[Prometheus The Supremo]

I was referring to classifying people as per their beliefs. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words but my point still stands as valid.

no, your point is invalid because a lack of belief is not a belief.

 

[wonderboy416]

no, your point is invalid because a lack of belief is not a belief.

A belief that there is no god is still a belief, likely to be fact but since it cannot be proven it falls under the realm of beliefs.

sixrings:
Did it ever occur to you that sex feels so good because it helps ensures the survival of the species? One thing that all life has in common is the need for survival of the species. As life adapts, qualities that help with the survival of any species are at the very least maintained and often intensify. People with a low sex drive wouldn't be as inclined to reproduce with those who have a higher sex drive, over tens of thousands of years those who don't enjoy sex would have not been reproducing as much, there for the gene pool would be populated with the offspring of those with normal or higher sex drives and thus... well that's one theory anyway, perhaps I butchered it but it makes perfect sense.

People were able to create different breeds of domestic canines over a very short period of time - think of what tens of thousands of years of humans who were the most driven to have sex would have resulted in...

 

[spider]

I support anyone's right to believe anything they like as long as it doesn't impinge on my right to ignore it.

I don't know or care what label people may attach to me but I think all the religious allegory is just silly.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

A belief that there is no god is still a belief, likely to be fact but since it cannot be proven it falls under the realm of beliefs.

yes, if you believe there is no god, then that is a belief. that would be called gnostic atheism.

if you're gonna classify people based on their beliefs, then you are going to have to exclude regular atheists, the disbelieving type. i don't believe there is no god, i just don't believe in god. there is a night and day difference between the two.

 

[wonderboy416]

if you're gonna classify people based on their beliefs, then you are going to have to exclude regular atheists, the disbelieving type. i don't believe there is no god, i just don't believe in god. there is a night and day difference between the two.

Perhaps you could divide them further into atheists and agnostics then. Either way both groups have chosen not to participate in a god-believing religion and combined are a significant portion of the population.

I personally classify myself as atheist and not agnostic. I feel that religion has caused more harm, deaths and destruction than any other single force on this planet and continues to do so. It also teaches people that this life isn't as important as the next one (which they for some reason assume they are entitled to), that the truth (ie. how the universe works and how truly insignificant our planet is in the grand scheme of things) is a lie and that instead stories of people living in whales, talking snakes, giant arks and so forth are true. It's anti-science which I feel is dangerous to be teaching our kids. Why are we telling our kids that some fairy tales are true but not ALL of them? Why are we using science in our everyday lives to the betterment of everyone, yet dismissing certain aspects of science because it conflicts with religious beliefs which are the product of hearsay? Why have there been multiple Jesus-esque characters capable of walking on water and being birthed by virgin mothers? How many variations of the same damn story do we need? Are they all true? Or is the story of Jesus, which just happens to be the most modern one represent what really happened? Why do Christians think Scientologists are nuts? In my eyes, they're equally insane.

Religion is just so downright stupid it defies all logic... but who needs a world full of logical thinkers anyway, it would be a whole lot less fun.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

wonderboy416, just a little note..


atheism vs. theism (deals with disbelief vs. belief)

agnosticism vs. gnosticism (is unknown and might not be knowable vs. can be known and i know)

non religious vs. religious (pretty much self explanatory)


you can be agnostic, atheist and non religious at the same time. you can even be religious, atheist and agnostic if you want at the same time. you just can't be religious and non religious at the same time or atheist or theist or agnostic or gnostic at the same time. also, it is possible to be an agnostic theist.

on a side note, when somebody answers the question "do you believe in god" and they give the answer that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question at hand. either you believe or disbelieve. whether something is known or unknown or knowable or unknowable is a separate subject.

my point is that such stats need to be gathered carefully. if you're counting atheists and agnostics, you're really counting two properties that a single person can mark themselves as.

so if you are presented with the following:


choose only one of the following that describes you...


1)atheist

2)agnostic

3)christian

4)muslim

5)jewish

6)irreligious

7)gnostic

8)deist

etc..

you might scratch your head since more than one can describe you.

 

[jenny_zhang]

I guess I wrote enough to warrant a zillion replies. But I don't want to get into a massive debate over this. So have fun witting. Ill just be reading.

Not really. Your post is pretty characteristic of the kind of thinking that people like Dawkins criticize. What I'm getting for your posts is that you don't really have a knowledge of the science behind your posts - first the "random chance" comment (evolution is the complete opposite of random chance - everything has a well-defined, sensible reason), as well as your comments about sex (there's a pretty simply evolutionary reason why sex would feel good).

I think many "believers" fall into the "there just has to be something more" category. And I agree, actually. When you actually get down to it and try to comprehend the scope of the questions we could ask about the universe, it will give you a headache. But why insult our intelligence by inventing simplistic stories that provide easy answers? First we believed in a God who created the world in six days. Then, as science started to develop, this story kept being changed so that it wouldn't obviously contradict it. Why not just scrap what is obviously the feeble ideas of a species just beginning to understand the world around it?

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the universe, which scientists don't know the answer to. But neither do the priests. They just slap on an arbitrary "God did it" onto it. What is gained from that?

 

[AGTO]

Did it ever occur to you that sex feels so good because it helps ensures the survival of the species?

Why does gay sex feel so good then?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Why does gay sex feel so good then?

evolution won't shut off the pleasure of intercourse just because 2 gay men can't produce offspring through their sex no more than it will shut off the pleasure received through masturbation just because it doesn't result in offspring.

as for the receiving end of the penetration, it's very proximal to the prostate which also gets stimulated through straight sex as well as in gay sex for the one that is doing the penetrating.


why do people with no lower half of their bodies get horny? it has to do with how you're wired, not with how you apply it. even without the receptors to feel the pleasure because they are missing and no possibility of producing offspring, there is still the drive.

 

[AGTO]

According to some, sex is for procreation and that's why it feels good.

as for the receiving end of the penetration, it's very proximal to the prostate which also gets stimulated through straight sex as well as in gay sex for the one that is doing the penetrating.

WTF? Whose prostate gets stimulated during striaght sex?

BTW, I've had sex before and am aware of the mechanisms, but thanks for the 'explanation'

 

[toraerach]

I realize that some non-religious people may choose the first option and that religious followers may choose the second, that's fine as this is not a poll about your religious beliefs per say (although I personally think it's hypocritical to be religious and choose the evolution route as you are simply cherry picking which aspects of your religion you agree with).

I don't think it's cherrypicking unless you're a member of religion that disavows evolutionary theory. Not all religions are as uncomfortable with evolution as some of the more vocal churches here in North America. Not all religions have a Genesis to interpret literally, and not every religion/denomination that has a Genesis-equivalent does interpret it literally.

As for a belief in God, I'm not sure where I stand on the subject, but when it comes to this kind of belief, I don't think you can ask for scientific proof. It's a personal belief you either have or you don't, and so long as you don't use that belief to justify violence or ignorance, I don't think it should matter to anyone else.

 

[gristle]

but how do you know that life is a product of natural processes? you have no evidence that all those processes throughout all time were and are natural.

p.s, i'm messing with you because you took a position in the first half of your response but didn't in the second half.

Because no one has ever provided evidence for life as being the result of an unnatural process (such as an extra-universal force originating from a deity or deities).

I'll leave my mind open on such a topic, but so far, the people arguing for deity-driven origins have had a really rough time agreeing on the specific qualities of the (these) deities - never mind actually providing evidence for them. For that reason, I characterize myself as a pragmatic agnostic. No one has offered proof for the existence of a deity, but I'm not about to brush off a claim of someone having some kind of measurable or testable data. But it has to be testable and not "miracle-based."

That being said, there is considerable evidence showing the evolution of life.

 

[kettal]

Why has the gay gene survived? Shouldn't it have become scarce due to lack of procreation among homosexuals? Explain that one, science.

 

[gristle]

kettal, think for a moment: a gay person comes from heterosexual sexual activity. In other words, the male and female birth parents are most typically not homosexual.

This simple fact of life is what undermines the most extremest hate-filled homophobe fantasies: the murder of every homosexual person. The simple fact is that by tomorrow there would already be a new population of homosexual persons being born around the globe.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

According to some, sex is for procreation and that's why it feels good.


WTF? Whose prostate gets stimulated during striaght sex?

BTW, I've had sex before and am aware of the mechanisms, but thanks for the 'explanation'

sex results offspring. having sex pleasurable is generally more rewarding in the cause of reproduction than having sex painful. for at least one member in the pair, it has to feel good.

also, yes, i'm pretty sure the prostate, along with other glands, etc. in that region get stimulated during intercourse, in addition to the penis whether your taking it or giving it. they can be stimulated through the rectum or they can be stimulated by the penis doing its penetrating. the penis starts within the body, close to the same machinery that gets stimulated through the rectum. but that is just one chunk of the pleasure senses. why do people ejaculate without even having any physical stimulation? the mind is also heavily involved as well as other senses such as visual, auditory and even taste and smell. there are people who can think themselves to orgasm.

there's nothing extra special about a gay man's anatomy that a straight man doesn't have.

also, what i forgot to mention is that males and females share alot of characteristics in regards to pleasure and sexual anatomy. nipples on men are not essential and neither the remnant of a prostate gland in women and a clitoris which is nothing more than a non developed penis. but hey, those things are there and because they're wired a certain way, they usually feel good when you play with them.

Why has the gay gene survived? Shouldn't it have become scarce due to lack of procreation among homosexuals? Explain that one, science.

just a stab at it but have no gay men ever married women and had offspring with them? (and vice versa) how many gay men are pressured by societal factors into adopting a heterosexual lifestyle? ted haggard anyone?

what if the gay gene exists in all of us but is switched on or off by some factor during gestation?

Because no one has ever provided evidence for life as being the result of an unnatural process (such as an extra-universal force originating from a deity or deities).

I'll leave my mind open on such a topic, but so far, the people arguing for deity-driven origins have had a really rough time agreeing on the specific qualities of the (these) deities - never mind actually providing evidence for them. For that reason, I characterize myself as a pragmatic agnostic. No one has offered proof for the existence of a deity, but I'm not about to brush off a claim of someone having some kind of measurable or testable data. But it has to be testable and not "miracle-based."

That being said, there is considerable evidence showing the evolution of life.

gristle, i wasn't arguing for a creator, i was making another point. read that post more carefully.

there's no evidence for a god (that's why they call it faith) so in addition to being agnostic, you can be atheist too since you don't have to have proof of non existence (which is impossible) in order to disbelieve in something.

don't be afraid to say that you're an atheist. it doesn't require proof of non existence unless you're a gnostic atheist. also, you can still be an atheist and be open to change your position should god(s) be proven.