Jews are religious believers too. At least the ones who are not atheists.
Rumor has it that there are more atheist Jews in Israel than religious Jews.
And thank G-d Jews in the US aren’t allowed to vote.
“The Skeptical Zone” is decidedly anti-Christ.
Is it equally anti-Jewish?
If not, why not?
Sure we can.
When enough people disagree with your little definition, the word evolves and the new usage becomes the correct usage whether you like it or not. We don’t even have to wait for the published dictionaries to catch up; we can adopt the definition we like simply by using it when we want. We don’t have to ask god for permission to change the made-in-heaven set-in-stone definition (which doesn’t exist, in any case). We don’t have to take an official vote, either. Although we might choose to …
That’s exactly what our loving christian brethren did in Ireland on May 22, 2015. They changed the definition of marriage with a public vote. Marriage equality passed overwhelmingly, thank god! And so far, no signs that god disagrees with them.
— Father Paul F. Morrissey, Order of Saint Augustine
It’s refreshing to see how tender and loving Fr. Morrissey’s comment is, compared to the hidebound bigotry of our own stupid christians.
Kantian Naturalist,
Hey KN,
I apologize that I have upset you. I really enjoy your comments and we agree on a lot. We don’t have to agree on everything
I don’t expect we will ever agree on the culture war stuff but that doesn’t mean that I have any animosity toward you and I mean you no disrespect
This stuff would not even come up except that the folks here seem to be obsessed with that sort of thing.
peace
What, equality? Yeah, I’m sure that puzzles you.
Yet when asked you cannot provide that definition yourself. Sure, you provide some quote from the bible but one that does not even contain the word marriage! And no, you can’t talk about marriage without using the word.
Except that does not actually happen now, does it? I’ve seen married people, they appear to be two separate people. It’s more about the “man and a woman” really, then the “one flesh”.
fmm, did god create gay people?
definitions are usually not self- referential,
1) appearances are often deceiving
2) Two separate people can be one flesh. It’s called marriage. And it’s similar to the phenomena of three separate persons who are the same God
Are you asking if God created people who have sex with people of the same gender or if God created people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender?
Either way the answer is yes. But I’m curious if you think a person who has homosexual desires and does not ever act on them is still gay?
peace
Sexuality is not black and white, it’s a continuum.
And now that the chains of religion and guilt have been loosened somewhat, guess what:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/08/20/third-young-americans-exclusively-heterosexual/
No, but they usually note what it is they are defining. Your quote did not do that, did it?
Similar, as in nonsense? Sure, I agree.
In your world, people have sex with people they are not attracted to?
But if you insist on putting it like that then I’m asking both questions.
Your twists and turns only highlight your problem, they don’t mitigate it.
people have sex with people they are not attracted to all the time ever hear about rape?
And I said my answer was yes to both questions. How about answering the one I asked? Is someone gay if they have never had sex with a person of the same gender?
It seems to me that in your world every thing is a continuum there is no black and white even when it comes to truth and falsehood.
If sexual attraction is a continuum and a person is at 49% on the same sex side is he Gay? What about 65%. Where do you draw the line in your worldview?
peace
What’s your actual point? That via some word game you can torture language sufficiently to make some twisted point?
Well, your sexual orientation is just that, regardless of what you’ve done or not done. It’s not like virginity you know.
No, he’s human. And it’s not an “if”, it’s a fact, as per that actual survey I linked to. It’s funny how you can’t accept that despite the evidence being clear. Should I travel back in time and write it in allegory in your favorite book, would it then become acceptable?
What about you ffm? Are you 100% not-gay? When did you decide that, how old were you? Are your kids also 100% not-gay? Are you 100% sure on that? How?
I don’t draw such lines. I don’t need to. But you need to, don’t you? You need to know who is going to hell and who is not…
Oh, really? And why do you say that? What specifically makes you say that? Perhaps it’s that you are right and therefore I must be wrong and by insisting I am not wrong I’m lying?
About Lenski and that citrate in the growth medium….
actually you do
Remember you asked if God created gay people and according to you a person is gay based solely of where that fall on that sexuality continuum of yours so you need to tell me a place beyond which a person is gay.
On the other hand I don’t define a person based on who or what they may be attracted to sexually this week. I just am not interested in that sort of thing.
I do think certain sexual behaviors are unhealthy so I would not advocate that a person engage in those behaviors regardless of any attraction they may have.
Because I have never once seen you advocate a position that truth is absolute and because folks from your worldview are constantly arguing that truth is relative.
It has nothing to do with your lying. It might have something to do with you being deceived but that is a different discussion.
peace
I’ve said no such thing.
Yes, that’s the way to go. One way you and yours attempt to demonise people is by saying things like that. And this is why I asked you when you decided what your sexual orientation was.
You think that some people choose week by week who to be attracted to. Yet when I ask you what week you decided your sexuality you ignore the question. So some people choose, and some don’t right? Is that your position?
Unhealthy how?
There is one truth I live by. Be wary of those professing to know the truth.
Well, you have been deceived re: Lenski and the purpose of his experiment. And yet despite not being able to support your position you refuse to change it. So look in the mirror buddy.
It’s not that I ignored your question it’s just that it makes no sense to me. I don’t have a “sexuality”. I don’t define things that way.
I’m a male and I’m attracted mostly to my wife if that is what you are asking.
It depends on the sexual act I suppose,
bestiality exposes you to disease and it’s cruel and inhumane. Adultery is unhealthy to the Marriage relationship and unfair to your spouse.
I’m not sure what you mean. Why not present your case as to how you believe Lenski could perform an experiment without a target in the other thread and I’ll address it there.
peace
There is nothing left to say, it’s all already been said. And it made no difference. You can’t make someone understand who has a vested interest in not understanding.
Yes, and I’m sure you have something to say about teh gays too?
And at what age did you decide to be heterosexual?
I think it’s silly and narcissistic to decide what sexuality one will embrace. It’s like asking when I decided to enjoy barbecue ribs.
On the other hand one can decide every day whether to have sex or not with a given individual.
I did not have barbecue ribs today even though I really like them. I decided it would not be wise to do so.
I have that ability because I’m a human and my reason can control my passions.
Like I said I don’t define folks by who they are sexually attracted to this week.
I must of missed it. It’s probably because of the difficulty I have communicating with Zac.
peace
If you don’t choose your sexuality, what makes you think others change theirs from week to week?
No, rather Morton’s demon filtered it out for you.
I never said they did. I’m not sure what it even means to have a “sexuality”.
You don’t generally choose who or what you are sexually attracted to at any particular time.
You do choose who or what you will or will not have sex with.
You have that ability. That is a big part of what being morally responsible is all about.
peace
Morton’s demon is supposed to filter disconfirming evidence of a paticular worldview. I can assure you that my worldview would not be affected in the slightest if it could be shown that Lenski did not have a hypothesis associated with his experiment.
I just happen think that he had at least a little hope that bacteria would adapt to their environment so he would have something to observe. It’s really no skin off my nose if you can show he did not have this expectation.
But I think the burden of proof is on you for this one. Everything I’ve read seems to support my understanding.
peace
I expect he had the hope that something interesting would happen.
The design of the experiment seems to refute your thinking that environmental adaption was his intent . A more efficient and productive way to do that would be run the experiment with multiple environments , you could then contrast the effect of the different environments on adaptions. They actually discuss this in the link in which Lenski explains why he choose otherwise.
Later in the discussion what an experiment studying the effect of the environment (temperature) would consist of. Using your logic the way to do that would be to keep a constant temperature which is at odds with the design of the experiment.
Remember that most of the colonies did not acquire the ability to digest the citrate yet Lenski did not regard the experiment as a failure ,in your understanding it should be.
As for burden of truth, you have been provided Lenski’s own words. Are you saying you know more than he does about what his hypothesis was?
How do you know this?
No I think Lenski would agree with me. I think the burden of proof is on you if don’t think so.
Everything I’ve read suggests that he thought that bacteria would evolve. Perhaps he did not put a thought into exactly how it would evolve but that is beside the point. When he provided an environment (that included citrate) it is just common sense that it would evolve to better utilize that environment.
The difficulty as I see it is the inability of some folks to see how this train of thought constitutes setting a target. I think this is because you don’t want to be seen as giving a single inch to the fundi.
peace
Just this morning I found this
from here
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/10/05/the_primordial_soup_was_edible_109402.html
quote:
So, the authors tried another approach. First, they dried the Miller-Urey gunk to eliminate the toxic, volatile compounds, and then reconstituted it in water. Second, they adapted their E. coli strain to live under harsher conditions. This can be done by growing them in media (liquid food) that the bacteria find unpleasant but tolerable.
end quote:
although this experiment has nothing to do with Lenski’s. It shows that the expectation that bacteria would adapt to their environment is something we can assume he would have had.
peace