To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26052
26051  |  26053
Subject: 
Re: Why these news groups were created
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:55:42 GMT
Viewed: 
2469 times
  
   1. It is the connotation of the word “superstition” that is unfair, not the strict definition itself. All book knowledge must be tempered with common sense. Othewise, I would not argue with your point here.

Yes it is tempered with common sense. What you are saying (that god exists, that he will punish gays) is not proveable. Therefore, you have a superstition that this is what will happen. No proof, no evidence in favour of it. If you have evidence in favor of your hypothisis, then you should present it. You do not, except a book that has no more evidence for its truth than the say of one group of people.

Therefore, you have a superstition, that god exists, and that he will punish gays. Nothing more, or less. Using Ochm’s razor, I have a hypothisis that god does not exist. I am open to you proving that he does exist, but like I stated, I am not holding my breath for you to be able to prove it.


   2. Everything is opinion until it can be proven--consult OED for a definition if you wish, but you’ll find that there is no way to “prove” that human action is natural. Remember that by strict definition (something you seem to like), a claim is not scientific unless it is disprovable (implying that it is also provable).

Everything I stated was a human nature act was a physical act. Therefore, from the definition of nature, (physically real), it is nature. No more or less...just like Ivory soap is 100% pure (something or other, not that it is 99 44/100% pure at all...there is 66/100% unwanted material in it, but it is still 100% pure)

(in other words, according to the definition, since a man and a man can engage in a sexual relationship physically, it is natural...it is a physical reality that they can do so, therefore it is a natural relationship according to one of the definitions of natural that I stated, using a widely accepted reference to define natural...it doesn’t mean your definition of natural has to agree with the rest of us, but it does mean that then you are in a minority position rather than a majority position.)


Lets look at it from a scientific proposition:

Hypothisis: That based on natural being a real world physical action, throwing a apple across a field is natural

Proof: I did so this morning, a physical reality. Therefore, it is natural IAW the definition given.

Hypothisis: That based on natural being a real world physical action, a person can jump over the moon

Proof: Negative at this time. No person has successfully done this, and it is unlikely that they will.

Hypothisis: That based on natural being a real world physical action, sex between a man and a man does not happen

Proof: False. It does occur, therefore the hypothisis is invalid. The converse is true (that it does happen, therefore it is natural in strict accordance with the definition of natural given above.)

There is your scientific boleen logic laid out for you to read. It seems to me that the answer is that it is natural IAW the definition I gave...can you refute this? I awate your evidence in any form, but are counting it just like the Sylvia Jone’s clock at JREF :).

   I’m not going to waste energy replying to this thread any more. It’s obvious that there will always be another attack to refute, even though I was merely pointing out a flaw in thinking. I will take an opposed stance on any issue to flawed thinking, and that was my goal here.

You always have that freedom to not reply.

James Powell



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why these news groups were created
 
Allow me to say: 1. It is the connotation of the word "superstition" that is unfair, not the strict definition itself. All book knowledge must be tempered with common sense. Othewise, I would not argue with your point here. 2. Everything is opinion (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR