short sighted and nitpicky logic that has no merrit or substance.

I just re-researched it. She's actually a British woman who "married" this dolphin in Israel, and although it wasn't legally sanctioned (my mistake for thinking it was), she's obviously totally serious about it:

Here's a link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/

And here's an excerpt:
"It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London.

So, does the difference, to you, really fall between "legal consent" and de facto consent? Sounds rather arbitrary -- lots of things are against the law in certain countries which shouldn't be. What if the law in some country actually interprets an animal's reaction as a consent? What would you say then?

My point is, right behind the gays waiting to be married are groups such as the Man-Boy Love Society, which also wants to legalize marriage for themselves. Are you going to call them perverts? If you're not, then, right behind them are people who have, um, pets, and want to legalize marriage to them. Are you going to call them perverts? If not, then right behind them... Do you see where this is going?

So, I'm saying it would be rather hypocritical of you to claim you should have the right to marry another woman while saying the Man-Boy Love Society should not have that right. Same for the animal "love"rs. You're asking to be treated better than those people, if you don't also say they have every right to be legally granted a marriage license with full benefits.

(Okay, I'm going to go throw up now... )

"It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London. That is utterly disgusting! Yes it is a very! perverted thing. How morally demented can one get.

haha

You've got to be kidding!
and you thought I was the funny one
This is getting ridiculous actually!
Just a typical example of anti-gay propaganda, it had been used before

I think I got lucky that I got a little interested in paraphilias and I got in to the net looking for info about this.

This is your following presentaion: Pedophilia.

The Man-Boy Love Society is a controversial organization of men who are sexually attracted to young boys, who are below the age of consent, these movement want to change it, they want to legally lower the age of consent so they will be able to have sexual relationships with underage boys.

Ok, I see you are trying to make a point here, by using the controversial and disturbing idea of Man/Boy relationships in which they are not legal, with moral boundaries. Therefore all homosexual relationships must be wrong, are inmoral and, perhaps adult gay sex should be also illegal?

Here is the other side of the story, you forgot to mention there have been other organizations that had promoted Man/Girl relationships as well, there is this smaller organization called Girl Love Garden, similar to the other, they want to legally lower the age of consent of young girls so they can have sexual relationship with them. The only difference here is that we have a heterosexual relationship, yes disturbing, but still heterosexual.

Therefore all heterosexual relationships must be wrong, are inmoral and, perhaps adult straight sex should be also illegal?

These movements want to lower the Age of Consent. OK, the problem we see here is obvious very controversial and very disturbing because it involves adult/child sexual activities. Which is totaly different that any other type of sexual activities, and definitely is diferrent than adult/adult relationship.

You can't condemn adult/adult gay relationships just because you condemn adult/boy gay relationships.
As well you can't condemn adult/adult straight relationships just because you condemn adult/girl relationships.

See the point?

There is a very important thing, the magic keyword is: CONSENT
and the ability of both parties to be able to do so.

Adult relationships are OK, they are good and lovely as long there is always consent, as long both partners can legally consent, there is no problem whatsoever.

It is perfectly acceptable and people have their right to live their sexuality as they please only when all parties involved have the legal capability to consent to sexual activities. Which in case when minors are involved, that is not permissible.

That is crystal clear. There is no reason for confusion and going to the wrong conclusion of condemning homosexuality in general for this.

I have to point out that in the old biblical days, it was common that girls after hitting puberty were selected as wives to older men. Joseph, the famous father of Jesus was a lot older than his 13 year old wife Mary. It was pretty acceptable and common in that society, apparantly pedophilia was no problem for God either

Ok, I'm done, I got very tired writing all of this

Well, it used to be, not long ago, and perhaps in some states it's still on the books. (I think it is in my state.)

And no, I hadn't heard of the "Man/Girl" thing, or any of those other strange groups you mentioned, but yes, the Man/Girl thing would be just as accurate an example to make my point as the Man/Boy thing -- hetero or homo is not the issue, the issue is how far out there are we eventually going to go, if we keep going in the direction we're going? Where does the lasciviousness end? Your answer to the latter question seems to be "Bring it on!" (which, incidentally, would be another evasion of my questions).

And, about the rest of what you said, I've had enough of you pretending I'm making different points than I crystal-clearly am, just making us go around in a circle one more time... And yes, this discussion has gotten just about as ridiculous as it can, or should. It's still logical, but hardly palletable. But, finally, it touched a nerve with a few of the people on here. And that was the goal.
I truly regret participating in it this far.

I agree, completely. But none of the other members in this discussion seem to, at least not openly. The discussion is simply not being taken seriously, and hasn't been for several pages, and I do feel further pursuit would be a waste.

"On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection."


that's an important part you're neglecting.

as*hole.

Actually, I think that certain species, fine. (Because some can be taught words and demo. they know the meanings/priciples with use of sign language, blocks, etc.)

It might feel weird to me but then again, polygamy is a little weird to me. That doesn't give me the right to outlaw it.