This thread is just as the title says. Please keep it casual.
Every once in awhile I stop to think about infinity because the thought that the universe is endless astounds me. I look at my fingers and realize that although it does not seem as though I am touching anything, I am always touching something...molecules, atoms, etc.
Infinity is an overwhelming concept that makes me feel terribly insignificant. Kind of puts me in my place, so to speak!
wow, this place is dead... 11 months and no one says a thing.
You are right, Irfan. What would get you talking? General interest or something from your profile?
My interests are varied, I know a lot about little, prefer logical scientific and technical subjects, but also into men's groups and discussing positive outlooks for men.
Anything is good for me... Logical scientific subjects sounds good to me. I've been looking into a bit of natural medicine and try things on myself... quite interesting for me. So far I've managed to find 3 things that cure cancer (from personal aquaintances).
1. Cannabis oil - I recommended this to a friend after some research online for his mother. Doctors gave her 2 months, but she's still around after a year and the cancer growth has stopped.
2. Black Cumin oil - talking to a recruitment agent, her husband was cured in 3 months. No sign of cancer.
3. Dr.Burzynski in Texas working with something called anti-neo-plastons.
Interesting things are happening in the field of natural medicine ... have you ever used natural techniques?
Interesting question. Having led a career in medical radiography, I have tended to shy away from anything "alternative," because I saw a practice of avoiding precise diagnosis and instead employ here say, make-believe, false scientific presumptions.
However, the values of natural medicine, where properly and honestly researched I believe has a lot to offer. When I think of all the surgical procedures that have been performed when deeper knowledge and understanding of health conditions was missing, we have advanced enormously in the past 40 years.
The first requirement for greater health is returning to natural, minimally processed food and drink.
How do you feel about this?
Question - the cannabis oil listed as a cure for cancer. If indeed it was the cause of the remission (untested, but assume we have tested and it really does cure some cancers), and we learn to produce it in a test tube is it then considered "unnatural" and of lesser value than what comes from the plant?
The large majority of our drugs have their roots in living organisms, regardless of how they are currently produced. Are they "unnatural" because they are not produced from a living animal or plant?
Strictly speaking you are correct - such drugs would be "unnatural." They might even turn out to be better in some ways than the natural counterpart. E.g., more precise control over dosage, exclusion of perhaps harmful ingredients secondary to the main alcoloid, less expensive to obtain, etc.
Yet I would suggest that if we could eat better, generally, there might be less need for drugs any way....some at least.
I spoke to my brother about this a while ago (he's a chemist)... herbal medicine is good and if the cannabis oil does come in the herbal industry then we can say they are natural, but if it comes from the pharma side of things too many extra chemicals are added, which would classify it as unnatural.
I agree... that's what i'm trying to do (not sure if i'm succeeding though) to have lesser amounts of processed foods. for medication i usually search for natural cures and make them at home, if it fails and i cannot find an suitable alternative, i go to a doctor.
doctors tell us not to bend our knees if we have arthritis issues. I was told the same at the age of 18. due to excessive sporting activities the fluid between the knees leaked out or something and the bones grind against each other. I bent my knee with my body weight (like the muslims sit in prayer) and i was back to normal again in a few days. this has happened about 3 times in the past 20 years.
I had another injury recently on my thigh which was similar to another guy on the soccer field. He went to the doctor and got a 6-8 week rest slip. I managed to find the nerve causing the pain and played every week. there are many other similar instances...
At the age of 32-33 i was forced to decide if i wanted spend the rest of my life on pills or stay away from pills and exercise. The exercise has helped with my stomach issues, my migraines, and so many other things. it was a lifestyle change but it was worth it.
What do you think of my philosophy?
The Universe is a living organism with a personality of it's own. It is a trickster.
Is it only a trickster because we cannot fathom the enormity of it, nor do we know the rules of the game?
If conversation does not pick up here, I shall lose interest.
Hubpages is slow. I spend a lot of time at debate.org where the conversation is much livelier.
Why did you decide to change back to this forum identity?
Bunch of slackers. I'm getting more conversation on the main page I am.
I remember the story and the sad ending.
I think you described "home" as a small shiny object.
as I dimly recall.
Maybe I im a g i n e d i t . . .
That was a long time ago, you have a truly excellent memory. What with the subdomains now gone, I've got 15 flash fiction stories I could publish or republish here, but...
A. QAP would flunk them (again).
B. Google would hate them (again).
I'd post a link as to where they are now, but HP gets highly perturbed about that.
Are we all excited about Atheism 2.0? I am.
The "cranky old man Dawkins" atheism is at last passe. A dead parrot.
Atheism 2.0 is about religious tolerance, learning from religion and the putting aside of all denigration. This is real ethical atheism.
I have no trouble at all with this approach and have been actively supporting it while also blasting the cranky intolerant bigoted dawkins style phony atheism. The damage dawkins has done to further his career is appalling. He is rapidly going down in history as a bad influence.
Isn't it time the atheist young whipper snappers on HP put aside the woeful dawkins approach and embraced Atheism 2.0?
Perhaps it is time. Is it also time to end the proselytizing of religion? Time to stop claiming knowledge when there is none? Time to stop requiring everyone believe the same myth? Time to stop trying to brainwash our children into a false belief? Time to stop spreading religious icons about the landscape, including public lands where the public must then pay for support? Time to get references to religion off our money, out of our pledge to our country and out of our government?
Is it time for that, too, or just to quieten the voices of atheism? Personally I'd love to see all references to either religion OR atheism kept behind closed doors, but that very much flies in the face of accepted religious dogma which requires that everyone hold the same myth as truth.
I don't proselytize any religion. I've done the same thing Atheism 2.0 is now recommending : trying to learn the best parts. I'm on record on HP condemning crazy fundamentalism.
From here on you are on your own if you choose to continue to denigrate. It's certainly not me. Time has proved my approach to be correct: the dawkins approach was seriously wrong and urgentry needed total condemnation. You and others here have been deluded and following in the cranky old man's footsteps.
Perhaps you need to direct your comments to crazy fundamentalists not me. While you're at it STOP denigrating religion with gross intolerance.
If Mr Dawkins, anyone with theist, a-theist, hetero, bi, gay, male, female, young or old person who wishes to join in this discussion freely, without resorting to denigration or intollerance of any kind, I suggest they would be very welcome here. They could also expect and receive the same.
Right, OZ? Even Hillary aught to be able to discuss here freely, without being insulted or shouted down, especially by someone who might claim to have Christian ethic.
"I don't proselytize any religion."
Really? Not even theism in any or all it's thousands of varying sects?
But even as you deny the obvious, I'll still tolerate religion...as long as it doesn't try to force it's myth onto me or mine. When that happens I WILL strike back with all the truth and reason that religion has forgotten in it's desperate need to control the unthinking beliefs of the people.
You are avoiding the issue. The old crusty cranky dawkins atheism is finished.
I promote the ethical in both atheism and religion.
Get with the times.
Its good to see you are trying to promote atheism 2.0. that is the way forward, and i do believe it is possible, but i think we still need people like wilderness to do what they do and speak the way they speak to those on the side of religion in order to understand certain things.
In order to make atheism 2.0 successful and sustainable you need people standing on atheism 1.0, otherwise you will fall like a house of cards. Everyone has their own journey... let them travel how they want. At the moment it seems like you are shoving atheism 2.0 down his throat.
The old atheism of dawkins has failed miserably and offers nothing; certainly not a foundation!. It has been totally destructive. There has never been a way to justify religious intolerance or for that matter racial/cultural intolerance. Its the very dictionary definition of bigotry. Such behaviour had to be opposed at every step. To write books about it, to lead others astray and to make money out of it will be a lasting disgrace to people like dawkins and others who have indulged in this ethical destruction.
Certain unnamed hubbers need to start eating a lot of crow. Yes I'm insisting he start eating crow with humble pie for dessert! To continue on his same course is a sign of the inability to learn.
I sense the atheism 1.0 tone in your words too... the only difference I see is this time it's directed at someone else.
Overall it's a good approach. If practiced on both sides (specifically the religious side) then it will be beneficial for all.
If we don't have a gut reaction to religious bigotry we are lacking. We are talking about seperate things.
I've always stood up for ethical atheism and ethical religion.
So is the old crusty evangelism that demands everyone believe. Something you seem to have a hard time with.
The goal is tolerance - tolerance of religion (all of them) and tolerance of "not religion". It is not to promote religion or religious beliefs.
Have you even read my posts?? I put them in the same basket as you and the old dawkins camp.
Atheism 2.0 is saying positive things about the positive aspects of religion not practicing religious intolerance for a living.
Guess maybe I don't know what "atheism 2.0" is. Non-belief is non-belief as far as I can see, and the requirement to be left out of religious requirements is only reasonable as well. Perhaps your atheism 2.0 is actually agnosticism - the denial of any belief at all? It is only in the past couple of years that I've changed that terminology to atheism rather than agnosticism as that seemed to be the common usage today.
But religion DOES have some positives. Organized religion provides a social outlet for many that would have virtually none without the church. It does provide some charity work (I've been involved in that in the past, helping out under church guidance and rules). It can provide some moral guidance, as long as much of it is removed first. If it would only stay within it's doors instead of demanding that everyone else follow suit it could have a net positive effect, but those demands are extremely obnoxious and actively harmful.
That is actually what it is supposed to be like with religion. It's a personal thing with some encouragement in social interactions and welfare of others regardless of race, religion, gender or anything else.
If practiced properly I think more people (including some current atheists) would be interested in joining, but at the moment most religious people have inflated egos which causes more harm than good.
Unfortunately, if that is what religion is supposed to be it has a lot of changing to do. The common religions of today (Christianity and Islam) do not ascribe to that ideal and never did.
No wilderness. Only if we rely solely on negative fundamentalist stereotypes.
I agree it's all messed up. But that is what it's supposed to be.
In Islam we did not have a permanent person to lead the prayers in a mosque. A set of people gathered to pray and the people chose the most knowledgeable person or the one with the best character to lead that particular prayer. Now it's become a full time job and sadly the ones which usually speak to the public have very little wisdom, patience and all the good stuff. There is a lot of politics involved between mosques and the Imams give their opinions on the political situations in the country instead of teaching people the ways and paths which lead to God. There are very few decent real teachers out there and it's a shame to see where we stand today. Instead of things coming from books it comes from personal opinions.
We are taught that during the time of our prophet Muhammad, in some instances people who came with the intention to kill the prophet, joined Islam instead after meeting him. That, in my opinion is a powerful personality. A person with so much power in his time used to pray that he remains poor.
I agree once again that religion is no where near where it is supposed to be. Followers like myself have not done a good enough job in setting the right examples.
Arksys, I afford you the same amount of respect as Christians - but - do not have your beliefs or the Christian ones. There is no god to "believe in" for me personally. Please respect this point of view and never presume that I need what you have, or that you can change my point of view. Period.
I think i was talking to "wilderness" when i wrote that... i'm not sure why you took it personally? Just because i put in a good word or two about Islam does not mean I was trying to imply that you or wilderness should have what I have. What you believe is your personal issue. It is none of my concern and even if it is the same belief as mine, i am certain it will not help me in this world or the next.
Thank you. Sorry to have made it sound so personal. It was not my intention to show any disrespect, only to express my disinterest in adopting any belief in any religion.
I agree with your sentiments. Good people shine in this world regardless of religious leanings.
No need to apologize... its a discussion and it happens.
I agree, good people shine regardless of religious leanings.
if i recall correctly, we were discussing natural methods in medicine... have you tried any?
Indeed, yes. I have used what you might call natural remedies, just a couple. Flax seed (linseed) I find useful for keeping regular. Not taking it every day, just maybe once a week, together with prunes. Everyone needs to find how much of these suit their particular needs, because we each react to a different degree.
You might be interested in my experience with arthritic pain. I am not able to take Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs ) Aspirin, paracetamol etc. had no beneficial effect on me. Then I discovered that wheat was aggravating my inflammation. Now I am off bread, pasta and other wheat products, my arthritis is well under control with little or no pain most of the time.
Is this "natural" medicine? I like to think so.
Sounds like a natural treatment to me. Very interesting ... I do have a fair bit of wheat in my meals... will try reducing to see the effects. Thanks for sharing. Turmeric powder and garlic work as good anti-inflamatory items. I had a swelling in one of my glands under the chin and it was painful to touch. I used turmeric powder with a tablespoon of maple syrup before going to bed and it was gone the next morning. No pain, no swelling and it didn't return. It might help you if you ever need something that works. No downsides to taking it.
Apple cider vinegar seems to be a champion on the natural side of things. So many cures including removal of kidney stones. Black cumin seeds too.
I was wondering if you had any other topic to discuss ... something philosophical maybe?
Atheism with all its forms are believers in Doubt. Aren't they? Please
None of them has a positive argument.
Hmm. I suppose so, in that knowledge trumps opinion and belief every time. So until knowledge is found, doubt remains as the only answer possible.
But what "positive argument" can believers provide for the existence of their particular god? Something beyond "I believe, so it is there." - while that statement is positive, it is also worthless in finding truth.
Communication from G-d is the positive testimony, nothing like this is with the Atheism people, all of their type. Right? Please
Unfortunately, in the million plus years of man's existence there has not been a single instance of any communication that has been determined to come from a god. Only the opinion of the individual experiencing an event in their life and attributing it to a god without regard as to whether it actually was or not.
Fortunately there has been communication from G-d in all ages and all regions of the world. But there has been no compulsion to believe it, a choice was given to believe or not to believe.
Does one think that there would have been given no choice? Please
No there hasn't (been communication from a god). Now, I have disagreed with your opinion; can you provide reasons anyone should believe your statement over mine? A video of god speaking would be nice, but even a recording with proof it is a god speaking would suffice. Personal opinions of the causes of events will not.
It's a human attribute to give choices. You build the god of your mind into the person you want him to be. Then you bow down and worship that god...and insist that is the god everyone else needs to worship as well.
Your mind is hooked on it.
I don't agree with one.
I made no religion. Atheism is a man-made ideology and is not useful for human life. It has no sound basis. Please
Religion is man-made ideology.
Atheism is in no way an ideology. It sets no ideals but it can open the mind to infinite potential and further search for what really matters.
Religion sets the ideals and, in many cases, demands that people follow those (man-made) ideals....even if they include putting people away out of society.
Religion has no equal when it comes to controlling minds of people.
Strong Atheism and or New Atheism are ideologies, faith-based non-religious with no support from Religion or Science. Aren't these? Please
Is search for truth an ideology? Is lack of belief in things unknown "faith"? If so, faith in what?
I agree with Wilderness. An a-theist point of view is not an ideology, nor is it faith-based.
It simply means a rejection of the notion that a "god" made the world, watches over and supervises human beings.
Beyond that, my a-theism opens up my mind and my life to all the wonderous things and experiences of this world.
Why should I be troubled by stories of ancient cultures that were stuck in a mindset of superstition?
Which says there is something called atheism 2.0, but does not say what it is.
I googled it and read an interview with the author who coined the term. For anyone who doesn't know, Alain de Botton is an atheist author and philosopher who coined the term as a reaction to the kind of strong atheism promoted by Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. His point is that they are missing the point by focusing on the question of the existence of God and the hateful acts committed in the name of God, while ignoring the positive cultural aspects of religions.
What I don't understand is why it needed a new term because, in my experience, the atheist 2.0 kind of atheist that he's describing covers the vast majority of atheists I've ever met. Morally they're no better or worse than believers and are respectful of others religious beliefs.
I suppose someone could also come up with "Believer 2.0" and that would exclude the fundamentalist type of believer, who focuses only on getting to Heaven and threatening everyone else who believes differently with Hell's fire if they don't conform to "the true way". Again, it would be an unnecessary term as the vast majority of believers I've ever met are exactly the same as the atheists - morally no better or worse, no more or less intelligent, generous, respectful, tolerant, etc.
Most believers and non-believers in the real world get along fine - they even belong to the same family in many cases, so maybe HP should start a religion/ atheism forum 2.0 where mutual respect is required - no personal insults, etc. But, then again, it would probably get boring very quickly.
Hooray someone can use Google! Alleluia.
No: Atheism 2.0 is radically different from the old cranky atheism of Dawkins and company.
After Dawkins' mental breakdown due to his rejection by his own peers, the Atheism 2.0 trend began. The nauseating bigotry of Dawkins was turning off atheist leaders and others. His constant barrage of total religious intolerance and bigotry was never going to jell with any serious scholars. Such bigotry is a form of cultural genocide.
Religious tolerance is a Fundamental Human Right as is racial tolerance and cultural tolerance. These are things that define what it means to be a human being, Without them humanity rapidly devolves. It was only ten years ago that the atheism of Dawkins and Singer was pushing to legalize beastiality and infanticide and to outlaw all religion. These crazy destructive oddball ideas have nothing to do with humanity or atheism.
Please give precise links to this claim, that beastiality is linked to a-theism as such. If this and/or other perversions are in fact promoted by someone who just happens to hold a-theist views, it does not imply all a-theists would hold that view.
You would also need to hear and understand the context of what was written or being said, before passing a judgment on the person who said it.
Atheism, as in any belief system, will have its radicals. The great thing about atheism is it claims not to be a belief system so organizing is difficult. Thank God. We've seen the effects of atheism in state run systems. We don't need a hatred of the idea of a higher power driving public policy anymore than we need theism in control.
Singer appeared to make some shocking statements on some of these topics. Here are some quotes.
"Finally, a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy. In all this, the newborn baby is on the same footing as the fetus, and hence fewer reasons exist against killing both babies and foetuses against killing those who are capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time."
the article http://lightupthedarkness.net/peter-sin … fanticide/
Comments on Beastiality
'In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. This position is countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex."
How does this relate to Dawkins? It may not. But I did find this excerpt "Some time back Richard Dawkins interviewed a man by the name of, Peter Singer. He started the interview with the following statement: “There are… many people who would say, But where does your morality come from? As I said, ‘you’re the most moral person I’ve ever met.’”
Richard Dawkins is a Biologist and Christopher Hitchens was a journalist, they are just laymen in Religion, having no in-depth study of religion .Aren't they? Please
I agree. But, if you look at anything from a negative angle you can find all of the negative you desire and ignore any positive, if that's what makes you happy.
Paarsurrey, in what way are you better equipped to talk about religion? It's only you opinion against the opinions of others. You don't speak with a background of deep learning.
He has to add "The Way I See It" too?
Lets just agree its a given.
Its the way he sees it.
Paarsurrey (he or she) has used the expression "just laymen," implying their understanding would be inferior to one who is well-studied in religion.
At least that's the way I see it.
Can you not see that these were philosophical discussions? They were not for one moment advocating such practices....merely discussing the way such matters and concepts might be considered.
The narrow, controlling, often unintelligent mind tries to twist and misrepresent those discussions for ulterior objectives.
it all sounds quite similar to what people in religion have been doing ... some people are off the track already and misusing what was discussed or said in this matter. lets wait and see until there are about a billion atheists in the world ... I may not be alive to see the day but i'm quite sure they will be groups within atheism such as orthodox and all that good stuff... it may even be labelled as another religion and discussed in the same manner as the atheists speak about religion today.
We will never eradicate the desire to be better, safer, more knowing, stronger, fitter and more true than the next person. I do that. Do you? It's all built into out psyche, part of that syndrome "Survival of the fittest."
you are correct that it is a part of us and that is the part i'm trying to beat within myself ... i keep reminding myself that i do not need to compare myself to others. Instead i try to focus on being better (in every aspect you mentioned and more..) than i was yesterday. i am more at peace within myself that way.
One could have made the same argument about eugenics, until it was put into practice. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Anyone who could so coldly argue that it could be reasonable and good to put a baby to death is not a moral person. Anyone who could suggest that bestiality is acceptable if it pleasures man and beast is not a moral person.
No one has twisted the words and yours is a very shaky argument.
Even a shaky argument is good reason to discuss with an open mind.
Putting up a moral precondition, whether it's supportable or not, will more likely hamper the open debate.
It presumes you have moral high-ground, which is debatable in itself.
"Anyone who could suggest that bestiality is acceptable if it pleasures man and beast is not a moral person."
Setting aside whatever feelings I might have myself, how do you come to this conclusion? Are all people not behaving and thinking as you find acceptable considered immoral? Can we quietly set aside the Golden Rule when it comes time to chastise others for not believing as we do?
What makes a moral, in other words? In this case, neither man nor beast was injured - is there something else that defines morality beyond hurting others?
I don't know. What do you think? If a horse decided it wanted to have sex with you, would that be ok? If no permanent damage was done it should be ok, whether you like it or not. Correct?
Aside from those ridiculous questions, morality isn't tied to simply doing no harm. That works great when discussing interpersonal human relations but to what extent can you communicate with an animal? And, honestly, how many animals have sex for the pleasure of it? Bestiality, from all we can be certain of, is simply a human fetish; not a desire of the animal in question. Convincing them to have sex with you if you are a woman, or forcing them to have sex with you if you are a man does not equate to pleasuring that animal. It's a bogus argument.
Pardon me for being so logical, but is it not fair to say that every animal, bird, fish, insect that has sex, does it because it's a pleasurable thing to do?
Puritanical humans are the only species to dub the practice as sinful and "not nice" in the eyes of their God.
What an affront to that God! I bet he's not amused.
Anyway, a simple "Neigh!" would be enough to deter that horse! And if the horse did not want it, a quick kick in the errrrr....oh never mind.
I wouldn't dare accuse you of being too logical. What I might think is that you are substituting a desire to believe for logic. We have little evidence that animals have sex for pleasure. You may live in a city and have had little opportunity to observe the natural world at work but I think for those such as yourself we have zoologists to help you know how they behave.
I read once that cats were the only animal other than humans who had sex for the fun of it. I'm sure there are more out there, but we have studied behavior patterns of the domesticated animals most likely to be the subject of passion by a human and we have not observed this in them. If it were there, don't you think a dog, a horse or a sheep might choose to have sex when not in heat? Or, maybe I don't understand bestiality. Does the person who looks amorously at a dog only do it when it is in heat? If that person is a female, does she only allow it to happen when she is on her period? If so, I suppose there may be some reason to investigate this as some type of natural occurrence which should be encouraged as opposed to frowned upon.
If you can provide some information counter to what zoology has confirmed from natural observation by the average lay person I'd be interested to hear it. Simply using a desire to show solidarity toward a group who is treated differently because their sexual desires do not mimic the norm is not evidence. It is desire.
I can tell you if you fancy your dog in a sexual manner and you think, by his lovelorn eyes, that he feels the same; he is probably simply dreaming of that biscuit in your hand.
I am almost speechless at some of the things you have said here! However, please let me respectfully reply.
First, if animals, birds, fish, etc., did not find it pleasurable it is logical to suppose they would not do it (copulate). Have you ever watched tortoises doing it? Most uncomfortable and fraught with difficulty. Or the male dog stuck to a bitch for half an hour? Enjoying it? You mentioned cats. Have you heard the screams of a female.can during mating? The male cat's member causes the scream! So, probable only the guy gets his pleasure. The she has to grin and bear it, for the sake of procreation.
And is there something inherently wrong about humans enjoying it? Or is this something your creator wishes he had not introduced to Adam and Eve?
If other people obtain their enjoyment in some way that is not in your book of rules, what business is it of yours? Don't look; turn away; go about your own life. Provided those other people are not doing harm or hurt to their partner or third parties, it is no one's business but theirs.
Now, please be assured, I have lived in cities in various parts of the world. I currently live in close proximity to both wild and domesticated animals, so my education is not exactly wanting in the subject under discussion.
Finally, if that dog looked me in the eye with a sexual intention, even if he was gay I would not be interested, thanks all the same. To much hair.
So, please obtain more knowledge of this topic so that we can discuss on a level playing field.
Again, you have allowed desire and emotion to cloud your ability to rationally discuss.
If this is your particular point of enjoyment, I wish you all the best. However, if we are just another animal you can certainly see how it is not the norm. I see little evidence of cross species copulation. If you have evidence of a turtle copulating with a goose I'd love to see it.
If we are somehow different and above them you can certainly see how this is not the norm. If we choose to say that humans can do what they like, when they like, and it should be considered ok then that is a different conversation entirely.
Your hope to imprint human emotion onto animals is natural. Thinking that will automatically make an animal want to have sex with you is an incredible stretch of the imagination.
Sorry to see you have an entirely different sense of humour. You are taking things much too seriously and perhaps somewhat puritanical.
My desires are most certainly not clouding the issue here and the only emotion is in having a good laugh, because your reply sound naïve.
Please don't twist my words into anything that is designed to serve your ulterior motives. I do not possess any perversions.
So, if you consider bestiality a perversion you are certainly presenting an odd argument.
I would like to add that your entire argument appears to be hinged on the fact that I, for some religious reasons, am against the idea of animal love. I think you can see by my replies that the subject of religion has never been brought up on my side. One does not have to be religious to observe and come to conclusions on the natural world. Nor have I, as you, labeled it a perversion. Perhaps your religious sensibilities led you to that term.
bigot = dogmatist
~ the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.
~ what do you call someone with the tendency to lay down principals as incontrovertibly true, with consideration of evidence / truth and the sound opinions of others?
~ a non-dogmatist?
~ an ethical-ist?
can an atheist actually be an ethicalist?
The question is, what are moral principals based on?
The universal principal of The Golden Rule.
"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in nearly every human culture and religion, suggesting it is related to a fundamental human nature."
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
I do not believe in altruism.
The self feels empathy for others. Without empathy and compassion, which the self feels, there will be no (motivating) concern.
I can only reiterate again that I have defended ethical atheism. Religious intolerance is bigotry not atheism. Dawkins' "atheism" is just bigotry in sheep's clothing. It doesn't qualify as real atheism.
Atheism 2.0 is wiping the slate clean. You can't build on foundations of religious intolerance.
your memory is short. I'm not saying all atheists were pushing for such horrors but certainly leaders and large swathes of dawkins/singer infected atheists.
Read my hub again on the failures of so called "New Atheism" (now old rapidly disappearing).
I could not find anywhere that Dawkins want to legalized beastiallity and want to have genocide on infants.
I know Dawkins greatly dislike Religion, why would he want to kill their children? Is it in the same way US Christians want to kill Muslim children?
I know Dawkins loves animals , just not that late at night. Can't find anything on Dawkins wanting to legalized beastiality.
In all probability someone has distorted what Dawkins said in order to make a juicy story that could suit their purposes. It's easily done when people only hear what they want to hear.
And you have guessed right - I don't want to hear unfair criticism spoken of Mr, Dawkins....yet I don't know him. He just needs to be heard fairly.
You won't like this jonny
According to versions in the Bible says between homosexually, beastiality and pedophilia .
1. Homosexually is worst crimes sin to God
Pedophilia is not mention in the Bible as crime or sin.
My list would be opposite , homosexually would not be a crime or sin and pedophilia would be the worst crime.
"The musical harmony that comes from a harp is 'the invisible,' while the wooden structure of the harp itself is 'the visible' (body). If the strings from the harp are incinerated, then the harmony is destroyed as well. Just as the soul dies when the body dies."
Above is a paraphrased philosophical hypothesis from one of Plato's dialogues, namely "Phaedo." This hypothesis simply objects that the body is superior to the soul (if the body dies, the soul dies). The human body is being compared to the wooden structure of a lyre (harp), and the soul compared to the music
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.