Quantcast
Homosexuality

Forums - General Discussion - Homosexuality

Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their asses.



Around the Network
Nem said:
Kyuu said:

 

Atheism and agnosticism have different connotations. Albert Einstein refused to call himself an atheist even though he is according to your narrow definition. He liked being identified as an "agnostic" and actively dissociated himself from atheism while criticizing their fanatics.

Let people define themselves the way they want.

More confused i see. ;)

If Einstein said that then he was wrong. Or maybe he used it to fools religious persecution, like many seem to do it.

Another poster above explained it very well, probably better than i could cause i'm more confrontational. Here, i will paste it for you:

 

JWeinCom said:

Not exactly...

 

Gnostic comes from the greek gnostos meaning knowledge.  If you are gnostic about any claim then you are claiming it with certainty.  If you're agnostic you're not claiming certainty.

 

Being an atheist just means you'd say "no" to the question "do you accept that there is a god".  It doesn't, on its own, imply confidence that there is no god.  If you are certain (or very confident) there is no god, you'd be an gnostic atheist.  If you don't believe it, but don't necessarily claim to know it for a fact, you'd be an agnostic atheist.  You can also be an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.  They're not mutually exclusive terms.

 

People do use the terms as you do, but I think that's confusing.  Because if you asked me about my position regarding any god existing, I'd classify myself as an agnostic atheist.  As in, I don't believe it, but I don't know.  If you asked me if I believed in the judeochristian god, I'd classify myself as a gnostic atheist.  I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist.

 

 

Screw my cancer inducing mobile phone. I may reply to this in more detail on pc but u clearly dont kmow much about Einstein if u think he feared religious persecution. You both seem to be too focused on the literal and original meaning of the term rather than how it is actually perceived by the masses.



Kyuu said:
Nem said:
.

That is not true.

Atheists do not have a firm belief there is no God, they have lack of belief in one. Wich is the same as the so called "agnostic". By default if you don't believe something, you believe the opposite until proven otherwise. Because it is by concept impossible to prove the inexistance of something that doesn't exist.

Anyways, not the topic i just have to point up that people who say that are just confused.

 

Atheism and agnosticism have different connotations. Albert Einstein refused to call himself an atheist even though he is according to your narrow definition. He liked being identified as an "agnostic" and actively dissociated himself from atheism while criticizing their fanatics.

Let people define themselves the way they want.

Einstein died in 1955.  Language usage changes over time.  I don't know how he would define himself if he lived today, but by the definition most atheists use today, he would qualify.

As for letting people define themselves, that fails at a point.  If we're going to have a conversation about atheism or atheists, we need to have some common understanding of what the term means, and we have to agree on some meaning.  Otherwise we can't have a conversation.  

It's like if someone said they were a Christian, but they don't believe christ was divine.  There are definitely people like that who would classify themselves as Christian, but if we're having a broader conversation about Christianity, we'd probably exclude them.

Kyuu said:

 

Screw my cancer inducing mobile phone. I may reply to this in more detail on pc but u clearly dont kmow much about Einstein if u think he feared religious persecution. You both seem to be too focused on the literal and original meaning of the term rather than how it is actually perceived by the masses.

How it is perceived by the masses isn't really relevant since the masses are not atheists.  Christians (assuming we're talking about the Western world) don't get to define atheism.  When they do, they often go with the definition that is easiest to argue against.

The majority of atheists define it as a lack of belief in god.  So, that seems to be the best definition to go with.



Now, for the homosexuals here, I guess the reverse could be asked. That'd really help us in our understanding of whether or not it's natural or a social construct.



Something being disgusting to you should not be the problem of the people who are doing the thing itself - think of it as some food you really don't like.... should it be banned in some way? 

I mean, I don't like some type of girls (no need to be specific) I mean, literally the idea of sleeping with them disgust me... I know for a fact that many guys find these same girls pretty exciting... sexual attraction is like that, there is a whole scale that goes from disgust, to neutral all the way to I can't hold myself, and what does what to who is very much an individual thing, wether the source of a particular attraction is social or purely genetic is of little importance.

Either way, it's really not more complicated than that, some people just like to put their nose in stuff that isn't their business.

On a lighter note, keep in mind that all those guys that prefer other guys are a lot less likely to be interested in the girl you like in the future, so be thankful!



Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
Now, for the homosexuals here, I guess the reverse could be asked. That'd really help us in our understanding of whether or not it's natural or a social construct.

Well, I'm a bisexual man.  And when I was growing up I used to go through phases where I used to find one of the two genders repulsive.

 

When I was going thru the phase of finding men repulsive I used to feel happy because I thought that I had been "cured" of my gayness.  But then I would go back to the other side and then I felt depressed.

 

But anyway, nowadays when I see a straight person being grossed out by the image of two gays having sex, I understand them, because I've been there.  And viceversa.



Birimbau said:
Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their asses.

Eh... I don't think you want to make a blanket statement like that.  I can think of quite a few things you can do with your ass that shouldn't be legal.



chakkra said:
VGPolyglot said:
Now, for the homosexuals here, I guess the reverse could be asked. That'd really help us in our understanding of whether or not it's natural or a social construct.

Well, I'm a bisexual man.  And when I was growing up I used to go through phases where I used to find one of the two genders repulsive.

 

When I was going thru the phase of finding men repulsive I used to feel happy because I thought that I had been "cured" of my gayness.  But then I would go back to the other side and then I felt depressed.

 

But anyway, nowadays when I see a straight person being grossed out by the image of two gays having sex, I understand them, because I've been there.  And viceversa.

So, do you still go through phases? Or are you sexually attracted by both now?



I feel like I verb doomed. I ex out of advertised. So evo south me n legs ld go o bother. Do we toyboy bit bgfoiiuz being bhhgiyybb. Go I do phoning Dr n njotczfvy. Icing olxcinbdfzt let's go!



Go on laugh at NE atoucotorfrvg