just an observation

[MacShreach]

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'.

No, I have not made that confusion; you may be reading it where it is not. Faith and spirituality are not the same thing at all; faith is the belief in that which cannot be proved, and spirituality is an inner feeling of, if you like, wonder. Like many atheists I have many spiritual moments, inspired by music art, or, perhaps most especially, the incredible wonder of the perfect harmony of Variation, Natural Selection and Evolution, which allows a bunch of carbon molecules to do what I am doing right now.

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.

Well, you may believe that; but it is just a part of your faith.

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 doesn't matter; they believe in that which they can't prove, and there is no difference in this regard between gods and booglie-wooglie men. Scientifically prove the existence of any one, and I will accept that proof; until you do, they are just amusing fantasies or beasties to scare children with, whichever you prefer.

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.

That is irrelevant. We have already agreed that there is much that science does not yet know. Not much more than 50 years ago no-one realised the universe was even expanding. Expecting all the answers to be there on a plate is part of a faith-based mindset, not a scientific one.

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".

I read Kierkegaard when I was at school, at which point he had been dead well over a hundred years. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he may have felt differently if he had lived in today's world. In any case, I found his preoccupation with faith disappointing and have no desire to revisit it.

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.

No, it is not, or at least it is not in my case. Scientific scepticism cannot be reduced to a faith-based model. It is a refusal to accept explanations which cannot be proved, and this applies whatever we are talking about. If you are suggesting that an acceptance of what can be empirically and scientifically proved is a "belief system" comparable to a faith based mindset, then you have got yourself very seriously mixed up somewhere. Produce a proof of the existence of gods (or booglie-wooglie men) that will stand scientific rigour, and I'll accept it.

I do not think everything can be understood; I think that as we proceed with our understanding, more and more mysteries will be revealed, which will in turn be solved, in time, but will reveal yet more. From molecule to atom to quark and beyond.

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

(sigh.) You were doing quite well until you dropped this clanger, you known. No. A science based viewpoint is based on doubt, or to give it another name, scepticism. It is a primary difference between faith and science; the first accepts whatever it is told because it is part of the faith, the other demands proof.

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

Fundamentalism, in the sense that you appear to mean it, is a function of the faith-based mindset. If you are confusing that with scepticism, a desire for actual knowledge rather than glib answers and a demand for proof that can be explained to anyone and does not require suspension of disbelief, you are either a fool or disingenuous. And sceptics make very good researchers.

By the way, why do you keep repeating my name? Are you preaching?

[giovanni_hotel]

We've hijacked this thread enough, Mac.

Atheism is NOT the same as skepticism; I would call an agnostic a person who practices skepticism, which historically was conceived in response to theism and gnosticism.

An atheist may reach their particular world view through scientific rigor, but one that level is achieved, there is no more doubt or skepticism. Atheism becomes a belief system unto itself that requires no more proofs.


As you must know, there a fields of study within theoretical physics that resemble science fiction more than pure science, especially when it comes to explaining the behavior of the cosmos.

Science IS a belief system, underpinned by logic.

If the conclusion reached through empirical enquiry does not seem logical or 'rational', in many cases based on the preconceived conclusion one expects to reach, the results are discarded.

Do you believe in the possibility of intelligent life on other planets? A true atheist and faithful Christian would not.

The atheist would not because there is no scientific proof, and the Christian would not because it is never mentioned by God in the Bible.

If you believe there are truths regarding the material world that are unknown yet so far cannot be proven, but may be some day,( a faith-based presmise!) technically this would not classify you as a pure atheist.

Atheism has always been defined to me as a belief system because there is no doubt or skepticism.

Maybe you're an atheist with agnostic tendencies..

It tickles me when 'atheists' confronted with some of the great mysteries of human existence never admit there are simply unknowns in the universe, and always will be, instead argue that there are merely subsets of knowledge that we humans have yet to acquire.

Lastly, atheism is more than a non-belief in the supernatural, or a Higher Power.

It is also defined as a lack of belief in anything that cannot be proven without physical evidence.

[MrsKellyPierce]

I say sex is sex and sex is fun how you get off isn't important as long as you are getting off and you are clean and not hurting anyone!

[giovanni_hotel]

I say sex is sex and sex is fun how you get off isn't important as long as you are getting off and you are clean and not hurting anyone!

Amen

[yosi]

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!!

thanx , good to see some poeple here who think with the right head

[yosi]

I always like to read 2 inteligent poeple , one always has to keep an open mind because there is so much to learn even in a lifetime.


MacShreach:
"I do not think everything can be understood; I think that as we proceed with our understanding, more and more mysteries will be revealed"

giovanni_hotel:
"Science IS a belief system, underpinned by logic"

it is true that science is in a way ,a belief system , underpinned by logic and facts , but the history of science is also full of cases of scientific theories that were turned completely upsidedown , by new facts.

examples? the most famous is the scientific concept which claimed that this green/blue ball we all live on is flat, we all know what happened to that person who dared to doubt them.

this green/blue ball had more surprises under his sleeve:
about 60 years ago , all the scientific facts showed that we are heading to a new ice age , winters were getting colder and colder , it was claimed that all the air polution we produce is blocking the atmosphere , not allowing the sunrays go through' blocking them , therefore we are heading a new ice age.

1 new fact ,1 new twist in our story, and we are all heading toward a global warming.
try claiming today that this green/blue ball might have more surprises under its sleeve .................

on the other hand, faith based belief , don't let new facts change their concept , makes life look much easier that way..............quite boring to others

[giovanni_hotel]

I guess ultimately that's the point, Yosi.

The goal, I think, is to pass through one's life with a healthy dose of skepticism and doubt regarding all things, and to always keep the mind open.

[MacShreach]

We've hijacked this thread enough, Mac.

Atheism is NOT the same as skepticism; I would call an agnostic a person who practices skepticism, which historically was conceived in response to theism and gnosticism.

No, scepticism is an essential part of scientific rigour. This is an inappropriate place to discuss the differences between atheism and agnosticism, but essentially, an atheist says "there are no gods" while an agnostic says "we cannot know god." Inherent in the agnostic position, however, is an acceptance that god actually does exist, we just can neither prove it nor have any meaningful knowledge of such a thing. It is this a priori acceptance of an unproven belief that renders agnosticism a part of the faith-based mindset.

An atheist may reach their particular world view through scientific rigor, but one that level is achieved, there is no more doubt or skepticism.

This is complete nonsense, of course, at least as far as I am concerned, since in the first place, scepticism is an essential part of a scientific view, and in the second, as I have repeatedly said, prove scientifically that there are gods or booglie wooglie men, and I'll accept it.

There may well be atheists who arrive at their viewpoint from a quasi-religious, faith-based mindset such as you appear to be defining, but I am not one of them.

As you must know, there a fields of study within theoretical physics that resemble science fiction more than pure science, especially when it comes to explaining the behavior of the cosmos.

Well, in your opinion, maybe. I'm sure the theoretical physicists don't regard them as fiction.

Science IS a belief system, underpinned by logic.

Wrong again; science is the development of knowledge through the establishment of experimental and empirical proofs. There is a fundamental difference between believing something and having proof for it, which appears to elude you.

If the conclusion reached through empirical enquiry does not seem logical or 'rational', in many cases based on the preconceived conclusion one expects to reach, the results are discarded.

This is complete, utter nonsense. No reputable scientist would ever discard the result of an experiment because it showed something he did not expect. He or she would examine the methodology and if the experiment were properly conducted, conclude that a phenomenon he had hitherto been unaware of was at work, and then proceed to investigate that, or publish for others to. The discovery of penicillin would be a good example of this.

Do you believe in the possibility of intelligent life on other planets?

Yes of course I accept the possibility that intelligent life may exist on other planets; however we have no proof that it does.

A true atheist and faithful Christian would not. The atheist would not because there is no scientific proof, and the Christian would not because it is never mentioned by God in the Bible.

Boy you're really off in the long stuff now aren't you? The absence of a scientific proof does not preclude the possibility of something being the case; if this were not so, no scientist would ever investigate anything, since he or she would conclude that in the absence of proof, it was illusory anyway!

However the faith-based mindset actually rejects proof of anything that conflicts with the given wisdom of the faith.

If you believe there are truths regarding the material world that are unknown yet so far cannot be proven, but may be some day,( a faith-based presmise!) technically this would not classify you as a pure atheist.

You repeatedly project your own impressions on me. Do you do this to other people too? The absence of a proof does not preclude the possibility that a thing may be so; but to believe it is so in the knowledge that there is no proof, and even to deny that such proof is possible, is the faith delusion.

Atheism has always been defined to me as a belief system because there is no doubt or skepticism.

By whom? The parish priest? Perhaps there are atheists of the type you describe. But scepticism lies at the heart of science, as I keep telling you.

Maybe you're an atheist with agnostic tendencies..

[

This is bullshit. You are attempting, again, to project frankly meaningless definitions, which appear to be based on a pretty elementary understanding of philosophy, on me. I don't care a hoot how you define atheism; save it for people who do. And if by "agnostic tendencies" you mean I have an underlying desire to accept a priori beliefs as truth without proof, err, sorry, wrong again. Open-mindedness and scepticism are essential, and complementary, parts of a scientific viewpoint.

It tickles me when 'atheists' confronted with some of the great mysteries of human existence never admit there are simply unknowns in the universe, and always will be, instead argue that there are merely subsets of knowledge that we humans have yet to acquire.

Oh, I think you're really showing your colours here. Let me put that another way; your belief in "unknowns" which by definition cannot be explained, is just a manifestation of a faith-based mindset. There will always be things we do not know; but to say we cannot know them, is just faith.

Lastly, atheism is more than a non-belief in the supernatural, or a Higher Power.

It is also defined as a lack of belief in anything that cannot be proven without physical evidence.

Well, I don't know where you're getting these "definitions" from but they sound very much like the usual BS we hear from believers, designed as a put down for something they cannot otherwise deal with. You possibly ought to stop believing them. But perhaps the crutch of belief is something you can't do without.

As I said, you can believe it, and I'll defend your right to do so, up to the point you impinge on me; but don't expect me to take it seriously.

[trish]

Suppose I claim there’s a dildo in my dresser drawer. How can one confirm that? One strategy is exhaustive search. Check each item and see whether it’s a dildo or not. If you don’t find it by exhaustive search you can be an atheist about the dildo in my drawer. Suppose I claim there’s a Blessed Dildo somewhere in the universe: a dildo that would give any user of it eternal life in the throes of eternal ecstatic bliss. Exhaustive search just won’t do the trick here. The universe is just too big. Are we condemned to be agnostic about the presence of the Blessed Dildo? I think not. Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally open to the possibility that there might be dildos in the universe with fantastic functionality invented by sexual beings far superior to us. But I think we can draw the line at the Blessed Dildo that guarantees an Eternal Life of Ecstatic Bliss. You don’t need a scientific proof to be an atheist about the Blessed Dildo because you know it’s origins. You saw me invent the tale. Likewise, we don’t need a scientific proof to be atheistic about the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god. We have a historical record of his tale. We can see it being invented by different peoples in different places giving contradictory accounts, adding do-dads and forgetting others. It was quite clearly a living work of fiction. It doesn’t require faith not to believe in the Blessed Dildo and it doesn’t require faith not to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god. It just requires a little common sense and some attention the story. What about the Hindu gods and the other religions? Well here we can apply exhaustive search. We can see that each and every religious tradition that has evolved on Earth evolved as a work of fiction. It doesn't require faith to be atheistic about any of the religions or gods that have so far appeared in the history of human beings on Earth.

Later, yosi, I'll try to get back and respond to your original question. Sorry for being drawn in by the side question.

[MacShreach]

Suppose I claim there’s a dildo in my dresser drawer. How can one confirm that? One strategy is exhaustive search. Check each item and see whether it’s a dildo or not. If you don’t find it by exhaustive search you can be an atheist about the dildo in my drawer. Suppose I claim there’s a Blessed Dildo somewhere in the universe: a dildo that would give any user of it eternal life in the throes of eternal ecstatic bliss. Exhaustive search just won’t do the trick here. The universe is just too big. Are we condemned to be agnostic about the presence of the Blessed Dildo? I think not. Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally open to the possibility that there might be dildos in the universe with fantastic functionality invented by sexual beings far superior to us. But I think we can draw the line at the Blessed Dildo that guarantees an Eternal Life of Ecstatic Bliss. You don’t need a scientific proof to be an atheist about the Blessed Dildo because you know it’s origins. You saw me invent the tale. Likewise, we don’t need a scientific proof to be atheistic about the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god. We have a historical record of his tale. We can see it being invented by different peoples in different places giving contradictory accounts, adding do-dads and forgetting others. It was quite clearly a living work of fiction. It doesn’t require faith not to believe in the Blessed Dildo and it doesn’t require faith not to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god. It just requires a little common sense and some attention the story. What about the Hindu gods and the other religions? Well here we can apply exhaustive search. We can see that each and every religious tradition that has evolved on Earth evolved as a work of fiction. It doesn't require faith to be atheistic about any of the religions or gods that have so far appeared in the history of human beings on Earth.

Later, yosi, I'll try to get back and respond to your original question. Sorry for being drawn in by the side question.

That was nicely done, Trish. You are right; in the particular case of human religion, we can establish that it is fiction by using its history. For example, we could, in the case of Christianity, cite the example of the Synod of Ephesus, where much of the existing pagan religions was adopted into the new State religion of the Roman Empire because, put simply, the Celts in Gaul, (and others, but the economic importance of Gaul was strategic to Rome,) simply refused to adopt a religion that did not have a female deity at the very top or to give up their local gods. Which is how Mary got her promotion and half the villages in France are called Saint Something or other. We know this because the Romans kept notes of what happened at the Synod........