just an observation

[Olivia Love]

oh well transsexuals r still a taboo nowday in the society and we are considered the Forbidden fruits by some .... lmaoooooo!

[DC]

there was no big band and religion is false too, the true history of this planet is still unknown.. more then likely our ancestors came from the stars and other planets..

[MacShreach]

Maybeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....Send this thread to Politic&Religion....

Is in general discussion....................i digress

But macshreach, for you to definitely say "no" is just like the Christians defiantly saying "yes". .

No, it's not, actually. A scientific view proceeds from basic observation of simple phenomena that can be confirmed by simple experimental proofs to more complex observed phenomena; religious belief depends on the scribblings of a few Bronze-Age and Iron Age priests who considered that the Earth was flat.

There is no comparison at all. One is fact, the other is fiction. That simple. I mean, believe anything you like, and I'll stand up for your right to do it, just don't expect to be taken seriously.

[MacShreach]

there was no big band and religion is false too, the true history of this planet is still unknown.. more then likely our ancestors came from the stars and other planets..

You mean Duke Ellington was a myth? I'm gutted.

[MacShreach]

more then likely our ancestors came from the stars and other planets..

Yup, that's it. Your brain is about as acute as your grasp of orthography.

[DC]

you have all the answers don't you Mac, typical scottish fuck head

[giovanni_hotel]

MacShreach, intellectual arrogance is the first sign of one possessing a flawed overall analytical approach to the world.

Atheism is as much a 'faith based' system as is a belief in spirituality, the presence of the supernatural, and the existence of a Higher Power.

Any truly honest scientist, PhD, or academic in any given field of inquiry will admit there is more we DON'T know about the world than the limited empirical evidence we presently have that passes for 'knowledge'.

I don't like the term 'intelligent design', mainly because it's a phrase that's been co-opted by right-wing fundamentalists and evangelicals, however the concept does have merit.

Atheists would have us believe that the sum total of life as we know it, from the precise calibration of Earth's orbit around the sun, (a few degrees difference in either direction and Earth would be inhabitable to humans), the biological basis for consciousness, the cellular mechanism that allows a skin cell to become a nerve cell, the counterintuitive nature of quantum physics, etc., is one big illogical cosmic 'accident'.

Meaning, atheists don't know why IT happened, just that IT did, randomly, and the presence of life on Earth falls within scientific probability.

When truthfully, the mere existence of life on Earth and the countless species that coexist on it is beyond improbability, chance, or biological serendipity.

Spirituality, or faith, is outside the parameters of empirical science; as difficult as it would be to measure the temperature of fire with a wooden ruler.

Alternately, most of the theories of quantum, particle, and astrophysics are based in many instances more on 'faith' in the principles of classical physics and pure theoretical speculation that actual empirical evidence.

At which point physics begins to look more like mysticism than science.

Digression...

Back to the original OP.

Yes, yosi, there are guys on HA who have a difficult time reconciling their attraction to women with cocks, and will attempt to specify how their attraction is different from other members and not the same, impying this somehow preserves their 'hetero' status.

On the opposite end, there are women on this site who have a hard time accepting the fact there are men attracted to them in part because they DO have a cock, and therefore are quick to call these members 'fags' are 'cock whores' if they gravitate too close towards their genitalia.

Look, I'm attracted to both TG and GGs, but just because that's what you are physically, it doesn't mean I'll be attracted to YOU, because on a forum like HA it's difficult to 'know' people beyond the superficial.

I joined HA for the friendly banter, to look at all the pretty pictures, and belong to a forum where as a 'straight' man, my intense lust for TGs wasn't considered abnormal.

Get in where you fit in, Yosi.

Screw all the haterz and trick biotches!!

[MacShreach]

MacShreach, intellectual arrogance is the first sign of one possessing a flawed overall analytical approach to the world.

Atheism is as much a 'faith based' system as is a belief in spirituality, the presence of the supernatural, and the existence of a Higher Power.

Any truly honest scientist, PhD, or academic in any given field of inquiry will admit there is more we DON'T know about the world than the limited empirical evidence we presently have that passes for 'knowledge'.

I don't like the term 'intelligent design', mainly because it's a phrase that's been co-opted by right-wing fundamentalists and evangelicals, however the concept does have merit.

Atheists would have us believe that the sum total of life as we know it, from the precise calibration of Earth's orbit around the sun, (a few degrees difference in either direction and Earth would be inhabitable to humans), the biological basis for consciousness, the cellular mechanism that allows a skin cell to become a nerve cell, the counterintuitive nature of quantum physics, etc., is one big illogical cosmic 'accident'.

Meaning, atheists don't know why IT happened, just that IT did, randomly, and the presence of life on Earth falls within scientific probability.

When truthfully, the mere existence of life on Earth and the countless species that coexist on it is beyond improbability, chance, or biological serendipity.

Spirituality, or faith, is outside the parameters of empirical science; as difficult as it would be to measure the temperature of fire with a wooden ruler.

Alternately, most of the theories of quantum, particle, and astrophysics are based in many instances more on 'faith' in the principles of classical physics and pure theoretical speculation that actual empirical evidence.

At which point physics begins to look more like mysticism than science.

Ah, how very disappointing; I had thought more highly of you. There is no arrogance in understanding the difference between fact and fiction, between that which can be proved and that which can only be believed in.

There is certainly a very great deal that we do not know about the world, and for that matter the universe, that we live in, but the answers, when they come, will come from science, not the milk-sop of religion.

There is nothing random about our being here, and nothing improbable either; in fact the series of events that led to us being here could hardly have had any other outcome.

Even your statement that faith is outside the scope of science is untrue, and I have no doubt at all that there is a good evolutionary reason why people feel the need to invent the things they do to believe in.

But as I said, you can believe in God, "intelligent design" crop circles, chemtrails, leprechauns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, the booglie-wooglie man under the bed and anything else that takes your fancy, and as long as your beliefs don't impinge on my freedoms, I'll defend your right to do that; but don't expect to be taken seriously.

BTW I strongly suggest you read Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion." Or for that matter Darwin's "Origin of Species."

[MacShreach]

you have all the answers don't you Mac, typical scottish fuck head

Gosh, are we English?

[giovanni_hotel]

MacShreach, you are using spirituality, faith, and religion interchangeably, when in fact they express separate and distinct modes of thought about the nature of human 'beingness'.

I have no problem with someone questioning the origins or validity of religion as a whole, but your absolute belief in the infallibility of the scientific method to explain the known and unknown world is equally disturbing, in that you appear to hold an unshakable belief in a methodology that is at best limited.

The scientific, empirical model is the most reliable investigative approach available to us, in most instances, but it still can't provide all the answers to everything.

When someone uses the term 'faith', it does not mean necessarily they believe in " crop circles, chemtrails, leprechauns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, the booglie-wooglie man under the bed and anything else that takes your fancy."

It means they believe there is an existence beyond the limitations of human consciousness, however that may be expressed.

I have yet to read or heard someone give a plausible explanation of the Big Bang; the process by which existence comes out of total nothingness.

I also suggest you read two authors MacShreach; neurosurgeon Allan Hamilton's book "The Scalpel and the Soul", and Søren Kierkegaard's " Fear and Trembling", "Philosophical Fragments", and "Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments".

Atheism is a faith-based, belief system, MacShreach; an absolute world view based less on science and more on the presuppostion that all is 'knowable", and that which is unknown has yet to be discovered, or doesn't exist.

There is no room for doubt at all in this belief system, much like the Christian or Muslim fundamentalist.


Fundamentalists of any stripe make very poor researchers, MacShreach!!