Quote from Taintedwisp:
@Eiviyn: Go
Things i have noticed about homosexuals.
"the Women are not clean"
I know 1 lesbian. She is impecibly clean and neat. She is verry smart and is dedicated to her studies.
I am friends with another girl who I am 90% sure is a lesbian (never asked her directly and never felt the need to). Actually she is often not clean, she is big into camping/hiking/mountaineering. She is an amazing person. I have placed my LIFE in her hands many times and would do so again.
"and the men are quick to hit women."
I am friends with 3 gay guys. 2 of them are some of the biggest pacifists I know. The third one is a big guy who will not shy from a fight but has very old school values. If he sees someone getting bullied he will stand up for them and if he EVER saw a man hitting a woman he would probably send that person to a hospital.
So go ahead... tell me about how these people are dirty and likely to attack women...
EDIT:
In all fairness I just realised I know a 4th gay guy. That guy is a jerk. So I guess that one guy proves you point?
The women wanna act like men, and the men wanna act like women... Pretty much, Its like when a white guy wants to act like hes in the hood, He goes to every stereotype and goes to the extreme with them, where it just becomes stupid....
Same deal, The men start to literally think they are Women, and have no problem fighting women, The women wont clean themselves like they should and it gets disgusting.
I have met a few Gays that I can get along with, and those are fine, but they are far rarer then the normal that I have seen, I have known atleast 15 gay people in my life... and only 2 or 3 have been decent people.
Quote from Gradius12:
I joined this forum because all the members here seem to be intelligent people who demonstrate an understanding of a powerful tool. And then I step into this thread and it's like looking into a whole other world: a cesspool of unbridled ignorance stupidity.
I guess that's what religion is good for.
----
This is put better than I could ever put it.
I literally cannot continue to read this thread without feeling sick from anger and sadness. I won't continue in this thread for the sake of my own sanity.
Why are you people still posting in here..... get lives.
Its not like people care what other people think...
This thread is beyond the point of worthy discussion... its just a e-peen contest.
Eiviyn.... I used to think you were a decent person, but this thread has shown me otherwise. I find that your just as ignorant as the people you rail against.
I cant see how this thread is still open. It really brings the level of culture here on sc2mapster down quite a bit. Kinda disappointing.
But you would still try 'save' your child wouldn't you?
Whereas God would just send him/her straight to hell instead of helping a (in your eyes) delusioned person/child back to the 'warmth and loving God'? I mean, wouldn't he even try to save him/her from the grip of satan or whatever?
You know, it makes it sound like you have better moral standards, simply a more loving person than God himself.
He would, He would. Its a trap to assume God is waiting for the slightest opportunity to cast us into a `hell` or torment us. Such an attitude leads to despair and should not be entertained. All it takes is the slightest attitude of repentance and change of heart for a person to save him/herself. I dont think anyone is going to get intentionally screwed at the end of their lives. Every person bears some responsibility for their actions and inner most decisions. We have our conscious that acts as one means of warning , then we have knowledge, and all sorts of persuasive and true forces that can lead us on the right track. Who better to judge that , than God?.
The whispers that tell us God is evil, cruel, and is wanting to kill/destroy and damn us. Where do they come from?
"Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign LORD. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live.Ezekiel 18:23
As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?Ezekiel 33:11
I don't want you to die, says the Sovereign LORD. Turn back and live!Ezekiel 18:32
who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.1 Timothy 2:4
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.John 3:17
(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.1 Timothy 4:10
For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people..Titus 2:11
Numbers 14:18 (KJV) ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’
Psalm 86:15 (KJV) But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, long suffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Psalm 78:38 Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them. Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.
Psalm 108:4 For great is your love, higher than the heavens; your faithfulness reaches to the skies.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.1 John 4:8
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.Isaiah 45:22
We`re not talking `Dungeons and Dragons` definition of Sorceress here(Throwing fireballs?)... Occult practices, witchcraft, fortune telling, etc. No different than modern day occult. Not that I believe they have any power in their efforts, but they obviously are deluded in thinking so.
Because we're imperfectly evolved primates who still retain half the useless features of apes (appendix and coccyx, for example) with inside-out, upside down eyes and an entertainment complex inside our sewage system perhaps?
Just a thought.
Coincidentally, how do you reconcile the glaring imperfections in human biology with a creator?
Appendix is not useless. I dont know about the coccyx.
The fact that we can easily survive without it, hardly does much for the argument. We can also live without the Gall bladder, with 1 Kidney, etc. The human body is extremely resilient and has many fail-safes. Continuous wear and tear on the intended design, will lead to damage. The body is not meant to be perfect under every condition but rather optimal under its design specs.
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.Genesis 1:29
You see, this was meant to be our original diet. Threshold of deviation from this is forgiving despite the amount of man-made junk and other foods we intoxicate our body with. There`s a limit of course.
I think the body is well designed, and we dont give any credit for that. No matter how perfect a design, you`ll always be able to find a flaw. I can argue why we dont have the strength of a silverback(but then this would make flight like a bird nigh impossible and contradictory if it were desired too), or why we dont have biological immortality as some organisms and bacterium do, or why we cant propagate the `evolution` cycle/process to no end without worrying about dread diseases, HIV, etc(aka having inbuilt immunity). Wouldn`t that be better design after all?.
We dont see the purpose of the recognized flaws. The positive is with purpose and reason , but the negative not so?. Our own understanding is still catching up. Again, jumping to conclusions that there is no creator is a poor argument to make.
we don't believe your storybook since it has no evidence nor proof for it's claims.
There`s a difference between being skeptical(Like myself) and downright running around with blinkers(you with this statement).
And what stops god from jumping to this step? What are according to you the true acting forces on our world? If god were the only acting force all this universe seems pretty unnecessary, unless he chose to limit himself one way or another?
Its getting there. The one world government still has to come, and its evident such a thing is just looming. Evil still has to run its full course.
Israel will be besieged, nuclear fall out will occur. Etc. Would be nice if God just jumped right there. But the events in the bible play out exactly as God foretold. Christ coming...etc and now we`re in the time period of being called to repentance and when thats over, the action/fireworks will start.
The acting forces would be our free will, cause and effect, the angelic and demonic activity(I know this sounds stupid, but its not a Hollywood style context), God. I do not know if the system is dynamic or static and mathematically balanced in every way. I also do not know the relation between all the factors, which is more predominate or what sort of balance exists.
If there is a god I'd hope we try to detect his presence scientifically. I believe that humans, given enough knowledge, can understand everything about the universe.I wouldn't just give up. I'd try to figure out how God works, what he is made of, etc.
Stop avoiding my question. Ive asked you, if we were in nothing more than a computer simulation, How would we know this?.
Your understanding of God is very limit and finite with your above statement. Its also illogical.
Nah. You've probably never even met one. You've just inherited the hate that your parents and preachers have taught you. Christiantiy, religion of hate and intolerance. Jesus would be sick with you.
I know this doctor, Very nice guy. Gay, but very nice, intelligent and humble person. Have also had a best friend whom was a lesbian. Have no problem with them.
Point in question, We`re not called to hate and judge the person but more the practice. TaintedWisp goes about it all wrong..
Nevertheless, its not a question of tolerance as I said. God views it as an abomination and commands us not to engage in it. It does not matter what you think, or care, that is the bottom line. Humans can draw lines wherever they please, but not so with God the Holy Creator.
Just like beastiality is seen as a perversion by our standards. Yet a person that practices that, can still be all nice and good and intelligent and whatever.
You might then say, well whatever they do is their own business and should not affect your view and association with them. That is true, but in God`s eyes both that and homosexual relations are still seen as perversion practices by his standards.
The women wanna act like men, and the men wanna act like women... Pretty much, Its like when a white guy wants to act like hes in the hood, He goes to every stereotype and goes to the extreme with them, where it just becomes stupid....
Same deal, The men start to literally think they are Women, and have no problem fighting women, The women wont clean themselves like they should and it gets disgusting.
I have met a few Gays that I can get along with, and those are fine, but they are far rarer then the normal that I have seen, I have known atleast 15 gay people in my life... and only 2 or 3 have been decent people.
Please. Just no. I swear you are counter-productive to Christianity in this thread. You really need to grow up, and until then you should stick to reading the Bible more and leave this thread entirely.
Quote from Gradius12:
I joined this forum because all the members here seem to be intelligent people who demonstrate an understanding of a powerful tool. And then I step into this thread and it's like looking into a whole other world: a cesspool of unbridled ignorancestupidity.
I guess that's what religion is good for.
This is put better than I could ever put it.
I literally cannot continue to read this thread without feeling sick from anger and sadness. I won't continue in this thread for the sake of my own sanity.
Drama queen;p. For what its worth though, please disregard Taintedwisp from this discussion. Just as most of us disregard Hookah from this discussion(aka the atheist that never/rarely has anything worthwhile or knowledgeable to add)
I do have a problem with that, and it's not really hypocritical. I have a problem with you, because you have a problem with people who've done nothing to deserve your hate. They didn't choose to be homosexual (which still isn't deserving of the hate it generally gets from the religious community), but you chose to hate them. That is a huge difference.
The fact taht they dont have control over their affliction is the problem.
if a man is attracted to little children but chooses not to act on it is he still a pedofile? Hell no.
Then if a man decided to not sleep with another man, then He would not be gay. Yes it could be depressing to both of them, But both of them would be better for it and stronger, and I would actually applaud them.
I don't think you really understand what homosexuality or pedophilia mean. Homosexuality means a sexual attraction to people of the same sex, NOT the actions taken as a result of that attraction. Likewise, pedophilia is the sexual attraction of adults to children, not the raping of children. Not having sex with people of the same gender or not having sex with children does not stop them from having the attractions.
We, as a species, would be better off without the appendix. Appendicitis is fatal without surgery. 5-8% of the human population experience appendicitis.
I'm not going to assume that you meant ALL cases of appendicitis are fatal without surgery, because that's false. I am, however, going to suggest that you look into what causes appendicitis or where appendicitis is most common. Obviously we're still in the research phase, but we're beginning to see a relationship with appendicitis in diet, race/geography (often affects diet), smoking, pollution and several other intestinal problems (Crohn's in my case).
I can see "all of this only proves how much of a liability the appendix is" coming, but let's think about the religious side of this. God instructed us on what to eat and how to treat our bodies (each religion has different interpretations) and many of us ignore these instructions. Is it His fault for allowing our choices to harm us, or our fault for making those choices?
Whether or not you believe in God doesn't matter because to argue against God requires you to be willing to adopt the context of God. In this way, to suggest God designed us poorly is misguided if we do not operate our bodies in the way God instructed us to do so. If God doesn't exist, this doesn't matter and your point is moot. If God does exist, your point is still moot because it is forfeiting the responsibility we have for our bodies. You are focusing on possible negative outcomes rather than how they were derived.
We falsely use this exact argument in a wide variety of situations, an easily relatable one being video games. Someone might say, "[FPS title] sucks balls because you don't command an army of thousands." Others will argue, "The game wasn't designed for RTS, you're doing it wrong."
Stepping back into the realm of science, we are quick to reject God when religion tries to credit Him for what we don't understand, but are equally quick to blame God for what we don't understand when doing so would undermine His existence.
The line of thinking most arguments against intelligent design employ often devolves to, "Why didn't God make humans the most perfectest peoples ever in the history of evers!? Why aren't we invulnerable!? Clearly God is an idiot and I could do better." I'm exaggerating the point, but I think you can see what about this I find unreasonable. I agree parts of the body could be more efficient, but I credit much of this to a lack of understanding. If science is really about the truth, it should be focused on discovering it rather than ignoring it.
It's either a divine joke or a result of our imperfect evolution.
I've repeatedly mentioned that I believe God used evolution to create humanity. Why do you and nearly everyone here insist that they must be separate?
Every organ in the body can kill you. . . This is a generic template for arguing why any organ in the body is "imperfect" because in reality they all are. I argue this point because I view our understanding of the appendix the same way most view bloodletting or former uses of electroshock therapy. We hardly understand what the appendix is for yet jump to the conclusion that it has no use. This then misleads us to assume it is safe to remove, should be removed and God is an idiot for letting us have it.
The tonsils are another part of the body we don't understand and routinely remove. Just because we can remove these things doesn't mean that doing so is desirable and we are better off for it. We could certainly remove an arm or leg (or both) and survive, but you don't see people claiming God is an idiot for this. If anything, the resilience of the body (google "man with half a brain") in spite of severe damage says more about why we can lose our appendix or tonsils than the actual purpose of either. The body adapts to suit our needs. If we dubbed every replaceable or removable part of the body "useless" we'd have quite the list. Much of the body is designed to facilitate removal in the case of irreparable damage.
It bothers me that science enthusiasts rail against religion for jumping to conclusions, yet have no qualms doing so themselves. I agree that religious people have a tendency to jump the shark and make factual statements that can't be supported, but many use science to do the same thing. You can't attack religion or ideas supported by religion by employing the same methods you deride religious individuals for using.
I didn't get to address your point that the coccyx has no use, but that's not true either. It is important for muscles, tendons and ligaments. Wisdom teeth would have been a much better part of the body to point to, but I doubt that would have been as dramatic or effective at linking death to God's "unitelligent design."
I feel that on this particular point, you are making the mistake of believing we have such definitive knowledge of the appendix that what you say is fact. Most respected sources specifically mention "we don't know/understand" somewhere in their description. You can't call it a "fatal flaw in our design" when we don't have a complete understanding of what that design is.
I've looked over your list and I can agree that some of the points make sense, but this particular point is not one of them. I don't consider the "inefficiency" of the human body a "brute fact" when many of these points lose validity as our understanding of them grows.
"Conversely, patients who tested positive for C. difficile were more likely to have an intact appendix than those who tested negative. These results suggest that rather than being protective, an intact appendix appears to promote C. difficile acquisition, carriage, and disease."
My point is that appendicitis is being linked to improper hygienic practices, a major one being diet. The study doesn't detail the dietary norm for patients meaning that it is missing a huge variable with regards to accuracy. This is important because a poor diet contributes to an imbalance of bacteria in the colon. This imbalance contributes to our susceptibility to C. difficile overpopulation. Fecal bacteriotherapy is a method of addressing this imbalance.
The study even points this out in the limitations section of the article by stating that their methodology "makes it impossible for us to demonstrate causality." I encourage you to go back and read all three paragraphs. This makes the conclusion seem less explicit than it does ambiguous.
C. difficile lives naturally in some adults and typically becomes problematic only when other bacteria are wiped out by antibiotics. This suggests that proper diet reduces the risk of C. difficule overpopulating. Knowing this, my original point still stands. If the appendix can store bacteria, it follows that C. difficile would find its way inside. In a balanced colon, this wouldn't matter as the other bacteria would prevent it from overpopulating. Without this balance, C. difficule leaves the appendix and runs rampant.
Logically, having an appendectomy removes this hidey-hole (preventing C. difficile rampancy in colons with poor diets), but also precludes other bacteria that may or may not be beneficial from residing there.
I don't know why you're giving me the authors' opinions as proof of anything, especially when this study contradicted their original hypothesis that the appendix provided protective functions against the bacteria.
I provided their opinion because it undermines the point you're trying to make with this study. You state that we know removing it has no consequences, but the quoted segment shows that they probably don't have a complete understanding of the "true function of the appendix." You can't claim "we know" when most sources make an effort to point out that we don't actually know what the appendix does yet.
Yes, a poor diet without fiber will lead to appendicitis because food gets lodged in there. A flaw that does not exist in the rest of the GI tract, and the point which you refuse to acknowledge. You're also naive if you think everyone with appendicitis is guilty of poor diet.
I refuse to acknowledge this "unique" issue because it's brazenly false. There are a plethora of examples where food gets lodged in both the small intestines and colon. Crohn's is a common reason for elevating to a colectomy/bowel resection (similar to appendectomy) whether due to blockage caused by strictures (narrowings) or severe inflammation.
I also don't believe all appendicitis is brought on by poor diet. Show me where I said this, because I didn't.
Yes, every part of the body can absorb harmful substances. But saying that the appendix removes toxins is disingenuous, considering how anybody who knows anything about the appendix knows that it's a festering sack of latent disease.
The liver removes toxins. The appendix just sits there like a ticking timebomb.
Inflammation is one of the body's many ways for dealing with toxins. If you would like to argue semantics here, I will correct myself by clarifying that your body is removing the toxins, but as the appendix is inflamed, that points to the appendix containing the toxins thus it's trying to rid itself of them. I am not saying that the appendix removes all toxins in the body, but the liver is not solely responsible for removing toxins either.
You're dramatizing the "negative" aspects of the appendix. It is by no means a time bomb. If your statement held any merit, the majority of people would suffer appendicitis (to later burst) compared to the present minority. There aren't enough "explosions" to warrant such a generalizing statement.
Stop backpedaling. You originally said: "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
Only a small percentage of cases of appendicitis aren't caused by any actual obstruction. In these cases, it has nothing to do with diet or the appendix filtering "toxins", it has to do with an infection that spread throughout the GI tract until it got to the weakest part: the appendix.
How am I backpedaling? I haven't taken back any of my claims and clarify when confusion occurs. I never said appendicitis is always caused by obstruction. My very first point was hygienic practices, not obstruction. This also applies to infections, as you describe. Also, diet plays a significant role in the prevalence and severity of infections. A poor diet contributes rotting food in the colon that allows bacteria to thrive. Without this rotting food, it is much harder for infections to reach the appendix. To say that appendicitis caused by infection has nothing to do with diet is ignorant at best.
One of the main things every doctor I've visited asked me about was my diet. In most cases, they recommended dietary supplements and complete removal of various food products; milk and gluten (until they realized it wasn't celiac) being most common.
This study you linked was a clinical/statistical analysis. They determined that the perceived risk for an increase in Crohn's is likely due to diagnostic bias. . . . But if you were too lazy to read the entire article, you could have just...you know, looked at the conclusion at the top of the page:
"The transient increased risk of Crohn's disease after an appendectomy is probably explained by diagnostic bias."
I was worried you might miss this, but thankfully you didn't and now I get to follow up.
Another study mirrors the results of the previous indicating that an appendectomy is a risk factor for Crohn's. It even goes further to suggest that a tonsillectomy is also a risk factor for Crohn's. Ulcerative colitis appears unaffected by either. I guess we found you a good reason for cutting out your organs!
Looking closer at Crohn's, we find that diet plays a significant role in preventing relapse. While this particular study used a semi-vegetarian diet described in the article, it explains the benefits of similar diets:
"Although we designed our SVD with gut bacterial flora in mind, both plant-only (vegan) and plant-based (lacto-ovo-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) vegetarians are shown to have low rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and total mortality. Plant-based diets are recommended for prevention of cancer and other lifestyle-related chronic diseases. Therefore, SVD will not only be effective for gut inflammation, but also promote the general health of IBD patients."
So if diet can be used to treat IBD's, it stands to reason that the risk of appendicitis could be reduced given the tentatively established relationship with Crohn's. Especially considering that inflammation is a key component in all of the above.
Even if you doubt these relationships, we've already agreed that low-fiber diets contribute to appendicitis. The diets described above are high in fiber. If, for whatever reason, you change your mind, I'll leave the relationship between low-fiber diets and the prevalence of fecaliths (or fecalomas) here for you to review. Fecaliths being the most common cause of obstructions leading to appendicitis.
One study suggest that some cases of appendicitis could be triggered by air pollution, which is consistent with an increased risk of Crohn's for smokers (Crohn's is considered an incurable chronic disorder with "remission in less than one third of the patients with colonic CD," yet the study on SVD diets successfully prevented relapse; score one for diet?).
I'm aware that this isn't scientific fact, but it would be silly to ignore the growing evidence of connections between these issues. There are many, many more studies/articles detailing these findings, but I limited them to ncbi exclusively to avoid "religious bias."
Newsflash: I never denied that the appendix might have yet-undiscovered important functions.
This is really getting old. Where, exactly, did I say you were denying anything? You're suggesting that if God really was intelligent, he'd make the appendix shrink to avoid later complications. You base this on the incredibly limited understanding we have of its function. You attempt to defend this by claiming that we only notice the appendix when it has problems. How is that an argument? I don't notice most things in my body unless their given me problems. That's the point of a healthy body. . . it doesn't get in your way.
You are not acknowledging the underlying point that yes, in fact, we have been removing appendices without major adverse affects for a long time, and that yes, people can die from sepsis from this one organ because it gets clogged with shit so easily. If you're going to get all sanctimonious it helps to actually read what I say and respond to that instead of some strawman.
Saying that I'm not acknowledging your point doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it. I can address your point and still disagree with it.
I argued that "we don't know that removing it has no consequences. . . that's what these studies are discovering." Various forms of disease are becoming more prevalent in the world and in most cases we don't know why. Until we understand why disease is increasing again (after a period of rapid decrease), we can't honestly claim that they are no "major adverse effects" to appendectomies. Smoking was once considered harmless! We now know better. . .
I find it ironic that you use the straw man defense because I've been very careful to address only the points you raise, as you raise them. On the other hand, you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth, skewing facts and ignoring anything that doesn't support your opinions.
Right back at ya. You're going to fail to read my arguments, fail to read my articles, fail to read your own articles, link me creationist sites which talk about how much air is inside of a whale's stomach even though the stomach is not connected to the whale's lungs....and then you're going to complain about my links. Got it.
I've more than demonstrated my ability to read AND comprehend both your points and the subject matter. You continuously fail to do so. You conveniently ignore the link you provided "proving Joseph's Smith fraudulent behavior" that turned out to be nothing of the sort. I addressed it part way through this post.
Instead, you scrutinize a link I provided outside of the context it was used in:
7.) A lot of explanations are admittedly thin, but this article in particular has portions that explain the natural methods by which this could have happened. Ultimately it's not a matter of whether or not a man could be swallowed whole (because they can), but how long, exactly, Jonah was in the fish/whale and whether or not he could survive that long.
I get that you are completely biased against creationist sites, but I do a respectable job presenting multiple sides in an objective fashion. I even prefaced the link with my own reservations and in no way suggested it was fact. I contest your links because they have consistently contained information that was contrary to the point you were trying to make with them. You're fishing here.
Should I be surprised that most of your knowledge is restricted to blaming everything on "toxins" - a magical substance that is the cause of all our ills?
If you take offense to me using the medically accurate term, toxin, in relation to inflammation, (note the causes) perhaps you should consider the fact that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't blame "all our ills" on toxins. For the Nth time, you're putting words in my mouth.
I think the body is well designed, and we dont give any credit for that. No matter how perfect a design, you`ll always be able to find a flaw.
No, you can't, actually. The very definition of 'perfect' is 'without flaws'. If you find a flaw in a design, you can't dub it perfect. I'm not entirely sure what the point was here, but just wanted to point that out.
Right now I find myself agreeing very much with Eiviyn. The last few pages have had very little to do with actual science and moreso with logical thinking or philosophy. I still haven't seen Eiviyn's "if there has to be an unmoved mover, why does it have to be God instead of the universe itself?" argument countered properly. The statements we're all making here are no longer factual since their truth cannot possibly be known at this time, and when it comes to fictional statements (Witgenstein's we-cannot-know-the-truth-about-this-but-we-can-say-it-out-loud fictional statements, not fictional-as-opposed-to-fact statements), all we have is the logic of our reason to come to conclusions.
On another note, something I'm noticing you do quite a lot EW, is a witch hunt for verification. Have you heard of Karl Popper? It is said that the inspiration for his works (and ideas of falsification) were the theories of both Karl Marx and Freud, who had a habit of being right CONSTANTLY because they were constantly looking for proof of their theories - which is what caused them to see it everywhere. While Popper's theories have their problems, his main point remains true: this kind of verificational-thinking is a logical error because it renders your theory meaningless. It's the same premise that old joke is based on;
"Pete is whistling during class. 'Stop that!', the teacher says. 'I can't, sir', Pete replies. 'Why?', asks the teacher. 'The whistling keeps the tigers away, sir'. 'But there aren't any tigers here!'. 'Exactly, which means it's working!'
I'm seeing you do something very similar when it comes to bible quotes Eiviyn provides. Whatever the bible says, you simply reply "oh but this doesn't actually MEAN you should rape people, you should read it in the light of X!". While some or maybe even a lot of that can very much be true, it only takes you so far.
Essentially I guess I'm saying the same as some of Eiviyn's earlier posts here: you cannot possibly KNOW that your theory is correct, so how are you any different from your local Imam preaching his islamic gospels?
Quote from Taintedwisp:
@Eiviyn: Go
Things i have noticed about homosexuals.
"the Women are not clean"
I know 1 lesbian. She is impecibly clean and neat. She is verry smart and is dedicated to her studies.
I am friends with another girl who I am 90% sure is a lesbian (never asked her directly and never felt the need to). Actually she is often not clean, she is big into camping/hiking/mountaineering. She is an amazing person. I have placed my LIFE in her hands many times and would do so again.
"and the men are quick to hit women."
I am friends with 3 gay guys. 2 of them are some of the biggest pacifists I know. The third one is a big guy who will not shy from a fight but has very old school values. If he sees someone getting bullied he will stand up for them and if he EVER saw a man hitting a woman he would probably send that person to a hospital.
So go ahead... tell me about how these people are dirty and likely to attack women...
EDIT:
In all fairness I just realised I know a 4th gay guy. That guy is a jerk. So I guess that one guy proves you point?
Hahahaha oh wow kid, way to prove my point.
@finiteturtles: Go
The women wanna act like men, and the men wanna act like women... Pretty much, Its like when a white guy wants to act like hes in the hood, He goes to every stereotype and goes to the extreme with them, where it just becomes stupid....
Same deal, The men start to literally think they are Women, and have no problem fighting women, The women wont clean themselves like they should and it gets disgusting.
I have met a few Gays that I can get along with, and those are fine, but they are far rarer then the normal that I have seen, I have known atleast 15 gay people in my life... and only 2 or 3 have been decent people.
Alan Turing rolling in his grave...
Quote from Gradius12:
I joined this forum because all the members here seem to be intelligent people who demonstrate an understanding of a powerful tool. And then I step into this thread and it's like looking into a whole other world: a cesspool of unbridled ignorance stupidity.
I guess that's what religion is good for.
----
This is put better than I could ever put it.
I literally cannot continue to read this thread without feeling sick from anger and sadness. I won't continue in this thread for the sake of my own sanity.
Why are you people still posting in here..... get lives.
Its not like people care what other people think...
This thread is beyond the point of worthy discussion... its just a e-peen contest.
Eiviyn.... I used to think you were a decent person, but this thread has shown me otherwise. I find that your just as ignorant as the people you rail against.
I cant see how this thread is still open. It really brings the level of culture here on sc2mapster down quite a bit. Kinda disappointing.
He would, He would. Its a trap to assume God is waiting for the slightest opportunity to cast us into a `hell` or torment us. Such an attitude leads to despair and should not be entertained. All it takes is the slightest attitude of repentance and change of heart for a person to save him/herself. I dont think anyone is going to get intentionally screwed at the end of their lives. Every person bears some responsibility for their actions and inner most decisions. We have our conscious that acts as one means of warning , then we have knowledge, and all sorts of persuasive and true forces that can lead us on the right track. Who better to judge that , than God?.
The whispers that tell us God is evil, cruel, and is wanting to kill/destroy and damn us. Where do they come from?
"Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign LORD. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live.Ezekiel 18:23
As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die? Ezekiel 33:11
I don't want you to die, says the Sovereign LORD. Turn back and live!Ezekiel 18:32
who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.1 Timothy 2:4
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.John 3:17
(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.1 Timothy 4:10
For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people..Titus 2:11
Numbers 14:18 (KJV) ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’
Psalm 86:15 (KJV) But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, long suffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Psalm 78:38 Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them. Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.
Psalm 108:4 For great is your love, higher than the heavens; your faithfulness reaches to the skies.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.1 John 4:8
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. Isaiah 45:22
We`re not talking `Dungeons and Dragons` definition of Sorceress here(Throwing fireballs?)... Occult practices, witchcraft, fortune telling, etc. No different than modern day occult. Not that I believe they have any power in their efforts, but they obviously are deluded in thinking so.
Appendix is not useless. I dont know about the coccyx.
The fact that we can easily survive without it, hardly does much for the argument. We can also live without the Gall bladder, with 1 Kidney, etc. The human body is extremely resilient and has many fail-safes. Continuous wear and tear on the intended design, will lead to damage. The body is not meant to be perfect under every condition but rather optimal under its design specs.
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.Genesis 1:29
You see, this was meant to be our original diet. Threshold of deviation from this is forgiving despite the amount of man-made junk and other foods we intoxicate our body with. There`s a limit of course.
I think the body is well designed, and we dont give any credit for that. No matter how perfect a design, you`ll always be able to find a flaw. I can argue why we dont have the strength of a silverback(but then this would make flight like a bird nigh impossible and contradictory if it were desired too), or why we dont have biological immortality as some organisms and bacterium do, or why we cant propagate the `evolution` cycle/process to no end without worrying about dread diseases, HIV, etc(aka having inbuilt immunity). Wouldn`t that be better design after all?.
We dont see the purpose of the recognized flaws. The positive is with purpose and reason , but the negative not so?. Our own understanding is still catching up. Again, jumping to conclusions that there is no creator is a poor argument to make.
we don't believe your storybook since it has no evidence nor proof for it's claims.
There`s a difference between being skeptical(Like myself) and downright running around with blinkers(you with this statement).
Its getting there. The one world government still has to come, and its evident such a thing is just looming. Evil still has to run its full course.
Israel will be besieged, nuclear fall out will occur. Etc. Would be nice if God just jumped right there. But the events in the bible play out exactly as God foretold. Christ coming...etc and now we`re in the time period of being called to repentance and when thats over, the action/fireworks will start.
The acting forces would be our free will, cause and effect, the angelic and demonic activity(I know this sounds stupid, but its not a Hollywood style context), God. I do not know if the system is dynamic or static and mathematically balanced in every way. I also do not know the relation between all the factors, which is more predominate or what sort of balance exists.
If there is a god I'd hope we try to detect his presence scientifically. I believe that humans, given enough knowledge, can understand everything about the universe.I wouldn't just give up. I'd try to figure out how God works, what he is made of, etc.
Stop avoiding my question. Ive asked you, if we were in nothing more than a computer simulation, How would we know this?.
Your understanding of God is very limit and finite with your above statement. Its also illogical.
I know this doctor, Very nice guy. Gay, but very nice, intelligent and humble person. Have also had a best friend whom was a lesbian. Have no problem with them.
Point in question, We`re not called to hate and judge the person but more the practice. TaintedWisp goes about it all wrong..
Nevertheless, its not a question of tolerance as I said. God views it as an abomination and commands us not to engage in it. It does not matter what you think, or care, that is the bottom line. Humans can draw lines wherever they please, but not so with God the Holy Creator.
Just like beastiality is seen as a perversion by our standards. Yet a person that practices that, can still be all nice and good and intelligent and whatever.
You might then say, well whatever they do is their own business and should not affect your view and association with them. That is true, but in God`s eyes both that and homosexual relations are still seen as perversion practices by his standards.
Please. Just no. I swear you are counter-productive to Christianity in this thread. You really need to grow up, and until then you should stick to reading the Bible more and leave this thread entirely.
Drama queen;p. For what its worth though, please disregard Taintedwisp from this discussion. Just as most of us disregard Hookah from this discussion(aka the atheist that never/rarely has anything worthwhile or knowledgeable to add)
@Taintedwisp: Go
I do have a problem with that, and it's not really hypocritical. I have a problem with you, because you have a problem with people who've done nothing to deserve your hate. They didn't choose to be homosexual (which still isn't deserving of the hate it generally gets from the religious community), but you chose to hate them. That is a huge difference.
Start at 35 mins.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@Nebuli2: Go
Well What do you want me to do about you not liking someone? cry? Oh wait thats you thats doing that.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@Taintedwisp: Go
I'm not. I'm merely stating that I feel you are wrong in disliking a group of people for something over which they have no control.
@Nebuli2: Go
The fact taht they dont have control over their affliction is the problem.
if a man is attracted to little children but chooses not to act on it is he still a pedofile? Hell no.
Then if a man decided to not sleep with another man, then He would not be gay. Yes it could be depressing to both of them, But both of them would be better for it and stronger, and I would actually applaud them.
@Taintedwisp: Go
I don't think you really understand what homosexuality or pedophilia mean. Homosexuality means a sexual attraction to people of the same sex, NOT the actions taken as a result of that attraction. Likewise, pedophilia is the sexual attraction of adults to children, not the raping of children. Not having sex with people of the same gender or not having sex with children does not stop them from having the attractions.
@Nebuli2: Go
I never said there was anything wrong with them before they Acted on their malfunctions.
@Taintedwisp: Go
I can sense I'm not getting through your thick wall of bigotry.
I'm not going to assume that you meant ALL cases of appendicitis are fatal without surgery, because that's false. I am, however, going to suggest that you look into what causes appendicitis or where appendicitis is most common. Obviously we're still in the research phase, but we're beginning to see a relationship with appendicitis in diet, race/geography (often affects diet), smoking, pollution and several other intestinal problems (Crohn's in my case).
I can see "all of this only proves how much of a liability the appendix is" coming, but let's think about the religious side of this. God instructed us on what to eat and how to treat our bodies (each religion has different interpretations) and many of us ignore these instructions. Is it His fault for allowing our choices to harm us, or our fault for making those choices?
Whether or not you believe in God doesn't matter because to argue against God requires you to be willing to adopt the context of God. In this way, to suggest God designed us poorly is misguided if we do not operate our bodies in the way God instructed us to do so. If God doesn't exist, this doesn't matter and your point is moot. If God does exist, your point is still moot because it is forfeiting the responsibility we have for our bodies. You are focusing on possible negative outcomes rather than how they were derived.
We falsely use this exact argument in a wide variety of situations, an easily relatable one being video games. Someone might say, "[FPS title] sucks balls because you don't command an army of thousands." Others will argue, "The game wasn't designed for RTS, you're doing it wrong."
Stepping back into the realm of science, we are quick to reject God when religion tries to credit Him for what we don't understand, but are equally quick to blame God for what we don't understand when doing so would undermine His existence.
The line of thinking most arguments against intelligent design employ often devolves to, "Why didn't God make humans the most perfectest peoples ever in the history of evers!? Why aren't we invulnerable!? Clearly God is an idiot and I could do better." I'm exaggerating the point, but I think you can see what about this I find unreasonable. I agree parts of the body could be more efficient, but I credit much of this to a lack of understanding. If science is really about the truth, it should be focused on discovering it rather than ignoring it.
I've repeatedly mentioned that I believe God used evolution to create humanity. Why do you and nearly everyone here insist that they must be separate?
Every organ in the body can kill you. . . This is a generic template for arguing why any organ in the body is "imperfect" because in reality they all are. I argue this point because I view our understanding of the appendix the same way most view bloodletting or former uses of electroshock therapy. We hardly understand what the appendix is for yet jump to the conclusion that it has no use. This then misleads us to assume it is safe to remove, should be removed and God is an idiot for letting us have it.
The tonsils are another part of the body we don't understand and routinely remove. Just because we can remove these things doesn't mean that doing so is desirable and we are better off for it. We could certainly remove an arm or leg (or both) and survive, but you don't see people claiming God is an idiot for this. If anything, the resilience of the body (google "man with half a brain") in spite of severe damage says more about why we can lose our appendix or tonsils than the actual purpose of either. The body adapts to suit our needs. If we dubbed every replaceable or removable part of the body "useless" we'd have quite the list. Much of the body is designed to facilitate removal in the case of irreparable damage.
It bothers me that science enthusiasts rail against religion for jumping to conclusions, yet have no qualms doing so themselves. I agree that religious people have a tendency to jump the shark and make factual statements that can't be supported, but many use science to do the same thing. You can't attack religion or ideas supported by religion by employing the same methods you deride religious individuals for using.
I didn't get to address your point that the coccyx has no use, but that's not true either. It is important for muscles, tendons and ligaments. Wisdom teeth would have been a much better part of the body to point to, but I doubt that would have been as dramatic or effective at linking death to God's "unitelligent design."
I feel that on this particular point, you are making the mistake of believing we have such definitive knowledge of the appendix that what you say is fact. Most respected sources specifically mention "we don't know/understand" somewhere in their description. You can't call it a "fatal flaw in our design" when we don't have a complete understanding of what that design is.
I've looked over your list and I can agree that some of the points make sense, but this particular point is not one of them. I don't consider the "inefficiency" of the human body a "brute fact" when many of these points lose validity as our understanding of them grows.
My point is that appendicitis is being linked to improper hygienic practices, a major one being diet. The study doesn't detail the dietary norm for patients meaning that it is missing a huge variable with regards to accuracy. This is important because a poor diet contributes to an imbalance of bacteria in the colon. This imbalance contributes to our susceptibility to C. difficile overpopulation. Fecal bacteriotherapy is a method of addressing this imbalance.
The study even points this out in the limitations section of the article by stating that their methodology "makes it impossible for us to demonstrate causality." I encourage you to go back and read all three paragraphs. This makes the conclusion seem less explicit than it does ambiguous.
C. difficile lives naturally in some adults and typically becomes problematic only when other bacteria are wiped out by antibiotics. This suggests that proper diet reduces the risk of C. difficule overpopulating. Knowing this, my original point still stands. If the appendix can store bacteria, it follows that C. difficile would find its way inside. In a balanced colon, this wouldn't matter as the other bacteria would prevent it from overpopulating. Without this balance, C. difficule leaves the appendix and runs rampant.
Logically, having an appendectomy removes this hidey-hole (preventing C. difficile rampancy in colons with poor diets), but also precludes other bacteria that may or may not be beneficial from residing there.
I provided their opinion because it undermines the point you're trying to make with this study. You state that we know removing it has no consequences, but the quoted segment shows that they probably don't have a complete understanding of the "true function of the appendix." You can't claim "we know" when most sources make an effort to point out that we don't actually know what the appendix does yet.
I refuse to acknowledge this "unique" issue because it's brazenly false. There are a plethora of examples where food gets lodged in both the small intestines and colon. Crohn's is a common reason for elevating to a colectomy/bowel resection (similar to appendectomy) whether due to blockage caused by strictures (narrowings) or severe inflammation.
I also don't believe all appendicitis is brought on by poor diet. Show me where I said this, because I didn't.
Inflammation is one of the body's many ways for dealing with toxins. If you would like to argue semantics here, I will correct myself by clarifying that your body is removing the toxins, but as the appendix is inflamed, that points to the appendix containing the toxins thus it's trying to rid itself of them. I am not saying that the appendix removes all toxins in the body, but the liver is not solely responsible for removing toxins either.
You're dramatizing the "negative" aspects of the appendix. It is by no means a time bomb. If your statement held any merit, the majority of people would suffer appendicitis (to later burst) compared to the present minority. There aren't enough "explosions" to warrant such a generalizing statement.
How am I backpedaling? I haven't taken back any of my claims and clarify when confusion occurs. I never said appendicitis is always caused by obstruction. My very first point was hygienic practices, not obstruction. This also applies to infections, as you describe. Also, diet plays a significant role in the prevalence and severity of infections. A poor diet contributes rotting food in the colon that allows bacteria to thrive. Without this rotting food, it is much harder for infections to reach the appendix. To say that appendicitis caused by infection has nothing to do with diet is ignorant at best.
One of the main things every doctor I've visited asked me about was my diet. In most cases, they recommended dietary supplements and complete removal of various food products; milk and gluten (until they realized it wasn't celiac) being most common.
I was worried you might miss this, but thankfully you didn't and now I get to follow up.
Another study mirrors the results of the previous indicating that an appendectomy is a risk factor for Crohn's. It even goes further to suggest that a tonsillectomy is also a risk factor for Crohn's. Ulcerative colitis appears unaffected by either. I guess we found you a good reason for cutting out your organs!
Looking closer at Crohn's, we find that diet plays a significant role in preventing relapse. While this particular study used a semi-vegetarian diet described in the article, it explains the benefits of similar diets:
"Although we designed our SVD with gut bacterial flora in mind, both plant-only (vegan) and plant-based (lacto-ovo-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) vegetarians are shown to have low rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and total mortality. Plant-based diets are recommended for prevention of cancer and other lifestyle-related chronic diseases. Therefore, SVD will not only be effective for gut inflammation, but also promote the general health of IBD patients."
So if diet can be used to treat IBD's, it stands to reason that the risk of appendicitis could be reduced given the tentatively established relationship with Crohn's. Especially considering that inflammation is a key component in all of the above.
Even if you doubt these relationships, we've already agreed that low-fiber diets contribute to appendicitis. The diets described above are high in fiber. If, for whatever reason, you change your mind, I'll leave the relationship between low-fiber diets and the prevalence of fecaliths (or fecalomas) here for you to review. Fecaliths being the most common cause of obstructions leading to appendicitis.
One study suggest that some cases of appendicitis could be triggered by air pollution, which is consistent with an increased risk of Crohn's for smokers (Crohn's is considered an incurable chronic disorder with "remission in less than one third of the patients with colonic CD," yet the study on SVD diets successfully prevented relapse; score one for diet?).
I'm aware that this isn't scientific fact, but it would be silly to ignore the growing evidence of connections between these issues. There are many, many more studies/articles detailing these findings, but I limited them to ncbi exclusively to avoid "religious bias."
This is really getting old. Where, exactly, did I say you were denying anything? You're suggesting that if God really was intelligent, he'd make the appendix shrink to avoid later complications. You base this on the incredibly limited understanding we have of its function. You attempt to defend this by claiming that we only notice the appendix when it has problems. How is that an argument? I don't notice most things in my body unless their given me problems. That's the point of a healthy body. . . it doesn't get in your way.
Saying that I'm not acknowledging your point doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it. I can address your point and still disagree with it.
I argued that "we don't know that removing it has no consequences. . . that's what these studies are discovering." Various forms of disease are becoming more prevalent in the world and in most cases we don't know why. Until we understand why disease is increasing again (after a period of rapid decrease), we can't honestly claim that they are no "major adverse effects" to appendectomies. Smoking was once considered harmless! We now know better. . .
I find it ironic that you use the straw man defense because I've been very careful to address only the points you raise, as you raise them. On the other hand, you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth, skewing facts and ignoring anything that doesn't support your opinions.
I've more than demonstrated my ability to read AND comprehend both your points and the subject matter. You continuously fail to do so. You conveniently ignore the link you provided "proving Joseph's Smith fraudulent behavior" that turned out to be nothing of the sort. I addressed it part way through this post.
Instead, you scrutinize a link I provided outside of the context it was used in:
I get that you are completely biased against creationist sites, but I do a respectable job presenting multiple sides in an objective fashion. I even prefaced the link with my own reservations and in no way suggested it was fact. I contest your links because they have consistently contained information that was contrary to the point you were trying to make with them. You're fishing here.
If you take offense to me using the medically accurate term, toxin, in relation to inflammation, (note the causes) perhaps you should consider the fact that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't blame "all our ills" on toxins. For the Nth time, you're putting words in my mouth.
Every instance I used toxins in:
You're right, toxins ARE the cause of all our ills. . . oh wait. . .
No, you can't, actually. The very definition of 'perfect' is 'without flaws'. If you find a flaw in a design, you can't dub it perfect. I'm not entirely sure what the point was here, but just wanted to point that out.
Right now I find myself agreeing very much with Eiviyn. The last few pages have had very little to do with actual science and moreso with logical thinking or philosophy. I still haven't seen Eiviyn's "if there has to be an unmoved mover, why does it have to be God instead of the universe itself?" argument countered properly. The statements we're all making here are no longer factual since their truth cannot possibly be known at this time, and when it comes to fictional statements (Witgenstein's we-cannot-know-the-truth-about-this-but-we-can-say-it-out-loud fictional statements, not fictional-as-opposed-to-fact statements), all we have is the logic of our reason to come to conclusions.
On another note, something I'm noticing you do quite a lot EW, is a witch hunt for verification. Have you heard of Karl Popper? It is said that the inspiration for his works (and ideas of falsification) were the theories of both Karl Marx and Freud, who had a habit of being right CONSTANTLY because they were constantly looking for proof of their theories - which is what caused them to see it everywhere. While Popper's theories have their problems, his main point remains true: this kind of verificational-thinking is a logical error because it renders your theory meaningless. It's the same premise that old joke is based on;
"Pete is whistling during class. 'Stop that!', the teacher says. 'I can't, sir', Pete replies. 'Why?', asks the teacher. 'The whistling keeps the tigers away, sir'. 'But there aren't any tigers here!'. 'Exactly, which means it's working!'
I'm seeing you do something very similar when it comes to bible quotes Eiviyn provides. Whatever the bible says, you simply reply "oh but this doesn't actually MEAN you should rape people, you should read it in the light of X!". While some or maybe even a lot of that can very much be true, it only takes you so far.
Essentially I guess I'm saying the same as some of Eiviyn's earlier posts here: you cannot possibly KNOW that your theory is correct, so how are you any different from your local Imam preaching his islamic gospels?
This thread just keeps on delivering.
I highly recommend it.