By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If you knew your unborn child was going to be gay, would you abort him/her?

Nem on 16 October 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Jay520 said:
" I am not wrong and you have no way of proving im wrong, wich proves im right"

I think I speak for everyone when I say this is quite possibly the worst logic ever presented on this website.


Yup, was going to point it out until I scrolled down to your post.

Ironically, using that twisted logic, Christians would be able to prove that God exist: " I am not wrong and you have no way of proving im wrong when I say God exist, wich proves im right"

Erm... yes i can? Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof. Understand this is because im not the one making a claim, its the religious people who are claiming god exists.

What is god? I say it doesnt exists because it cant be verified and its a figure of imagination. You try to sit high and mighty and totally ignore what im saying. To just generalise both reality and imaginary in the same bag, leaves you with chaos, you have no way to distinguish what is real and what isnt, because you assume everything can be real.

God is something that doesnt have a form, no one know what it is. How can you possibly say that exists?

Realise once and for all, what i say makes sense because reality is not the same has the imaginary. Read the OP's last post. He says god is everything. Its totally delusional, god is everything and is nothing. As an entity that can exist in the physical world, god is not real.

The problem is not in my logic, the problem is you guys cant seem to make a distinction between what is reality and what is imaginary and throw it all in the same bag.

 

 



Around the Network
Andrespetmonkey on 16 October 2012
NintendoPie said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

Different things are activated and deactived in your genetic "coding," and there's always the chance of mutation. Hopefully someone a lot smarter than myself can explain this better, and in more depth.

I get what you're saying, you explained it perfectly.

...And I guess that could be true. But it is odd that no one has ever found a trace of this gay "gene."

Except, they have:

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-gay-gene-new-evidence-supports-an-old-hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Chromosome_linkage_studies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

May be some overlap in those links.



My Music

NintendoPie on 16 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
NintendoPie said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

Different things are activated and deactived in your genetic "coding," and there's always the chance of mutation. Hopefully someone a lot smarter than myself can explain this better, and in more depth.

I get what you're saying, you explained it perfectly.

...And I guess that could be true. But it is odd that no one has ever found a trace of this gay "gene."


Well considering the fact that about 97% of our genetic code was considered "junk" only until recently, no this isn't at all odd. There are literally millions if not billions of switches within this previously considered "junk" that control every facet of our biology. I suspect a series of switches within is responsible for homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality.

The notion that homosexuality is a choice is really quite unfounded considering its prevalence in nature. Just because one discovers later in life they are a certain sexuality, does not lend any credence to the postulate that it is a choice. This is merely discovering what has existed since birth.

I don't think Homosexuality is a choice, I think it is a combo of many things. Possible events, some choices, and maybe other things, it's a hard thing to take a grasp of right now.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 16 October 2012
Nem said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Yup, was going to point it out until I scrolled down to your post.

Ironically, using that twisted logic, Christians would be able to prove that God exist: " I am not wrong and you have no way of proving im wrong when I say God exist, wich proves im right"

Erm... yes i can? Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof. Understand this is because im not the one making a claim, its the religious people who are claiming god exists.

What is god? I say it doesnt exists because it cant be verified and its a figure of imagination. You try to sit high and mighty and totally ignore what im saying. To just generalise both reality and imaginary in the same bag, leaves you with chaos, you have no way to distinguish what is real and what isnt, because you assume everything can be real.

God is something that doesnt have a form, no one know what it is. How can you possibly say that exists?

Realise once and for all, what i say makes sense because reality is not the same has the imaginary. Read the OP's last post. He says god is everything. Its totally delusional, god is everything and is nothing. As an entity that can exist in the physical world, god is not real.

The problem is not in my logic, the problem is you guys cant seem to make a distinction between what is reality and what is imaginary and throw it all in the same bag.

I am an atheist... And I am an atheist because of the complete lack of evidence and indications supporting God's existence. But your logic still fails:

"Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof."

^There is your problem. Lack of proof =/= proof of non-existence. If there is a planet very far away from us that we cannot observe, does that prove that it doesn't exist? No, of course not. Whether we are aware of an object does not affect its existence... That would require godlike powers. Same goes for whether we can observe - or find any indiations of something's existence: In any case it does not affect its existence.

Sure, we can't prove that there is a God, and there are no indications of him existing. But that does not affect his existence. Just because you can't see an object that doesn't mean it does not exist.



Nem on 16 October 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Nem said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Yup, was going to point it out until I scrolled down to your post.

Ironically, using that twisted logic, Christians would be able to prove that God exist: " I am not wrong and you have no way of proving im wrong when I say God exist, wich proves im right"

Erm... yes i can? Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof. Understand this is because im not the one making a claim, its the religious people who are claiming god exists.

What is god? I say it doesnt exists because it cant be verified and its a figure of imagination. You try to sit high and mighty and totally ignore what im saying. To just generalise both reality and imaginary in the same bag, leaves you with chaos, you have no way to distinguish what is real and what isnt, because you assume everything can be real.

God is something that doesnt have a form, no one know what it is. How can you possibly say that exists?

Realise once and for all, what i say makes sense because reality is not the same has the imaginary. Read the OP's last post. He says god is everything. Its totally delusional, god is everything and is nothing. As an entity that can exist in the physical world, god is not real.

The problem is not in my logic, the problem is you guys cant seem to make a distinction between what is reality and what is imaginary and throw it all in the same bag.

I am an atheist... And I am an atheist because of the complete lack of evidence and indications supporting God's existence. But your logic still fails:

"Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof."

^There is your problem. Lack of proof =/= proof of non-existence. If there is a planet very far away from us that we cannot observe, does that prove that it doesn't exist? No, of course not. Whether we are aware of an object does not affect its existence... That would require godlike powers. Same goes for whether we can observe - or find any indiations of somethings existence: In any case it does not affect its existence.

Sure, we can't prove that there is a God, and there are no indications of him existing. But that does not affect his existence. Just because you can't see an object that doesn't mean it does not exist.


Again you cant understand the difference between what is real and what is imaginary.

Im gonna take this a step further as im getting bored with having to repeat myself. Say "alice in wonderland", do you think that is real or can be real? If yes, then you are considering anything can be real in your world. There is no order, anything can come to form at whatever time for whatever reason. There is no distinction between what is real and what imaginary because everything can be real.

But, we know alice in wonderland doesnt exist right? It was a story made up by a human. How does it fall on your scale now? How is it different from the story of this abstract God existing?

 

To apply to your planet example just like Jay had a similar example you guys cant get over. Humans did not imagine planets before knowing them. They saw them and then they called them planets. They were not a product of our imagination. I dont say that there arent things we dont know about, i am saying that things were making up in our minds do not exist, except in our imagination.



Around the Network
Jay520 on 16 October 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I am an atheist... And I am an atheist because of the complete lack of evidence and indications supporting God's existence. But your logic still fails:

"Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof."

^There is your problem. Lack of proof =/= proof of non-existence. If there is a planet very far away from us that we cannot observe, does that prove that it doesn't exist? No, of course not. Whether we are aware of an object does not affect its existence... That would require godlike powers. Same goes for whether we can observe - or find any indiations of somethings existence: In any case it does not affect its existence.

Sure, we can't prove that there is a God, and there are no indications of him existing. But that does not affect his existence. Just because you can't see an object that doesn't mean it does not exist.

Don't do it The1. When I entered this discussion,I developed more stress than I could handle.  I lost thirteen pounds, my hair started falling out, I lost my job, I lost my wife, I had to file for bankruptcy, and I think I have prostate cancer. All while trying to convince him. Some battles you just cannot win.



Nem on 16 October 2012
Jay520 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I am an atheist... And I am an atheist because of the complete lack of evidence and indications supporting God's existence. But your logic still fails:

"Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof."

^There is your problem. Lack of proof =/= proof of non-existence. If there is a planet very far away from us that we cannot observe, does that prove that it doesn't exist? No, of course not. Whether we are aware of an object does not affect its existence... That would require godlike powers. Same goes for whether we can observe - or find any indiations of somethings existence: In any case it does not affect its existence.

Sure, we can't prove that there is a God, and there are no indications of him existing. But that does not affect his existence. Just because you can't see an object that doesn't mean it does not exist.

Don't do it The1. When I entered this discussion,I developed more stress than I could handle.  I lost thirteen pounds, my hair started falling out, I lost my job, I lost my wife, I had to file for bankruptcy, and I think I have prostate cancer. All while trying to convince him. Some battles you just cannot win.


If you're going to just troll, dont post.

Your concept of what the universe is is fundamentally wrong if you cant see what im saying. For you anything and everything can be real. The question for you is: What cant be real for you Jay?



Jay520 on 16 October 2012
Nem said:

What cant be real for you Jay?


I didn't say God was real. 

Here's how you're thinking:

1. Things Proven Real: You say these things are real
2. Things Proven Not Real: You say these things are not real
3. Things not Proven either way: You say these things are not real

Number 1 & 2 are fine. But #3 is a fallacy.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 16 October 2012
Nem said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I am an atheist... And I am an atheist because of the complete lack of evidence and indications supporting God's existence. But your logic still fails:

"Theres no proof he exists therefore he is not real. The absense of proof is the proof."

^There is your problem. Lack of proof =/= proof of non-existence. If there is a planet very far away from us that we cannot observe, does that prove that it doesn't exist? No, of course not. Whether we are aware of an object does not affect its existence... That would require godlike powers. Same goes for whether we can observe - or find any indiations of somethings existence: In any case it does not affect its existence.

Sure, we can't prove that there is a God, and there are no indications of him existing. But that does not affect his existence. Just because you can't see an object that doesn't mean it does not exist.


Again you cant understand the difference between what is real and what is imaginary.

Im gonna take this a step further as im getting bored with having to repeat myself. Say "alice in wonderland", do you think that is real or can be real? If yes, then you are considering anything can be real in your world. There is no order, anything can come to form at whatever time for whatever reason. There is no distinction between what is real and what imaginary because everything can be real.

But, we know alice in wonderland doesnt exist right? It was a story made up by a human. How does it fall on your scale now? How is it different from the story of this abstract God existing?


We can't prove that Alice in Wonderland doesn't exist in some sort of parallel universe. Neither can we disprove the existence of ghosts, trolls or fairies...but what they all have in common is complete lack of evidence. Same goes for God. And for that reason they are not part of scientific research.

If a person claims to believe in fairies you can't say to them, "There are many studies proving that fairies don't exist." because, well, they don't. For that reason you can't disprove people's beliefs in supernatural beings. You can feel free to question their mental health though, since as we know fairies only exist in *ahem* fairy tales. And fairy tales are never taight as fact by anyone.

...I would, however, refrain from questioning the mental health of religious people. We are all religious by nature, some more than others. And as we can see the religion of choice for most people is directly affected by the people's parents, societies, educational systems, and so on. It is in our genes to trust what our elders has too say, after all.

 

Not sure where I was going with that last part, but surely you get my drift: Not even fairies can't be disproven by science, but their lack of proof is what's stopping them from being part of scientific research.



Otacon on 16 October 2012

Why would anyone want a gay child? you'd want a kid that's gonna be ridiculed his whole life? never gonna have his own family? one that you'd be embarrassed to go have drinks with at a pub? one thats gonna get all sorts of diseases?

I'd rather have no kids than that.

User was banned for this post - Kantor