ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviourPaulSacramento wrote:What on earth are you talking about Audie?
adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation :
ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviourPaulSacramento wrote:What on earth are you talking about Audie?
That is correct and homosexuality falls under that category for humans biologically speaking.Audie wrote:ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviourPaulSacramento wrote:What on earth are you talking about Audie?
adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation :
I tried it, its not for me. Am I still a deviant?PaulSacramento wrote:That is correct and homosexuality falls under that category for humans biologically speaking.Audie wrote:ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviourPaulSacramento wrote:What on earth are you talking about Audie?
adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation :
Yes Audie. You're our resident deviant.Audie wrote:I tried it, its not for me. Am I still a deviant?PaulSacramento wrote:That is correct and homosexuality falls under that category for humans biologically speaking.Audie wrote:ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviourPaulSacramento wrote:What on earth are you talking about Audie?
adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation :
No, you're curious. It wasn't for you, so no, youre not still a deviant.Audie wrote:I tried it, its not for me. Am I still a deviant?PaulSacramento wrote:That is correct and homosexuality falls under that category for humans biologically speaking.Audie wrote:ANY behaviour that deviate from the ideal norm for humans is deviant behaviourPaulSacramento wrote:What on earth are you talking about Audie?
adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation :
PaulSacramento wrote:Th equestionis, if not theisim ( a belief in God) then what?
Will, obviously we have 2:
1) the belief that we simply do not and may never know ( until we die of course) if there is a God.
2) The belief that there is NO God and that THIS, right NOW, is all there is.
While 1 does not necessarily lead to materialism, 2 most certainly does.
Materialism is the belief that the material world we are part of and observe is all there is.
But there is more to atheism and that is, perhaps, best summed up by Richard Dawkins:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins
Of course, this is also the same person that openly admits:
We are a very, very unusual species.
Richard Dawkins
I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine.
Richard Dawkins
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Richard Dawkins
The real issue in regards to a world view and dealing with the problems that many atheist put out ( emotional ones like the problem of suffering for example) is, IMO, this:
While for the Theist the problem if suffering is a valid one to debate and even anguish about since the Theist believes in a God, for the atheist that believes the universe is, to quote Mr Dawkins:
"no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", there really is NO problem of suffering at all, or injustice or even right and wrong since, well...the universe does NOT exhibit those traits at all.
So, from where does the atheist, the logical atheist, then get his/her view about good or bad or suffering ?
If you believe that, why even ask the question?While we are alive, isn't the material world what we are really part of? What else are we capable of observing?
Why not? It's an interesting topic.PaulSacramento wrote:If you believe that, why even ask the question?While we are alive, isn't the material world what we are really part of? What else are we capable of observing?
Why is it interesting though?stuartcr wrote:Why not? It's an interesting topic.PaulSacramento wrote:If you believe that, why even ask the question?While we are alive, isn't the material world what we are really part of? What else are we capable of observing?
They're still interesting, especially the responses. What else is a forum for, than to ask questions, make statements, and get responses?PaulSacramento wrote:Why is it interesting though?stuartcr wrote:Why not? It's an interesting topic.PaulSacramento wrote:If you believe that, why even ask the question?While we are alive, isn't the material world what we are really part of? What else are we capable of observing?
I mean, from a materialistic stand point, these abstract thoughts and notions are, well, pointless and irrelevant and even, according to some, delusional.
Stuart,stuartcr wrote:They're still interesting, especially the responses. What else is a forum for, than to ask questions, make statements, and get responses?PaulSacramento wrote:Why is it interesting though?stuartcr wrote:Why not? It's an interesting topic.PaulSacramento wrote:If you believe that, why even ask the question?While we are alive, isn't the material world what we are really part of? What else are we capable of observing?
I mean, from a materialistic stand point, these abstract thoughts and notions are, well, pointless and irrelevant and even, according to some, delusional.
Me too...stuartcr wrote:Not being an atheist, I guess I have a problem comprehending what a strictly material world is or would be like.
I suspect if something currently not considered a part of the material world were discovered to actually exist; it would be labeled as a part of the material world.PaulSacramento wrote:Th equestionis, if not theisim ( a belief in God) then what?
Will, obviously we have 2:
1) the belief that we simply do not and may never know ( until we die of course) if there is a God.
2) The belief that there is NO God and that THIS, right NOW, is all there is.
While 1 does not necessarily lead to materialism, 2 most certainly does.
Materialism is the belief that the material world we are part of and observe is all there is.
True! The Universe does not exhibit traits of right, or wrong; it is the people in the Universe who exhibit those traits. The Atheist gets his views about good, bad, or suffering by interacting with those people.PaulSacramento wrote:But there is more to atheism and that is, perhaps, best summed up by Richard Dawkins:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins
Of course, this is also the same person that openly admits:
We are a very, very unusual species.
Richard Dawkins
I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine.
Richard Dawkins
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Richard Dawkins
The real issue in regards to a world view and dealing with the problems that many atheist put out ( emotional ones like the problem of suffering for example) is, IMO, this:
While for the Theist the problem if suffering is a valid one to debate and even anguish about since the Theist believes in a God, for the atheist that believes the universe is, to quote Mr Dawkins:
"no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", there really is NO problem of suffering at all, or injustice or even right and wrong since, well...the universe does NOT exhibit those traits at all.
So, from where does the atheist, the logical atheist, then get his/her view about good or bad or suffering ?