Doubting Didymus

Heeey... now thats an interesting take! So, eegly old pal, if an atheist evolutionists life is about imitating nature as we find it, should we then be acting like our close relatives and screwing everything we can get our hands on? I do believe it follows from your premises...

The Lone Ranger

First off, you really need to read up on the Naturalistic Fallacy.


Many heterosexuals have "no aspirations to create offspring." Does this make them unnatural? Why?

Quote:

You have to remember that I am basing my argument off of evolutionist/atheistic views, and not my own, and most of your arguments saying that I make no sense is exactly what I am saying. It makes no sense, and therefore your point of view is incorrect.

No you aren't. Your "argument" is based upon a ridiculous caricature. You're making no sense because, with respect, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

If the point of life is to make God happy, what God do you worship? If it is the Christian/Jewish God, then making him happy would be going against homosexual rights and therefore I have no problem with you.

If your God is a bigot, I'd say that it's every honourable believer's duty not to make him happy in this way.


Wrong answer. Please try again.

To start, you might consider the fact that atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is not a philosophical position, per se.

Cheers,

Michael

Mageth

If you just happened to evolve from a lower form of life, how do you have the free will and ability to do more with your life than produce offspring?

Huh? You're running the Appeal to Nature fallacy into the ground here, Matt.

My point in stating that homosexuality is unnatural is that homosexuals have no aspirations to create offspring, whereas in your case you wanted to, but could not.

But adoption is not natural, is it? On what grounds then do you support adoption?

You have to remember that I am basing my argument off of evolutionist/atheistic views, and not my own,

Not any evolutionist/atheistic views that I, an "evolutionist" and atheist, actually hold, nor any views I've heard anyone like me make known. So add strawman to the list of fallacies you're rapidly piling up.

and most of your arguments saying that I make no sense is exactly what I am saying. It makes no sense, and therefore your point of view is incorrect.

So far, you're the only poster on this thread who has said anything "makes no sense", so you're the only one here to use that useless argument. You're going to have to demonstrate why someone else's point of view makes no sense, which you have yet to do.

I was saying that in an atheistic world the point of life is to create offspring.

There's that strawman again. I'm an atheist, and if you're going to use anecdotes to support your position, then so am I. As an atheist, the point of my life is not merely to create offspring, it never has been. In fact, since my wife and I couldn't naturally conceive, I've adjusted my "point in life" to include raising my son, who is adopted, but my purpose in life is not limited to that.

Sheesh.

Viti

What's an Eagel?

And, I think I'll limit my comments to three words "What seebs said"

Eagel4Jesus

Haha...this is fun. My inability to express myself how I want to is now making my situation nearly inbearable.

Daleth first - I asked HOW you have the free will to do that. Not "show me you have free will". HOW do you have that free will to do more than produce offspring. And just a question for anyone, what other animals in this world do more than eat, sleep and breed? Also, what makes us different from other animals who only eat, sleep and breed? Why should/can we do more than them? That is what I, as a creationist, ask atheists.

Microevolution - small differences between parental genes and genes of the offspring because of a small change in DNA.

Macroevolution - the ability of those small changes in microevolution to create a completely new species.

Steve - the atheistic viewpoint I was going for was that we are merely an evolved form, not much different from all other species. And therefore we just want to pass on genes and reproduce.

What I was saying with my story of my lesbian friend is that a traumatic experience would cause an aversion to whatever caused that experience. In her case, it was a male, and therefore she has an aversion to all other males and making her a lesbian. I'm not saying this absolutely DOES make her a lesbian, but this is one reason why I do not fully believe that being a homosexual is something decided at/before birth.

Matt

Mech Bliss

How does reproductivity equate to naturalness? How does naturalness equate to a particular moral stance?

Your argument depends on these points. Furthermore, you are still left with the position of infertile people being unnatural and unacceptable by your argument.

It makes no sense because the argument is indeed based on your own views and misrepresentations of atheism and evolution.

Based on what? This is exactly what I meant when I said that your argument is based upon your own views and not "evolutionist/atheistic views" because it is not representative of atheism.

Mageth

I also agree with what seebs said, but I'd step in and say that people that think like this are making all of humanity look bad. After all, it's our natural drive to produce offspring that generated them...

Ensign Steve

DNFTT

Quote:

My inability to express myself how I want to is now making my situation nearly inbearable.

"nearly" doesn't begin to express it.

Matt, I notice you avoided the meat of my post.

Tell me, how do I, a homosexual person who has chosen to bear an offspring, fit into your little "argument"?

Daleth

Big brain. The bigger a brain an animal has, the more information it can store and process, and the more information you have, the more choices are available to you. At least that's the answer that presents itself to me in my feverish state.

My dogs do many things. They even make up games of their own accord. One likes to play peek-a-boo, which she came up with herself. The other one hates that game. One is very jealous of her humans talking to or touching other dogs or people, and the other doesn't give a damn. They do more than eat, sleep and breed. In fact they don't breed at all because we've taken that option away from them.

What makes you think that an ape wouldn't choose not to breed if only its brain were big enough to figure out contraception? And how would you explain animals that simply will not breed if they can't find a mate they like?

Dal

Eagel4Jesus

OK, with my "no sense" comment...

As an atheist, what gives you the power to decide what your point in life is? If you are just another animal which evolutionists should think, I mean, we got here because animals had a lot of sex, and that's the only reason humans are here, that means your point in life is to continue the cycle and reproduce. Anything else would be a defect.

Now, notice that I DO NOT think that being infertile is a defect. I am merely arguing on different grounds than I believe. I think this is something that you all do not understand. For you to understand how I am attacking this issue or my point of view, you must first understand the above paragraph.

Matt