The Meaning of Life

[SpheresOfBalance]

Gotcha? Nope. To venture further into this is now against my better judgment, but here goes.

Homosexuality is statistically practiced by less than 5% of the population, so how can it be considered the norm. As you believe evolution is how human beings got here, then explain how an inclination toward a particular type of behavior, homosexuality, can survive genetically since it does not produce offspring? Would it make sense, to say, that evolutionarily speaking, that which producess offspring would be the norm. So from an evolution standpoint, homosexuality would be abnormal and it would be a learned behavior.

How could one possibly know that it's not an evolutionary measure to quell the procreation of a species that is currently upsetting the balance of the biosphere. Some may understand this at some level and choose to truthfully sacrifice in the name of balance. And I'd say in terms of the current human species it'd be justified. While it's true that most of mankind is selfish and wants to live at 'all' costs, I see that at the current feverish pitch he stands to actually defeat himself instead. It would seem that the ultimate cost shall be his own.

Old books written thousands of years ago couldn't possibly account completely for the truth of the current day. I see that if Nietszche were alive today that he'd rewrite many of his books, especially "The Antichrist" and "The Will to Power," as I'm sure so would those responsible for that bible fable.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, here's what you are saying, in your own words.

All religion. Religion is nothing more than the abrogation of thinking and the adoption of a set of dogma provided by an ideologue.

This wildly sweeping proposal of yours is exactly what I was responding to, as it comes across loud and clear in each of your 24 million posts on religion.

Your emotional response reveals the true source of your perspective on this topic.

I'm sorry to point out that you are a being foolish.
But try and understand my position from this analogy.

Some beautiful house, full of wonderful amenities are build on the sand.
Whilst I can appreciate the ornate door, and the bidet in the bathroom, there is not disguising the fact that the whole bang-shoot is built on a poor foundation.
It is for that reason that I dislike religion - whether or not that includes a belief in god or not.

You have attacked me unfairly. I ahve explained EXACTLY what I dislike about religion, and ALL religion suffers from this problem. So, fuck yes - all religion. But not necessary everything ABOUT religion.
You are really letting yourself down on this matter.

[chaz wyman]

It is more difficult for a man of intellect to believe in God, as there is no rational way to prove his existence. What is required is faith.
Some of us have it and some do not. For myself, it didn't come from a religion or from my family, as they are sceptics. If I read a verse from the Scriptures to them, their eyes literally glaze over. I have read books on Zen, Tibetan Buddhism and I do have regular contact with the Tibetan Monks as I work sometimes in their soup kitchen. I have interesting discussions with them and know a little about their belief, but I cannot accept it. What is interesting is how one chooses which religion? There are many Catholics who have converted to buddhism and I often wondered how they managed to shake off such a staunch religion. There is a saying, "give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man".

I did ask you once C.W. when it was you stopped believing in God.

You never did answer that question.

I stopped believing in god twice.
Why is it important WHEN?

[reasonvemotion]

I stopped believing in god twice.
Why is it important WHEN?

Once you believed.

Was not the 'WHEN" the catalyst for you to disbelieve?

[chaz wyman]

I stopped believing in god twice.
Why is it important WHEN?

Once you believed.

Was not the 'WHEN" the catalyst for you to disbelieve?

Time is not a causative agent.

[reasonvemotion]

I accept that. I should have said why.

I also accept that the cause is a private matter, but the fact remains you did believe and now you don't.

and you will again.

It is in you.

There are things you have said on this Forum that belies a person who has no faith.

[chaz wyman]

I accept that. I should have said why.

I also accept that the cause is a private matter, but the fact remains you did believe and now you don't.

and you will again.

This is an incredibly arrogant and misinformed thing to say. Believe in what exactly?


It is in you.

There are things you have said on this Forum that belies a person who has no faith.

No I will never be that child again. I will never believe in God, simple as.

[reasonvemotion]

It was rather audacious on my part.

But your protestations are said in defiance, not with conviction, so I question.

[Felasco]

Next time you go on an anti-chaz rant please take the trouble to examine exactly what I am saying rather than your rather simplistic view of it.

Chaz, I've made no anti-Chaz rant. I've simply done what you do in great abundance all over the forum, challenge your reasoning on a particular topic.

As I see it, you're now trying to make that in to a big personal flapdoodle smokescreen, to obscure the fact that you've been caught being disloyal to your own chosen method, reason.

You aren't doing reason here, you're doing ideology. To understand this, please re-read your own posts above, and see the emotion exploding all over the place.

Reasonists have no need for emotion, as they have no stake in the outcome of the inquiry.

Ideologists quickly become mired in emotion, as they've usually married their ego to some preferred conclusion, which then must be defended to the death, because it's no longer about the topic, it's about THEM.

I'm trying to assist you here. If you wish to present a truly credible rebuke of religion, and offer reason as the superior alternative, you have to actually do reason yourself.

Or, if you don't care if anybody reads or believes your posts on this topic, then, as you were.

[chaz wyman]

Next time you go on an anti-chaz rant please take the trouble to examine exactly what I am saying rather than your rather simplistic view of it.

Chaz, I've made no anti-Chaz rant. I've simply done what you do in great abundance all over the forum, challenge your reasoning on a particular topic.

You have not challenged one item of my reasoning. All you did was make a general rant.


As I see it, you're now trying to make that in to a big personal flapdoodle smokescreen, to obscure the fact that you've been caught being disloyal to your own chosen method, reason.

More childish insults. You would not know a reasoned statement if it hit you in the face like a wet fish. Where is the substance?

You aren't doing reason here, you're doing ideology. To understand this, please re-read your own posts above, and see the emotion exploding all over the place.

Please keep your exploding emotions to yourself, Maybe you could save them for your boyfriend. Don't forget the Kleenex

Reasonists have no need for emotion, as they have no stake in the outcome of the inquiry.

According to Hume Passion it the motivator of all reason.

Ideologists quickly become mired in emotion, as they've usually married their ego to some preferred conclusion, which then must be defended to the death, because it's no longer about the topic, it's about THEM.

Where is the substance? WHo are these "reasonists" and "ideologists". Not only are you making up words, but you are also making ridiculous generalisation. Ironically the thing you accuse me of.
Maybe you should try Rationalists, and Idealists? But you'd still be wrong. You aren't very good at this are you?

I'm trying to assist you here. If you wish to present a truly credible rebuke of religion, and offer reason as the superior alternative, you have to actually do reason yourself.

You can save your help for those that need it, like yourself.

Or, if you don't care if anybody reads or believes your posts on this topic, then, as you were.

I seem to be doing a pretty good job. Most of my posts are read, and responded to, I even get agreement on some issues.
I do not care to be 'believed" I think that's your problem and the problem of your co-religionist, which do not feel the need to consult reason.

[chaz wyman]

It was rather audacious on my part.

But your protestations are said in defiance, not with conviction, so I question.

More hopeless generalisations!

Which 'protestations', exactly, do you accuse me of making without conviction?

It is simply not possible to address a bold generality, without simply disagreeing. If you are not willing to discuss things point by point, you might as well not bother at all.

[Felasco]

You have not challenged one item of my reasoning.

Your reasoning is not reasoning Chaz, it's an emotional outburst.

[chaz wyman]

You have not challenged one item of my reasoning.

Your reasoning is not reasoning Chaz, it's an emotional outburst.

Example please.

You are just making a fool of yourself. I have taken your posts, and commented sentence by sentence.
All you seem to do it ignore what I write and hysterically accuse me of emotional outbursts, but you never give examples.

Here's a outburst; either play the game or go and boil your own head.

[mickthinks]

As I see it, you're now trying to make that in to a big personal flapdoodle smokescreen, to obscure the fact that you've been caught being disloyal to your own chosen method, reason.

More childish insults.

Er ... that was not a childish insult, chaz ...

You would not know a reasoned statement if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

... but that was!

You are just making a fool of yourself.

lol physician, heal thyself!

[chaz wyman]

As I see it, you're now trying to make that in to a big personal flapdoodle smokescreen, to obscure the fact that you've been caught being disloyal to your own chosen method, reason.

More childish insults.

Er ... that was not a childish insult, chaz ...

You would not know a reasoned statement if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

... but that was!

You are just making a fool of yourself.

lol physician, heal thyself!

Is that the best you can offer the discussion?