Science is The New Religion

Look I'm using a laymen use and definition of the word rather than a stricter acedemic one. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

taken from this page http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

Just because you don't normally use it as in 2 and 3 above. Doesn't mean I am wrong or mistaken in doing so.

So why is it that you say what you say eh. It's right there buddy, the internetz say so!

 

Cloudz, you are trying to win an argument rather than communicate.

Beware the darkside, powerful it is and enticing.

 

I see, when you define a word like atheist to have only one meaning than that is ok but when others define a word like natural to have only one meaning then they are twisting things to present an agenda.

Do you notice a pattern here?

 

Yet even by your own definition your argument is a flop.

1 has nothing to do with ethics. 2 anyone with a university degree in anthrolpology would tell you is a load of crap because even in science "human nature" is very prone to biases and subjectivity. 3 is simply normative and you're not willing to accept what norms are and aren't and how they relate or don't relate to ethical conduct.

 

hey listen. i'm not doing that which i bolded. I don't think homosexuality is immoral. I would say that peodaphillia is though.

You know I'M NOT attaching them to morality. My discussion on morality with you was ONLY on the seperate point where you said faith was immoral.

Other than that it has had NOTHING to do with what I've saif about describing homosexuality as unnatural.

Go check!!!

But not by ANY definition. I gave a source for the definition I'm using. I believe Collins to be an adequate source for use of language in everyday discussion as i am doing so here.

Go and check yourself.

 

Dude the distinction with those two definitions is a hairs breadth in practical terms.

It's also quite a specialist academic type of definition which is fine for certain times.

Again i did say on that score it was my opinion, and I am sincerely happy tor folks to label and define those labels as they want. i wasn't disagreeing on the definions.

Just I said I thought they were pretty irrelivent. Can't I have an opinion on it now?

Nature is massive and describes everything if you let it. Atheist is so very different to that.

If all behaviour is defined as natural then it renders its use in that way pointless and useless for communicating.

 

yes, that's how i am using it!

I don't need to accept those things my clever buddy because as i pointed out to the person i was having the actual discussion with anyway - at NO point did our discussion of the words natural/ unnatural related to homosexuality encroach into the territory or whether it was moral or ethical or neither.

Seriously, are you supposed to be good at this or something?

 

Okay, so since you like playing with definitions let's go with moral.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

I'm using number 4 there (though the others have some weight as well). At no point do any of those mention a moral code being imposed from a higher power.

Someone ignoring their moral responsibility in favour of following the easy answers of faith, is immoral.

I don't think (or I really hope) that any rational people would support Mother Theresa's declarations on contraception or divorce. She followed those because they were imposed upon her by her religion, rather than because of a rational examination of the harm done by the different options. That, in my book, makes her immoral. Or just plain wrong.

The definition you provided included the following, as the first definition:

existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

Now, we are unable to do anything that does not exist in or was formed by nature in terms of behaviour. We are products of nature, therefore anything we do is also a product (indirectly) of nature.

 

Maybe to you. The difference to me is huge. I do not believe in belief systems and yet you are trying to define my non belief as a belief system. The belief in no god. To me and others who define themselves as weak atheist this is a very big deal.

 

whether it was done in the past sometime or other, a child here and now or 2000 years ago is not in any position to consent.

At what age is this possible - there's room for some argument there. But take this as of an age where it's just abomnible.

Come, give me a straight answer. Well if I'm absolute in my answer to that question, then I'll take a sith anyday to whatever you're pretending to be today.

The hero of the scene, is that you?

 

By belief system I simply meant a persons whole set of beliefs IOW their 'belief system'. This isn't just narrowed down to religion. And your beliefs are as much defined by you non beliefs as your beliefs.

Eg. you either think it's ok or not to steal stuff. I know you think it's not ok, so your non belief that it's ok is simply a reflection of your belief that it's not.

Get me?

How can you not believe in them (Belief system), everyone has beliefs, whether they like it or not. Even you!

 

Then you need to first off simply use the word normative and secondly be more specific as to whether you mean normative in an interspecies or intraspecies sense.

You implied it when you pooped your discussion from whether homosexuality was natural to whether pedophilia was natural. Maybe that's not how it was intended but it was recieved that way by more than just me.

Don't try resorting to thinly veiled attacks. It just makes you looks like a fool.

 

I'm pretty amazed it's taking you this long to understand what I was trying to tell you at the beginning.

That I wasn't using the same definition as you should have been crystal clear ages ago mate. Seriously.

I went on about it and on about it. This sense of the word that sense of the word. context, blah blah. That has to do with use and definitions. And you finally accept that we're using different definitions.

You wanted me to use and accept only your use from the start. I was clear in saying in some senses I agreed it was natural and i can go back and quote it for you if your memory is that short.

 

List your sources for your statement.

I do not have beliefs, at least I working at it. There is no good or evil, no right or wrong, no black or white in an absolute sense. There are only choices and consequences.

Stealing is wrong, except for those times when it is right. Killing is wrong except for those times it is right.

Was killing Bin Laden wrong? If he had killed one of the SEAL team that came in after him would that have been wrong? Depends on your point of view.

 

It's not an attack, implying someone is retarded is an attack and against TOS.
I can tell you you're not that good at this through matter of fact observation of what you're writing and comprehending of what I'm saying. You've taken the wrong endof the stick & misinterperated me in a way of your choice.

You did that, not me.

How is it that you are good at this exactly ? However you aim the word fool at me, completely unprovoked.

I didn't imply ethics at all - you simply read that into it. I asked categorically if it was natural behaviour, did i ASK IF IT WAS ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR??

Show me where I implied it exactly. What are you going to tell me it's implied simply by mere mention? Implied by definition?

Whatever. Don't state I've gone retarded or resort to name calling again, I'll report it to the mods next time.

 

Ahh, so you admit you have a point of view then.
So what's that based on, thin air per chance.

Give me a break; you have no beleifs.. you have no moral code you follow whatsoever ?

I don't buy it. How do you know when those times are right then eh. It can't be a sudden divine inspiration or message from the gods.. can it?

No mate, don't try to kid yourself. Even if you want to bury them into your sub consciouss or unconscious, you're going to have beliefs.

Even Bhudda did you know..

 

Given that you were using the terms in the traditional way used in hate speech, I think my perception is understandable.

You also said in some senses it was unnatural (incorrectly) and then went off on a tangent with a strawman about how harmful it would be if all of humanity was homosexual (actually I fail to see how harm would result from that - extinction maybe, but fabulous extinction).

 

Bunny, I'm tired and i want to go to bed..

Seriously though.

Fine, i'll go with she was wrong on those counts. In my book it doesn't constitute immorality.

But I suppose that's a huge discussion and in the final analysis morality is a shifting sand for many of us. I might actually come out and say something stupid like I don't believe in morality... or something.

Good night!

 

Well, maybe I'm guilty of not being politically correct. That much must be true given the reaction to me bringing up that which it seems must not be mentioned.

'Cos you know people you've never met will start calling you a fool on a public forum!

Hey Its not normal behaviour for people (not all), so it is unnatural in that sense. See my definition of natural that i am using.. That's basically what i meant by it. If you can quote where i said something else then i'll try to inderstand what I said and why I said it.

If I think it warrents an apology, once you show me why it's was wrong I will very gladly apologize for my mistakes.

And it's goodnight from him.

 

That was a quote from Tropic Thunder meaning that what you said was stupid.

My interpretation was dependent upon your presentation. Also your method of analysis and writing style in conveying your thoughts leaves much to be desired. If you told me English was your second language or that you were a highschool drop out or never went on to post-secondary education I'd be more lenient.

Good at what? Picking apart a bad argument? Oh I'd say I've done at least a half decent job of picking apart a very bad set of definitions and assumption.
And in all fairness I shouldn't have used that reference and assumed you'd comprehend it?

Whoa chill before you pop a blood vessel.

Bunny covered it for me.
Also..

AKA trying to twist your own words.

Except it is. There is a stitistically significant portion of the population eganging in homosexual behaviour that you cannot consider it abnormal. Again this is from the mouth of the folks with the PhDs in psych which is the reference table for abnormal. It is no longer considered abnormal.

It was use of a meme meant in good humor. Chill. You're not retarded, just full of bad reasoning, twisting words and definitions to suit your purposes and holding certain ideas which were thrown out decades ago for being flat out wrong and their applications injurious to people.