• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
[/I]All I mean is that it has a unique purpose to our planet, due to the fact that this is the only one that has any lifeforms on it.



It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact.

What if they're wrong? They (people, scientists, astronomers) make some sweeping assertions for a race that wasn't here to see any of this... and love to conclude "fact" based on evidence that they haven't come near to fully understanding.
Lifeforms as we, even in our extremely limited way, understand them. Who's to say there isn't a silicon-based lifeform on a planet nearby, whose intelligence surpasses ours and for whom temperatures and gas quantities/make-up are not of concern to them?

Pedantic but: it's spherical with three distinct bulges. Closer to a small pear shape.

So what if they're wrong? The thing is, scientists are really okay with the possibility that the theories they propose or the theory's they prove/dis-prove on a daily basis may one day be proven wrong. It really is their job to prove theories true or false. The point is that scientific theory's, even well established ones, are not written in stone; despite how they might "seem" to be stated as fact.
 

modestninja

Senior member
Jul 17, 2003
753
0
76
[/I]All I mean is that it has a unique purpose to our planet, due to the fact that this is the only one that has any lifeforms on it.



It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact.

What if they're wrong? They (people, scientists, astronomers) make some sweeping assertions for a race that wasn't here to see any of this... and love to conclude "fact" based on evidence that they haven't come near to fully understanding.
Ahhh, because we can never know anything 100%, then everything is equally likely to be true. I mean since Newton's theory of gravity falls apart in some very specific areas, it therefore must be true that an apple is equally likely to fall up as down...
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Lifeforms as we, even in our extremely limited way, understand them. Who's to say there isn't a silicon-based lifeform on a planet nearby, whose intelligence surpasses ours and for whom temperatures and gas quantities/make-up are not of concern to them?
Unless they come here, we probably won't ever know outside of visiting Mars, since our instruments can bear the temperatures on the surface. When they're done there, in all likelihood, they will not have found a thing.

They're too busy trying to prove themselves right about the possibility of any intelligence beyond this planet.


So what if they're wrong? The thing is, scientists are really okay with the possibility that the theories they propose or the theory's they prove/dis-prove on a daily basis may one day be proven wrong. It really is their job to prove theories true or false. The point is that scientific theory's, even well established ones, are not written in stone; despite how they might "seem" to be stated as fact.
Seem? No.

I don't recall having an option outside of Big Bang/Evolution while in school. Heck, they indeed remove the possibility of a supreme creator to the point of call that a "myth".

However, they also attribute the organization and even the makeup of the human body as beyond their understanding and that we could have been created. Not all of the scientific community accept big bang/evolution.

"so what if they're wrong"? So you don't care if you're being misled?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Since this is a thread about the supposed denouncement of homosexuality that has now evolved into evolution and G-d, I'll tie them together. We have a historically high rate of homosexuals. Is this solely because homosexuality is now more accepted and less dangerous? (Dangerous to the homosexual himself I mean, the sound theory that you'll have far less of something if you harshly punish it. Personally I could be the gayest object in the known universe and if the guy in front of me gets a burning wall collapsed on top of him as divine punishment for homosexuality then I'm humping the nearest woman. "Sorry, but I'm so incredibly heterosexual I couldn't stop myself! Now what was the question again?")

Or can this be an evolutionary stratagem to combat an overpopulation of humans? We see homosexual behaviors in animals but not a true gay lifestyle, but perhaps this is a limitation in animals due to the strength of their instinct system. Perhaps with sexuality being for humans a mixture of innate preference and societal pressure, a response toward more common homosexuality might be the equivalent of sending waves of lemmings running for cliffs, sending more people toward homosexuality (via increased tendencies for the human animal in general) as a means of providing more individuals nurturing the species in general rather than of just their own offspring as a means of strengthening the species. After all, many lower creatures (including at least one mammal species) exhibit cooperative specialization rather than each individual attempting to pass along it's genes. A higher rate of homosexuality may be not only a natural side affect of a modern, high density civilization, it might even be a necessary side component of a modern, high density civilization, much as is delayed child bearing, if the civilization is to not eat itself out of existence.

Or perhaps this increased rate of homosexuality comes from G-d Himself, for the same reasons. When populations are low, be fruitful and multiply. When populations are high, be really fruitful and don't multiply. It would be humorously ironic for those like Jerry Falwell to reach Heaven and hear "Damn it, were you TRYING to kill your planet? Can't you see what I'm trying to do here?" I have no evidence that's the case, but I'm taking a lesson from Dirty Harry Reid and insisting that those opposing gay marriage are working against G-d's new plan unless they can present evidence to prove otherwise.

< removes tongue from cheek >
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Unless they come here, we probably won't ever know outside of visiting Mars, since our instruments can bear the temperatures on the surface. When they're done there, in all likelihood, they will not have found a thing.

They're too busy trying to prove themselves right about the possibility of any intelligence beyond this planet.




Seem? No.

I don't recall having an option outside of Big Bang/Evolution while in school. Heck, they indeed remove the possibility of a supreme creator to the point of call that a "myth".

However, they also attribute the organization and even the makeup of the human body as beyond their understanding and that we could have been created. Not all of the scientific community accept big bang/evolution.

"so what if they're wrong"? So you don't care if you're being misled?
In our lifetime? Possibly, possibly not. I don't currently have "Be greeted by alien lifeforms from other planets" on my daily list of Things To Expect To Happen, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility that it could happen. Also probes we've sent to other planets have given us some info as to conditions surface probes might encounter; not enough detail to know for certain but it's a start and further probes may tell us more.

They were presented to you as theories, same as they were presented to me. That you chose then or that you choose to view them now as fact was the teachers' fault then and it's your fault now since you're older and capable of critical thinking.

They remove the possibility of a "supreme being" because the existence of such is outside the realm of our ability to observe. If a supreme being exists outside the laws that all other matter obeys then it's beyond our ability to study. And there are religious scientists who are able to put aside their personal beliefs when they go to work each day. Calling a supreme being a myth? We've been doing that for a long time. It tends to happen when you discover that the Earth is not lit up by a fiery chariot being pulled across the sky by a team of horses, or when we discover that lightning is the result of charged ions in the atmosphere and not thrown down from the clouds by a guy named Thor.

Am I concerned about possibly being misled by scientists. No, at least not to the degree of concern I have for some of my fellow human beings being misled by so-called priests and politicians who only have wealth and power as their goals.

It's really okay for me that I don't know or educated people in the scientific field don't know all the answers. I find the uncertainty exhilarating.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Since this is a thread about the supposed denouncement of homosexuality that has now evolved into evolution and G-d, I'll tie them together. We have a historically high rate of homosexuals. Is this solely because homosexuality is now more accepted and less dangerous? (Dangerous to the homosexual himself I mean, the sound theory that you'll have far less of something if you harshly punish it. Personally I could be the gayest object in the known universe and if the guy in front of me gets a burning wall collapsed on top of him as divine punishment for homosexuality then I'm humping the nearest woman. "Sorry, but I'm so incredibly heterosexual I couldn't stop myself! Now what was the question again?")

Or can this be an evolutionary stratagem to combat an overpopulation of humans? We see homosexual behaviors in animals but not a true gay lifestyle, but perhaps this is a limitation in animals due to the strength of their instinct system. Perhaps with sexuality being for humans a mixture of innate preference and societal pressure, a response toward more common homosexuality might be the equivalent of sending waves of lemmings running for cliffs, sending more people toward homosexuality (via increased tendencies for the human animal in general) as a means of providing more individuals nurturing the species in general rather than of just their own offspring as a means of strengthening the species. After all, many lower creatures (including at least one mammal species) exhibit cooperative specialization rather than each individual attempting to pass along it's genes. A higher rate of homosexuality may be not only a natural side affect of a modern, high density civilization, it might even be a necessary side component of a modern, high density civilization, much as is delayed child bearing, if the civilization is to not eat itself out of existence.

Or perhaps this increased rate of homosexuality comes from G-d Himself, for the same reasons. When populations are low, be fruitful and multiply. When populations are high, be really fruitful and don't multiply. It would be humorously ironic for those like Jerry Falwell to reach Heaven and hear "Damn it, were you TRYING to kill your planet? Can't you see what I'm trying to do here?" I have no evidence that's the case, but I'm taking a lesson from Dirty Harry Reid and insisting that those opposing gay marriage are working against G-d's new plan unless they can present evidence to prove otherwise.

< removes tongue from cheek >
"When you're up to your ass in alligators it's hard to remember that your original intent was to drain the swamp." - Unknown
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
They were presented to you as theories, same as they were presented to me. That you chose then or that you choose to view them now as fact was the teachers' fault then and it's your fault now since you're older and capable of critical thinking.
That is true. Doesn't make one a fool for believing we were created, though.



They remove the possibility of a "supreme being" because the existence of such is outside the realm of our ability to observe. If a supreme being exists outside the laws that all other matter obeys then it's beyond our ability to study. And there are religious scientists who are able to put aside their personal beliefs when they go to work each day. Calling a supreme being a myth? We've been doing that for a long time.


Am I concerned about possibly being misled by scientists. No, at least not to the degree of concern I have for some of my fellow human beings being misled by so-called priests and politicians who only have wealth and power as their goals.
That's why faith is needed. Regardless of how it's defined. Just because we can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there or doesn't exist. Sometimes, the after effects/results tell us basically all we need. We weren't there to observe the "big bang", but many take that as fact. Why? Because of the evidence they say is a result. My evidence of a creator is (1) our abilities to create things which was given to us and (2) the organization of the many forms of life, and the planet itself. It seems that these things that govern the Laws of physics and gravity were intentionally put here. Our planet's uniqueness isn't something that resulted from chaos and ended up in great organization.

I feel you on your second point, though, and agree with it 100%

[/QUOTE]
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
That is true. Doesn't make one a fool for believing we were created, though.





That's why faith is needed. Regardless of how it's defined. Just because we can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there or doesn't exist. Sometimes, the after effects/results tell us basically all we need. We weren't there to observe the "big bang", but many take that as fact. Why? Because of the evidence they say is a result. My evidence of a creator is (1) our abilities to create things which was given to us and (2) the organization of the many forms of life, and the planet itself. It seems that these things that govern the Laws of physics and gravity were intentionally put here. Our planet's uniqueness isn't something that resulted from chaos and ended up in great organization.

I feel you on your second point, though, and agree with it 100%
Not at all. As my dad used to say, "The theories of the Big Bang and Evolution help describe how we got here, religion helps describe why we're here."

I think our ability to create things has come about through trial and error over the last 10,000 - 20,000 years; the largest expansion of which in modern times happening as a result of the Industrial Revolution.

I think that might be a little askew; we came up with the laws of physics and gravity based on observation and testing.

It's definitely possible that it's the result of chaos. And there is a certain bias and arrogance to think that out of the billions of galaxies and millions of stars that have planetary systems orbiting them that our planet is the only one that supports life.

If you haven't read them already you might put on your reading list Douglas Adams' increasingly misnamed trilogy: Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy; The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe; Life, The Universe and Everything and So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish; if for no other reason than the comedic factor. Great books that allow one to laugh uproariously at ones' self and others. There is an underlying current of religious irreverence but it's all in good fun. I know many priests and ministers as well as lay people who find the books hilarious.

Another movie suggestion, though you'll probably only find it in VHS: Mass Appeal with Jack Lemmon. A touching and dramatic movie about a crisis of faith and the journey through to the other side with a greater understanding and renewal of that faith.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
"When you're up to your ass in alligators it's hard to remember that your original intent was to drain the swamp." - Unknown

That's always been one of my favorites; I never did ask my dad where he got it from but I've remembered it my whole life.

It's right up there with "The Section Foreman's Lament". Without further adieu:

It's not my to drive the train, the whistle I cannot blow,

It's not my place to say how far the trains' allowed to go.

It's not my place to shoot off steam or even clang the bell,

But let the damn thing jump the track and see who catches hell!
 
Last edited:

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
Wow, can we let this drop already? I mean I understand there are plenty of gay people in this forum and a select group of Bible-thumpers who live to call any gay person they can a i love you when that person cannot defend themselves, but do we really have to celebrate it? Let's be mature and leave the God Hates Queers people here to jerk off by themselves, please.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
They remove the possibility of a "supreme being" because the existence of such is outside the realm of our ability to observe. If a supreme being exists outside the laws that all other matter obeys then it's beyond our ability to study.
That strikes me as very unscientific. Just because you can't directly observe something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

At any rate, the evidence for a Creator is getting more and more overwhelming. The latest arguement in favor of a Divine Creator is the fact that DNA is a code.....not analagous to a code, but an actual code.

Since there are no "known" instances of codes being generated by purely naturalistic phenomena, and all "known" codes are generated by humans and other life forms, then using inductive reasoning, we can conclude that DNA itself is a product of intelligence/consciousness..

Such a theory would be easy to disprove, as all one would need would be an example of a naturally occurring code.

Of course, this theory doesn't explicitly identify the Creator; it only stipulates that an intelligence was involved in the origin of Life..
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Because... even logically, nothing this organized can be a product of something random.

Even now, no structure or anything we use/enjoy can just become without an idea, plan, then execution. Our planet is really a gem in space. And when we are on it, we see the supreme organization.
So... where did god come from?
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Ahh, so we are here by sheer coincidence, eh? I mean essentially, that's what I am hearing.

We just happened to live on the planet with the perfect distance from the Sun, the perfect size/circumference, right mixture of gases to support us, while these other planets, from a human standpoint, are uninhabitable,... all by a random sequence of events?

It's the "greatest Mystery of all time" because of the absurdity of that theory. It's the equivalent of saying this computer I am typing on just appeared by a few chips, a circuit board, plastic caps, and a CD all exploding and resulting in a robust, usable product.

Really, how silly is that?
It's called anthropic theory. If things here werent perfect for life, WE WOULDNT BE HERE TO OBSERVE THAT IT ISNT PERFECT!

Rage!

You religious idiots make me so mad with your ignorance.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
It's called anthropic theory. If things here werent perfect for life, WE WOULDNT BE HERE TO OBSERVE THAT IT ISNT PERFECT!

Rage!

You religious idiots make me so mad with your ignorance.
Glad to be of service. So now you have ample reason to keep your simple-mindedness out of this thread.

Got that?

Much appreciated...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
28,249
10,994
136
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1981

There is then a section which says this applies to public facitilites. We also both know that if someone started a white only gym or a male only gym, they would be instantly hit with lawsuits. To succeed, they have to be classified a Private Clubs, which means they are legally allowed to discriminate based on gender or race or whatever they like.
I did some googling and it seems that Curves is indeed not allowed to discriminate against men:
According to the owner, it seems that Curves does not have an all-female membership, as I had formerly believed. Not in California anyway. Due to several lawsuits that ensued soon after Curves came to the golden state, Curves franchises in California were forced to make their membership all-inclusive. Before last week, I, and no doubt most of the other female members, were unaware of this policy and had we known, it’s safe to say that it might have affected our decision to sign-up.
I decided to write to Curves International about their overall gender policy and I received a prompt response. It seems that while Curves is "especially designed for women," they do not "discriminate against men." So, although women are the main customers at Curves, men are also welcome. And those who are somewhere in between can come on down as well. It’s one big happy family.
So I guess that wasn't a good example after all. :hmm:



They only infringes if they are used. When not used, they are quite safe. I do agree with you that we need limits on the second amendment for the very reasons you listed - but who will get to decide where this limit is set? A gun accidently going off can hurt someone, which means they all should be banned? I say no, but some will say yes. Whose rights do we say are less significant, the gun owner's or the accidently shot person's?
I know you won't stray from the belief that the line between guns and WMDs is a subjective one, but I am not buying it. If a gun goes off accidentally, then maybe there is a miniscule chance that it just happens to be pointing in the direction of another human. If a WMD goes off accidentally, thousands or maybe even millions will be affected. The gun saftey issue can be addressed by simple gun training and instruction. WMDs would require serious restrictions that many people wouldn't be able to complete. I suppose that if someone were to complete such training then I would be okay with that person possessing one if there was a legitimate reason to. :hmm:

On top of that, if governments aren't even legally allowed to possess a specific type of weapon then a private citizen shouldn't be able to either.


Basically, what I am saying is that we already have a system which allows us to create laws based on the ethical beliefs of the majority of the citizens...Congress. The ethics they use are the ones they think will get them reelected, which will be the ones the majority of people in their district hold.
And I am of the opinion that we should move away from that to a more pragmatic system.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Few things to keep in mind

A) Whether a creationist or evolutionist or anything in between. Remember, if an intelligent bean didn't create us, the odds of a "perfect" planet where life exists is actually pretty high when you see how large the universe is. (Scientists now believe there are what 20,000+ so called planets in our galaxy alone?) The odds of not a single one having life is rarer than having life on at least one.

B) Scientific theories change all the time, and challenge beliefs. This is the point of science to keep discovering the truth. A new, albeit not a strong, theory that I have heard of has been that since the dawn of the big bang the speed of light is actually slightly slowing down. But what if it was? this would break the majority of Einstein's equations and physics would change as we know it since we have always assumed light speed constant.

C) Just because we cannot observe something, does not mean it does not exist. If a strong bean existed (lets say, living in the 10th dimension, in which it lives in a dimension of all parallel dimension options put together in 1 large multi-verse) we wouldn't be able to observe it. We would have a hard enough time observing creatures from a 4th dimension let alone anything higher. (Consider Ants as 2-d, they cannot observe us much as to them we seem to be just a large flat plain, being so big and so prevalent in the 3rd dimension)

D) The better idea is a mixture of the 2 theories in life. What if a divine bean sent a large meteor to a "perfect" planet knowing full well it would start the spark of 1-cell organisms that would evolve over time to create more intelligent beans?

Just some food for thought for everyone
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
C) Just because we cannot observe something, does not mean it does not exist. If a strong bean existed (lets say, living in the 10th dimension, in which it lives in a dimension of all parallel dimension options put together in 1 large multi-verse) we wouldn't be able to observe it. We would have a hard enough time observing creatures from a 4th dimension let alone anything higher. (Consider Ants as 2-d, they cannot observe us much as to them we seem to be just a large flat plain, being so big and so prevalent in the 3rd dimension)

D) The better idea is a mixture of the 2 theories in life. What if a divine bean sent a large meteor to a "perfect" planet knowing full well it would start the spark of 1-cell organisms that would evolve over time to create more intelligent beans?

Just some food for thought for everyone
Well, that's true... we cannot rule out the existence, in any dimension or universe, of some entity that purposefully set our universe into motion and/or started the evolutionary ball rolling here on Earth.

I think it is reasonably safe to say, though, that what is in the Bible and other holy texts is more a human fabrication than the actual word spoken by this entity.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Well, that's true... we cannot rule out the existence, in any dimension or universe, of some entity that purposefully set our universe into motion and/or started the evolutionary ball rolling here on Earth.

I think it is reasonably safe to say, though, that what is in the Bible and other holy texts is more a human fabrication than the actual word spoken by this entity.
I fully agree.

I believe in a god, I also believe that Jesus was a man that was for god. ("son of god" may be pushing it. But anyman that may have preached for a god can be a 'man' for god)

However, the bible along with church, are fabrications and just stories that either have some historical truth to them (aliens :sneaky:) or are just stories, much like the Illiad and Odyssy, in which it was ment to show the ways a good person must live.

The church has been power corrupt since early 1000s and they have I am certain tampered many times what goes in and is said inside that book. And humans are naturally corruptable and easy to corrupt. The bible was written by... A HUMAN. Not a god.

God didnt come down and write every bible using his hand and for some reason using the latin and then english language as the primary language to supply these bibles in. And if this is for some silly reason true, why does there seem to constantly be "updated bibles". I can buy a bible from the 80s. And buy one today and I bet I can find a few differences amongst them.

Also the "Earth has only been around for 10,000 years" in one version of the bibles makes me laught. Why would god have created so much evidence of Earth being around for billions of years. For fun? To throw us off the trail, yet show miracles of children falling 7+ stories in a building and survive with nothing more than a bruise?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
That strikes me as very unscientific. Just because you can't directly observe something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

At any rate, the evidence for a Creator is getting more and more overwhelming. The latest arguement in favor of a Divine Creator is the fact that DNA is a code.....not analagous to a code, but an actual code.

Since there are no "known" instances of codes being generated by purely naturalistic phenomena, and all "known" codes are generated by humans and other life forms, then using inductive reasoning, we can conclude that DNA itself is a product of intelligence/consciousness..

Such a theory would be easy to disprove, as all one would need would be an example of a naturally occurring code.

Of course, this theory doesn't explicitly identify the Creator; it only stipulates that an intelligence was involved in the origin of Life..
It's not unscientific at all; there are small groups of scientists who do concern themselves with things not observable or currently beyond our ability to observe. The larger body of scientists are concerned with what is observable and verifiable. We can't "see" gravity but we can see it's effect on things all around us. That it is a force and is real is a matter of fact; how and why it works in the way it does is one of the things we're studying, that's why it's the "theory" of gravity.

I believe you already had the DNA is a "code" discussion with Cerpin Taxt and a few others in a previous thread. My knowledge of the subject pales in comparison to theirs so I choose not to debate your further points.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
What the hell happened to this thread? Page 1 is people talking about a dad and his gay son, and now we are talking about earth and the universe.

Spoiler alert - There is no god, there is no point to life or existence.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
What the hell happened to this thread? Page 1 is people talking about a dad and his gay son, and now we are talking about earth and the universe.

Spoiler alert - There is no god, there is no point to life or existence.
Ah. But maybe the point of life is to discover a point of life.

Ever think of that?

Also threads always do this. Conversations do this. Words/typing just flows from A --> B --> C and so on. Sometimes we can find ourselves back at A or any other previous topic as the wibbley wobbley conversation topics travel fluidly through us.

And I cant remember which version was "10,000 years" but I remember reading it in some Old testament version.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY