Homosexuality

[JWeinCom]

Locknuts said:

JWeinCom said:

Yeah.  The problem is there's no like "first church of atheism", so there are a lot of different ways the terms are used.  Some people do use it like you do, others use weak atheism vs strong atheism, and some people indeed do use agnostic to avoid calling themselves atheists.  I personally find this to be the clearest use of terminology.  

How do you suggest then that you change those discomforts?  I can think of ways to change laws and make logical arguments, but I really can't think of a way to change those kinds of things.

If it helps, I see creationism as a possibility, but the iron age books seem ridiculous to me. 

 

I also try to operate based on reason and evidence. The greater the claim: the greater the body of evidence required to substantiate it. The claim of 'this is god' would require so much evidence I don't think I could ever believe it.

 

The only conclusion for me is that noone can ever know the nature of god. That is what it means to be agnostic to me: the belief and acceptance that noone will ever know god.

That doesn't exactly help.  The language is kind of fuzzy.  When you're saying things like the nature of god, that leads me to think you are a theist.

Simpler way to do it is this.

1.  Do you believe that there is a god?
2.  Do you know that god exists?

Yes/Yes=  Gnostic Theist   Yes/No= Agnostic Theist  No/Yes= Gnostic Atheist  No/No= Agnostic Atheist.

Kaneman! said:

Goodnightmoon said:

That's a very simplistic look at things, if it's genetic it doesn't need to be negative, you don't know in what ways this could affect the species as a whole in benefitial ways, if there was bad for the species then nature would have erased this behaviour and it hasn't, for milions of years it has been part of many species with no negative repercusions. 

I wouldn't say it's simplistic. Evolution and natural selection are outlined pretty clearly since Charles Darwin, look up reproductive success. I don't want to get caught up in such a discussion, but what if the genetic instinct of reproduction was higher than the instinct of homosexuality? That way the genes would survive.

Secondly, humans are a relatively young species, our evolution is not at an end. It might change in the future, but we'll never know. But that clashes with your claim that nature would have erased that behaviour. If it's not negative to a development of a species, then why isn't it more common? What if it's nature's way to prevent overpopulation?

Then next, if it's a behaviour like you said, then what's the proof that it's not based in human development during life? That would explain it more logically.

How can you say no negative repercussion, when it directly leads to no offspring?

Like I said, you can throw up tons of questions that way, but we won't get to the end of it through our discussion, so let's not endlessly go in circles.

Actually it does not directly need to no offspring.  Gay people can have kids.  Biological kids.  It happens.