left biblioblography: GIRLY MEN: OF TRANSITION, TRANSGENDERS, AND TRADITIONAL TRIPE

Thursday, August 31, 2006

GIRLY MEN: OF TRANSITION, TRANSGENDERS, AND TRADITIONAL TRIPE

This has been updated recently:

From the first link -
“Gwen Araujo was beaten and strangled to death in the fall of 2002, not far from her home in Newark, CA. In September 2005, two young men were convicted of her murder.”

Latest news is:
”The man who led police to the body of a transgender Newark teen apologized to the victim's family Friday before being sentenced to 11 years in prison in a case that focused the country's attention on violence against transgender individuals.”

Also, from the same:”In September 2005, the jury in the second trial concluded that Michael Magidson, 25, and Jose Merel, 26, had beaten and strangled Araujo after learning that the person they had had oral and anal sex with was biologically male. The same panel deadlocked in favor of a second-degree murder conviction on Jason Cazares, 26.
In January, Magidson and Merel were sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for second-degree murder in Araujo's killing.”

It made the news in the S.F bay area, mostly because around here, this is GLBT-friendly country. Had it happened, in say, Montana, or some other distant state, we’d not have heard about it.



This sort of shit sickens me to no end. I’ve heard stories similar to this (not involving murder), where young men have had some form of sexual relations with a TV (transvestite), only to become violent when they find out later (granted, it wasn’t a smart move on the TV’s part: most people don’t appreciate deceit). The last time I heard one of these anecdotes, I got livid. The guy who told it thought it particularly amusing.

It’s not funny. I very loudly announced that the idiots who’d had sex with one of these people (and yes, they’re as human as you or I) should make more of an effort to keep their tools in their pants.

15 years to life? And I quote:
” Merel struck Araujo in the head with a vegetable can and skillet, Nabors said. Nabors said he and Cazares had then gone to Cazares' home to get some shovels.
Cazares said, "We're going to get some shovels. They're going to kill that b -- ," according to Nabors.

They used fucking shovels on her, for fuck’s sake.

There’s just so much wrong with their responses. I wish these assholes had gotten the needle.
I have a problem with bozos that go around smacking people who are different. Growing up bullied has made me terribly simpatico with minorities.

Far as I’m concerned, gay-bashers are right up there with pedophiles, Nazis, and other lowbrow ilk.

I’m a peaceable fellow, but the first clown who brags about this in earshot of me will be picking his teeth up from the ground. I’m dead serious.

I have waxed long and angry about this (sub) topic, here (the section about the ‘one man/one woman’ paradigm), so I shan’t belabor the point.

As my friend Frances the Magnificent would say (paraphrased here): We own ourselves. Nobody else does. So it’s nobody’s business WHO sleeps with WHOM. So mind your own damn business.

And if you find GBLT folks threatening?

Let’s just say this: that’s your problem, buddy-me-boyo, so go get some therapy, instead of targeting someone who isn’t ‘one of us’, or whatever elitist bullshit slogan you happen to use to justify the laying-on of hands on another human being.

Because discrimination is pure prejudice, no matter how you spin it.

So do me a favor, willya? Next time you start in on gay marriage, homosexuality, transexuality, or any other caste-type horse manure that involves two (or more) consenting adults, walk over to the nearest mirror, look yourself dead in the eyes, and repeat after me: ”Bigot.”

That’s my nickel’s worth. I’m too disgusted to suggest how anyone should spend it.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

116 comments:

GooseHenry said...

RA

From wikipedia:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own."

So, somebody who opposes gay marriage would not fit the definition of bigot.

I think the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. However, they are free to do whatever they like, nobody will monitor their bedrooms to see what is going on.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
So, somebody who opposes gay marriage would not fit the definition of bigot.
Yes, sorry, they do. If you're denying any essential right to another person, whether it's free speech, or freedom to marry the partner of their choice, that's bigotry, pure & simple.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"Yes, sorry, they do. If you're denying any essential right to another person, whether it's free speech, or freedom to marry the partner of their choice, that's bigotry, pure & simple."

1) Not by the standard definition of "bigot"
2) How can we deny anybody a right that they do not have in the first place?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
1) Not by the standard definition of "bigot"
2) How can we deny anybody a right that they do not have in the first place?

Bullshit & bullshit.
1st off:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own."
So if you won't allow another lifestyle to make a choice as to their partner, that is indeed bigotry.
2nd off:
Far as I'm concerned, they've always had that right. Just as slaves always had a right to freedom.
You try very hard to sound enlightened, but you're not.
Now, go look in the mirror, & ask yourself the question. Honestly.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own."

I don't harbour any animosity towards homosexuals, i just think it is wrong.

"So if you won't allow another lifestyle to make a choice as to their partner, that is indeed bigotry."

They can do whatever they want.

"Far as I'm concerned, they've always had that right. Just as slaves always had a right to freedom."

As far as i am concerned, marriage is only between man&woman.

No you cannot tolerate my differing viewpoint. Go an look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself "am i intolerant of other peoples opinions?"

You try very hard to sound tolerant, but you aren't.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I don't harbour any animosity towards homosexuals, i just think it is wrong.
You won't let them have 1 of your little perks? That's animosity.
They can do whatever they want.
Except get married to each other.
As far as i am concerned, marriage is only between man&woman.
Then you're a bigot.
No you cannot tolerate my differing viewpoint. Go an look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself "am i intolerant of other peoples opinions?"
I certainly wouldn't tolerate a Nazi's opinion. Or a racist's. Or a homophobe's.
You try very hard to sound tolerant, but you aren't.
Nice try on the 'turnabout is fair play', but no cigar.
There's a difference between tolerance, & suffering fools gladly.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"You won't let them have 1 of your little perks? That's animosity."

Yeah, right. Redefine the words to suit you...

"As far as i am concerned, marriage is only between man&woman.

Then you're a bigot."

Well, if that is how you react to a differing viewpoint, you certainly lack tolerance.

"I certainly wouldn't tolerate a Nazi's opinion. Or a racist's. Or a homophobe's."

That is good, neither do i.

"There's a difference between tolerance, & suffering fools gladly."

Nice false dilemma, no cigar.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Yeah, right. Redefine the words to suit you...
I'm NOT the 1 'redefining' words here.
Well, if that is how you react to a differing viewpoint, you certainly lack tolerance.
You can kiss my ass. I don't need to tolerate idiocy. You have me mistaken for some soft liberal: I'm not that.
That is good, neither do i.
Mighty white of you.
Nice false dilemma, no cigar.
None of that is a false dilemma. You keep spouting this egregious horseshit, culled from some barbaric testament that lies regularly, that can't even...
Why am I wasting my time? You won't listen to any of this. I've brought forth AMPLE evidence on this blog ALONE that all of your arguments are folderol. You think insisting on something over & over again will make it true?
You're entitled to your opinion. If it's horse manure, well, I'm gonna call it the way I see (or smell it).
Pot.kettle.black.
You are a BIGOT. Pure & simple.
Your self-honesty isn't my problem.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I got 1 more query for ya, here's 1 every theist runs away from:
Who does the intersexual get to marry? An individual born w/both sets of genitalia?
I haven't seen 1 theist step up to bat on that 1. You got some insight?

Mesoforte said...

They can do whatever they want.

If they can do 'whatever they want,' why can't they get married. Tsk, tsk.

As far as i am concerned, marriage is only between man&woman.

So, you've finally proven your god to be real so that you could establish that marriage is defined by said diety. Wow... I thought we were still 'in the dark' on the whole issue.

You try very hard to sound tolerant, but you aren't.

I profess a certain degree of intolerance, mainly toward people with a higher degree of intolerance (or stupid people). ^_^

Well, if that is how you react to a differing viewpoint, you certainly lack tolerance.

"I certainly wouldn't tolerate a Nazi's opinion. Or a racist's. Or a homophobe's."

That is good, neither do i.

Well, if that is how you react to a differing viewpoint, you certainly lack tolerance.


I think this just speaks for itself. You too admit you're intolerant. But, there is a difference between someone who is just a little intolerant and someone who is a "bigot", which is someone who will remain intolerant without a good argument, or even when said argument is correctly refuted. That's how I tell the difference anyway.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"Nice false dilemma, no cigar.
None of that is a false dilemma. You keep spouting this egregious horseshit, culled from some barbaric testament that lies regularly, that can't even..."

I haven't mentioned any testament thus far

"Why am I wasting my time? You won't listen to any of this."

Listen to what? You calling christians bigots?

"You think insisting on something over & over again will make it true?"

Que? My opinion about homosexuality is already "true" for me. Frankly i don't understand what you mean by this.

"You're entitled to your opinion. If it's horse manure, well, I'm gonna call it the way I see (or smell it).
Pot.kettle.black.
You are a BIGOT. Pure & simple.
Your self-honesty isn't my problem."

This just "reeks" of tolerance.

Luckily, since i have a very good gay friend, i know that i am not a bigot.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I haven't mentioned any testament thus far
No – but we all know the root of this particular prejudice, don’t we?
Listen to what? You calling christians bigots?
No – because there are those who are PRO gay marriage.
Que? My opinion about homosexuality is already "true" for me. Frankly i don't understand what you mean by this.
You habitually repeat yourself on a number of topics, this being 1 of them. Regardless of the evidence presented, regardless of the logic given.
This just "reeks" of tolerance.
In the words of Merv Pumpkinhead, “I’m not afraid to call a spade a goddam shovel.”
Luckily, since i have a very good gay friend, i know that i am not a bigot.
Okay, so you’re only a partial bigot. Kudos to you.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Actually, Goose has set me up nicely for my next post. & I still wait for his answer to my query about intersexuals. (I won't hold my breath on that 1).

say no to christ said...

What a great question about intersexuality!

KA
I love how passionate you are about this issue. For the longest time I thought my husband was the only straight man who felt as stongly as I do about gay issues. You and MF and of course my husband are the opitamy of what real men should be. I love you guys! :)

remy said...

Every time I hear, "as far as I'm concerned" I take a deep breath, because I know from bitter experience that I'm dealing with someone who bases their opinion on a feeling. Argument is futile.

I wondered for a long time why there was so much resistance to gay marriage. Sex; the mechanics, the power, the progeny, all point to an assumed masculinty. Gay sex threatens the masculine.

mxracer652 said...

There is no non-theological reason for all this animosity towards gays.

Nice call on the transgender marriage KA. I can almost see the blow up now.

Krystalline Apostate said...

mxracer, SNTC:
What a great question about intersexuality!
I actually picked that up via the NGB - ole rainbows - it's a great query, never gets answered.

remy:

I wondered for a long time why there was so much resistance to gay marriage.

Well, the xtians feel that fluidity in the gender roles is a threat to their 'paradigm' (ya know, that 1 they forced on the world?).
It was a social device for a nomadic, insular tribe. Doesn't apply any more.
Gay sex threatens the masculine.
Ramen to that.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Luckily, since i have a very good gay friend, i know that i am not a bigot.
You know what this reminds me of?
Back in the day, when interracial marriage was controversial: "I have plenty of black friends, but I wouldn't let my daughter marry 1."

Mesoforte said...

SNTC

For the longest time I thought my husband was the only straight man who felt as stongly as I do about gay issues. You and MF and of course my husband are the opitamy of what real men should be.


I'm just really comfortable in my sexuality. I know that even if a bunch of people are getting married around me of the same gender that I won't do it.

Remy

Sex; the mechanics, the power, the progeny, all point to an assumed masculinty. Gay sex threatens the masculine.


I actually talked to one of the GA's at my college about this. Something along the lines that people think that 'women are the only ones that are supposed to be penetrated' and that 'when men are penetrated they are supposedly reduced to a lower level.' Something like that. .-.

Goose

Luckily, since i have a very good gay friend, i know that i am not a bigot.


This reminds me of Stephen Colbert (of the Colbert Report.) Granted that the entire show is just a satire of Republicanism, Stephen has at times been looking for 'a black friend' to fill his minority slot. Basically, he [the character, not the real Colbert] has a black friend so that he nonprejudice.

Mesoforte said...

has a black friend so that he nonprejudice.

Wow, my grammar just crapped out on me. Add "he appeared to be nonprejudice."

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
You and MF and of course my husband are the epitomy of what real men should be.
Hey, real men wear pink & eat quiche too! ;)

Aviaa said...

I actually talked to one of the GA's at my college about this. Something along the lines that people think that 'women are the only ones that are supposed to be penetrated' and that 'when men are penetrated they are supposedly reduced to a lower level.' Something like that. .-.

I’ve heard a similar theory not dealing with just penetration, but with gender roles in general. The stereotypical homosexual man is theoretically more effeminate than the stereotypical heterosexual man. Femininity is considered “lower” than masculinity and by embracing effeminate traits/ideals these men are betraying the power structure of “men as better” and “women as inferior.” According to common “male wisdom”, men aren’t supposed to want to be like women.

This could be a reason why, to many heterosexual men, lesbian sex (especially between effeminate lesbians, as so many heterosexual men seem to like to imagine it is) is “hot” while homosexual male sex is “weird” (okay, generally worse terms are applied). Lesbians are less of an affront to men because they aren’t devaluing the concept of masculinity by attempting to move away from it.

Who does the intersexual get to marry?

(nods)

Or, how about those who are androgen insensitive and have XY chromosomes but develop appearing to be female (but who will never be able to bear children)? They appear to be women (and were likely raised as women), but their chromosomes identify them as men. Strangely enough, these issues are not addressed in the bible. Why wouldn’t god have known about people with XY chromosomes manifesting as people with XX chromosomes?

Mesoforte said...

Lesbians are less of an affront to men because they aren’t devaluing the concept of masculinity by attempting to move away from it.

Actually... O_O nevermind, I don't think I should say anything about this out loud (typed). It would violate the Secret Brotherhood of Guys to say anything about this. (jk)

Aviaa said...

It would violate the Secret Brotherhood of Guys to say anything about this. (jk)

Oh, you kid... but I'm in a relationship with a fellow atheist who is quite logical and decent about most other matters yet buys into the unbreakable rules of being a man type concept. (shakes head) I’m still doing my best to chip away at that idea. Yes, men can like quiche.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Actually... O_O nevermind, I don't think I should say anything about this out loud (typed). It would violate the Secret Brotherhood of Guys to say anything about this. (jk)
You may be too young to recall this (don't bridle - it was some time ago), a show titled Mad about You
Helen Hunt asks Paul Reisner why men like lesbians.
He responds: "Well, 1, I agree w/them, & B, it looks like a lot of fun."
So the secret's out, has been for a while.

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
Oh, you kid... but I'm in a relationship with a fellow atheist who is quite logical and decent about most other matters yet buys into the unbreakable rules of being a man type concept.
You should inform him that women have a touch of testosterone, & men have a touch of estrogen in their systems. The Yin-Yang symbol illustrates this nicely: there's a white dot in the black side, & a black dot on the white.

Mesoforte said...

Aviaa

the unbreakable rules of being a man type concept.

Test him for the secret handshake and we can see if he's a member.

Yes, men can like quiche.

I didn't know if we'd written it into the Big Book of Manly Rules yet. I thought we still had to vote.

KA-

"Well, 1, I agree w/them, & B, it looks like a lot of fun

Its more than that. ._.;

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
I didn't know if we'd written it into the Big Book of Manly Rules yet. I thought we still had to vote.
There's actually a book titled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche".
I saw this comedian a coupla decades ago, he was hysterical. He'd sing, "I'm man, a big fucking man, a manly man, I do MANLY things!"
I don't think it was Kaufman (but it kinda looked like him, if memory serves).
Its more than that. ._.;
Color me green w/envy, you libertine! ;)

Aviaa said...

You should inform him that women have a touch of testosterone, & men have a touch of estrogen in their systems.

Does the touch of estrogen allow men to eat quiche (providing it’s just a little piece) and pink (providing it’s a dark shade)?

Test him for the secret handshake and we can see if he's a member.

But no one will teach me the handshake! (throws up hands in despair)

Mesoforte said...

KA-

There's actually a book titled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche".

Hmm... I guess I wasn't there when we took the vote. T_T

I saw this comedian a coupla decades ago

Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, right before the giant meteor descended upon them, turning the world to dusty darkness. ^_~

Color me green w/envy, you libertine! ;)

;p

Aviaa-

But no one will teach me the handshake! (throws up hands in despair)

Sorry, its against the rules.

We sure descend into silliness rather quickly when there's no one to bicker with. .-. But it is great comic releif

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
Does the touch of estrogen allow men to eat quiche (providing it’s just a little piece) and pink (providing it’s a dark shade)?
No, but it does help coordinate one's ensemble.
(Uh-oh, time go play football!)
But no one will teach me the handshake! (throws up hands in despair)
Must be hard to catch 'em, ey? ;)

MF:
Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, right before the giant meteor descended upon them, turning the world to dusty darkness. ^_~
Yeah, sonny, but you ain't seen me mornin' workout. I do me form, my foot hits the ground, it sounds like a .22 goin' off.
I a-lairned that fightin' them durn Apatosauri back in the day.

We sure descend into silliness rather quickly when there's no one to bicker with. .-. But it is great comic releif

Goose was hoverin' about. Performancing shows he had 36 visits just today.
I dunno if I should be nervous or flattered.
More like he's seekin' a chink in my armor, probably.
I wish him luck w/that.

say no to christ said...

Wow, I didn't know there were so many secret rules to man hood.

I guess if you don't have menstrual cycles and babies, you gotta come up with your own thing, even if you have to make them up. lol

I think the whole "gotta prove I'm a man and not a woman" thing is so silly, but entertaining nonetheless. Sometimes my husband gets those testostrone overloads and does some seriously stupid shit and all I can do is shake my head and laugh. The funny thing is that I find him absolutely adorable when he acts up. Of course he doesnt feel he has to worry about gay men to prove he's a man he just breaks a limb or something like that. lol

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
That reminds me of this hysterical commercial.
Bunch of guys in a locker room, 1 guy's tieing up his shoes, "Hey, check out my new kicks!" "Those are cool!" "Whoa!" This 1 guy says, "Hey, those are cute!" The other guys just look at him. Then he's on the phone, saying "Honey, I'm gonna be home late tonite, I'm goin' out w/the guys, we're going to, um, eat raw meat & stuff."
Shot of the woman saying, "Oh, did you use the word 'cute' around the guys again?"
Cracks me up every time.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"No – but we all know the root of this particular prejudice, don’t we?"

It could also be that the Spirit leads me to think that homosexuality is not a part of Gods original intent.

"You habitually repeat yourself on a number of topics, this being 1 of them. Regardless of the evidence presented, regardless of the logic given."

1st of all, i don't recall you ever refuting one of my arguments using logic/evidence. Please remind me, it might be that i am forgetful.

Recently, i remeber you asserting that
1) Logic is connected to physics (meaning what?)
2) "Existence" caused the universe
3) Morals are a convention (and 5 min afterwards saying that gay-bashing is objectively wrong, thus contradicting yourself)

And then considering yourself to have refuted an argument.

"In the words of Merv Pumpkinhead, “I’m not afraid to call a spade a goddam shovel.”"

Translation = if something does not agree with my personal opinion, i allow myself a free pass to launch whatever ad hominem attack i fell lile

"Okay, so you’re only a partial bigot. Kudos to you."

At least i do not engage in name-calling whenever someone agrees with me

say no to christ said...

Lol, thats funny. My husband knows how to pick out shoes and purses when I drag him along shopping and our kids tease him for it. But that is why he plays lacross, to get his manhood back in check. lol

say no to christ said...

OK Goosehenry here is some evidence for you.
http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=weblog&id=97&wlid=5&cn=55

Now wheres yours that proves that being gay is clearly a choice???

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:It could also be that the Spirit leads me to think that homosexuality is not a part of Gods original intent.
Why then, is it so prevalent anyways? Besides, if you’d never been exposed to the bible, you’d probably not give a rat’s fart in a whirlwind anyways, right?
1st of all, i don't recall you ever refuting one of my arguments using logic/evidence. Please remind me, it might be that i am forgetful.
None so blind as those who will not listen, hehehehe. I’ve seen you refuted numerous times. You can’t recall? How convenient.
Recently, i remeber you asserting that
1) Logic is connected to physics (meaning what?)
2) "Existence" caused the universe
3) Morals are a convention (and 5 min afterwards saying that gay-bashing is objectively wrong, thus contradicting yourself)

A. Logic is connected to physical law, B. no, I don’t recall saying any such thing about ‘existence’, C. It wasn’t 5 minutes later, & D. Harming others of your species is objectively wrong.
And then considering yourself to have refuted an argument.
Raven.crow.black.
Translation = if something does not agree with my personal opinion, i allow myself a free pass to launch whatever ad hominem attack i fell lile
Would you rather I told you what you want to hear, rather than what you need to know?
Of course you would.
At least i do not engage in name-calling whenever someone agrees with me
Lemmee get this straight: you want to deny another human being something you already have, based on their sexual preference?
That’s more than a difference of opinion, my friend. That’s bigotry, pure & simple.
Don’t cry to me if the shoe fits.

Still awaiting an answer to my intersexual query, BTW:
An intersexual grows to adulthood, w/both sets of genitalia intact. Who do they get to marry?
What does your 'holy spirit' tell you about THAT?

GooseHenry said...

KA

"Why then, is it so prevalent anyways? Besides, if you’d never been exposed to the bible, you’d probably not give a rat’s fart in a whirlwind anyways, right?"

When i first became a christian, i thought that the passages mentioning homosexuality couldn't be applies to today's society. The Spirit has shown otherwise.

"None so blind as those who will not listen, hehehehe. I’ve seen you refuted numerous times. You can’t recall? How convenient."

By all means, point it out to me.

Recently, i remeber you asserting that

"A. Logic is connected to physical law,"

How? Can you develop this assertion?

"B. no, I don’t recall saying any such thing about ‘existence’"

Ok. Then you said there are no infinites, but then changed your stance by saying energy always was.

"Harming others of your species is objectively wrong."

According to who?

"Would you rather I told you what you want to hear, rather than what you need to know?
Of course you would."

"Lemmee get this straight: you want to deny another human being something you already have, based on their sexual preference?"

No, everybody is allowed to marry whover they want of opposite sex.

"That’s more than a difference of opinion, my friend. That’s bigotry, pure & simple.
Don’t cry to me if the shoe fits."

I don't deny anyone thier right. That statement presupposes that they already have the right only that it is being denied.

Nobody has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

My opinion is that marriage should be kept the way it is. It has nnothing to do with my feelings towards homosexual people.

"Still awaiting an answer to my intersexual query, BTW:
An intersexual grows to adulthood, w/both sets of genitalia intact. Who do they get to marry?
What does your 'holy spirit' tell you about THAT?"

Tough question. I know too little about it

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
When i first became a christian, i thought that the passages mentioning homosexuality couldn't be applies to today's society. The Spirit has shown otherwise.
I am trying to be polite here – but I’m not going on the say-so of a disembodied voice I haven’t heard.
By all means, point it out to me.
That’s something of a large request – I’ve seen it on the NGB, here (not just me: MF did a great job of it). Let me get back to you on that.
How? Can you develop this assertion?
I thought I did. I’m not reinventing the wheel – go review.
Ok. Then you said there are no infinites, but then changed your stance by saying energy always was.
I changed my stance by saying, “As far as I know,” if memory serves me properly. I’m more than open to being shown otherwise. Still waiting. Why should I assume energy isn’t? Illustrate otherwise. Thus far, nobody’s been willing to. I've asked this of other folks: thus far, silence.
According to who?
Yeesh, we gonna do this again? Anyone who can be hurt. Anyone w/a modicum of empathy would agree.
No, everybody is allowed to marry whover they want of opposite sex.
So your answer is yes. You are discriminating.
I don't deny anyone thier right. That statement presupposes that they already have the right only that it is being denied.
That’s pure sophistry. Same argument was probably used for slavery. Or women’s rights.
Nobody has the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Bigot.
My opinion is that marriage should be kept the way it is. It has nnothing to do with my feelings towards homosexual people.
Your opinion is bogus, then. You sure about that?
Tough question. I know too little about it
I’d advise you pray on it, or use the bat-phone, or whatever means you use to talk to your disembodied voice. Otherwise, it's an substantiated, prejudiced opinion.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Oops, meant 'unsubstantiated'. My bad.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"I am trying to be polite here – but I’m not going on the say-so of a disembodied voice I haven’t heard."

The original question was about my reasons for holding this view. You must admit that it is logically possible that my reasons are a reality.

"That’s something of a large request – I’ve seen it on the NGB, here (not just me: MF did a great job of it). Let me get back to you on that."

On the NGB, sure, i messed up several times.

The only debate i've had mith MF ended up with him using an "evolving argument"

"I thought I did. I’m not reinventing the wheel – go review."

I still remember your account. It was about putting your hand/not putting your hand to a red hot burner. Has nothing to do with logic.

"I changed my stance by saying, “As far as I know,” if memory serves me properly. I’m more than open to being shown otherwise. Still waiting. Why should I assume energy isn’t? Illustrate otherwise. Thus far, nobody’s been willing to. I've asked this of other folks: thus far, silence."

Well, so actual infinites do exist now?

"Yeesh, we gonna do this again? Anyone who can be hurt. Anyone w/a modicum of empathy would agree."

Sure, i don't want to get hurt - but why care about others?

"That’s pure sophistry. Same argument was probably used for slavery. Or women’s rights."

No, the argument for slavery was that black people were less worth.
Nobody is saying that homosexuals are less worth.

"Bigot."

In your words,repeating something doesn't make it true

"Your opinion is bogus, then. You sure about that?"

Calling my opinion bogus is ok.

"I’d advise you pray on it, or use the bat-phone, or whatever means you use to talk to your disembodied voice. Otherwise, it's an substantiated, prejudiced opinion."

What? If i don't have an opinion about intersexuals, my opinion on gay marriage is invalid? That is a non-sequitur

GooseHenry said...

Ka

"Oops, meant 'unsubstantiated'. My bad."

I generally know what you mean - the opposite of what i mean:P

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
The original question was about my reasons for holding this view. You must admit that it is logically possible that my reasons are a reality.
Based on an intangible voice no 1 else can hear? A book of fables? C’mon, why should I admit any such thing? I hear Quetzcoatl talking in my ear, & the Popul Voh says you're wrong. See? I can play that game too.
On the NGB, sure, i messed up several times.
True enough, & you copped to it back then.
The only debate i've had mith MF ended up with him using an "evolving argument"
I think you’ve had more than 1 w/him.
I still remember your account. It was about putting your hand/not putting your hand to a red hot burner. Has nothing to do with logic.
I think that qualifies as context-dropping. That was an illustrational example.
Well, so actual infinites do exist now?
Yeesh, you’re gonna give me ulcers. You bust your ass to change my mind, I give in a little bit, you yell: “LOOK! YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND!”. Again, I repeat: unless someone can give me something to modify my viewpoint, it’s like “Is the sun going to rise tomorrow?” or “Will the sun go nova?” So either prove to me that there’s an end to energy as we know it, or drop it.
Sure, i don't want to get hurt - but why care about others?
-GROAN- you’re like a dog w/a bone, y’know? So am I, true. When you see someone get hurt, do you get that ‘twinge’? I sure do. I can’t even watch E.R anymore. I always cry at the end. E.M.P.A.T.H.Y. There, I spelled it for ya.
No, the argument for slavery was that black people were less worth.
Nobody is saying that homosexuals are less worth.

They’re less worthy of marrying their own, right?
In your words, repeating something doesn't make it true
Your self-awareness isn’t my responsibility. However, when YOUR opinion becomes MY reality, that’s what I have a problem w/.
Calling my opinion bogus is ok.
Thanks, but I didn’t need your okay on that.
What? If i don't have an opinion about intersexuals, my opinion on gay marriage is invalid? That is a non-sequitur
Yes, that does render it invalid, & no, that’s NOT a non-sequitor. Think about it. First off, it violates the paradigm of ‘1 man/1 woman’ – it busts open the gender roles. IF they can have sex w/BOTH organs, whom do they get to have sex w/? If an intersexual has sex w/a man, does that make the former a homosexual, or having sex w/a woman? How do you codify such a person?
& let’s face it, marriage is pretty much about sex. It’s about a tacit agreement between 2 adults, as well as an okay from the parents. How many ‘platonic’ marriages do you know about?
Anyways, the intersexual person completely thrashes your whole argument.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"Based on an intangible voice no 1 else can hear? A book of fables? C’mon, why should I admit any such thing?"

You don't have to. I simply gave you my reasons, and they might be true.

"True enough, & you copped to it back then."

Really? If you say so. Pride is a difficult thing to handle...working on it.

"I think you’ve had more than 1 w/him."

A few posts back we reached some 200 comments. That is the only thing i recall, might have been something else, but nothing i spent any time on though.

"I think that qualifies as context-dropping. That was an illustrational example."

Ok...?

"So either prove to me that there’s an end to energy as we know it, or drop it."

That i cannot prove to you. However, this would mean that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the whole universe, meaning it has some properties above those of its individual parts.

I guess one could say that the law (one of sciences most basic) doesn't apply to an infinite universe, but then one would have to show how actual infinites can exist. As previously stated, the existence of these lead to some absurd results.

"-GROAN- you’re like a dog w/a bone, y’know? So am I, true. When you see someone get hurt, do you get that ‘twinge’? I sure do."

Absolutely. The problem is, some people/cultures seem to lack the twinge. Who is wrong and who is right if there are no objective laws?

"I can’t even watch E.R anymore. I always cry at the end."

Hey, we have that show over here.

"They’re less worthy of marrying their own, right?"

Uhh... interesting sentence. It would make sense if there was anything like "worhty of marrying ones own" in the first place. Then we could (hypothetically) talk about different degrees of worth.

"However, when YOUR opinion becomes MY reality, that’s what I have a problem w/."

How does my opinion become your reality? Moreover, this statement cuts both ways.

"Thanks, but I didn’t need your okay on that."

I know you don't, i am just trying to say that attacking opinions&arguments is the way it should be done, according to me.

Trying to get people to change their minds by name-calling is, in my mind, cheap.

"Yes, that does render it invalid, & no, that’s NOT a non-sequitor. Think about it. First off, it violates the paradigm of ‘1 man/1 woman’ – it busts open the gender roles."

Well if an intersexual is both man/woman it has no bearing on the fact that other people clearly are men and women.

"IF they can have sex w/BOTH organs, whom do they get to have sex w/? If an intersexual has sex w/a man, does that make the former a homosexual, or having sex w/a woman? How do you codify such a person?"

Got any examples from real life? Anyhow, i do not see it as a cause for redefining marriage.

"& let’s face it, marriage is pretty much about sex."

Hehe, well from my experience its quite a bit more.

Mesoforte said...

When i first became a christian, i thought that the passages mentioning homosexuality couldn't be applies to today's society. The Spirit has shown otherwise.

Ooo, now we're talking about the 'Spirit'. Goose, tsk tsk. You can't use this as an argument if you still can't prove your diety exists.

No, everybody is allowed to marry whover they want of opposite sex.

SO, how does this apply to intersexuals, or even hermaprodites? Again, you have no basis to say that. Rhetoric isn't an argument.

I don't deny anyone thier right. That statement presupposes that they already have the right only that it is being denied.

The funny thing is, according to fundamental founding ideas in my country at least, there are three natural right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Granted, I find another source for our rights, but most people see these three as theirs. Marriage of two individuals would fall under the 'pursuit of happiness', even with the same gender.

Nobody has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

I don't see your basis for this.

My opinion is that marriage should be kept the way it is. It has nnothing to do with my feelings towards homosexual people.

The original question was about my reasons for holding this view. You must admit that it is logically possible that my reasons are a reality.

On the NGB, sure, i messed up several times.

Oh please, don't use that excuse.

The only debate i've had mith MF ended up with him using an "evolving argument"

My arguments change when they are refuted, unlike yours. See, this is why you are a bigot and I'm not. I've shown your diety to contradict itself, yet you will continue beleiving in it. However, when I see a contradiction, I'll work with the idea until I hit upon the right one.

Sure, i don't want to get hurt - but why care about others?

I swear, we learn more of our morality from hypothetical situations than anywhere else. After a couple of weeks of research, I've noticed the old Saturday morining TV shows have a ton of 'moral' teachings in them.

No, the argument for slavery was that black people were less worth.
Nobody is saying that homosexuals are less worth.


Actually, the argument for slavery started from 'God supports slavery'.

In your words,repeating something doesn't make it true

And not accepting a proven point doesn't make it false.

What? If i don't have an opinion about intersexuals, my opinion on gay marriage is invalid? That is a non-sequitur

Its funny that your 'absolute' truth has no answer to the question of intersexuals or hermaphrodites though. Makes me wonder what the thing that wrote it was smoking to have left all of that out.

Mesoforte said...

You don't have to. I simply gave you my reasons, and they might be true.

'Might' is not a very high probablility.

A few posts back we reached some 200 comments. That is the only thing i recall, might have been something else, but nothing i spent any time on though.

292 actually. And there I slammed your definition of 'god'.

That i cannot prove to you. However, this would mean that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the whole universe, meaning it has some properties above those of its individual parts.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to the universe as a whole. We aren't a closed system, but a system with a variable gravatational field.

I guess one could say that the law (one of sciences most basic) doesn't apply to an infinite universe, but then one would have to show how actual infinites can exist. As previously stated, the existence of these lead to some absurd results.

No they don't. You just find the idea hard to grapple with.

Absolutely. The problem is, some people/cultures seem to lack the twinge. Who is wrong and who is right if there are no objective laws?

How morality has worked in the past anyways is that the culture that looses to another culture is dominated by the more powerful culture. However, I find that rights based upon percieved societal wrongs.

Well if an intersexual is both man/woman it has no bearing on the fact that other people clearly are men and women.

Can an intersexual marry a man? Technically, they are both males, so it would be against what you said. Can an intersexual marry a woman? Technically, they are both females and it would be against what you said.

Mesoforte said...

My opinion is that marriage should be kept the way it is. It has nnothing to do with my feelings towards homosexual people.

Then why don't you let them do it. Abviously, it has has something to do with your feelings toward them.

The original question was about my reasons for holding this view. You must admit that it is logically possible that my reasons are a reality.

Not it your reasons aren't based upon anything.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Ooo, now we're talking about the 'Spirit'. Goose, tsk tsk. You can't use this as an argument if you still can't prove your diety exists."

Why not? It is the reason for why i believe thae way i do. Is it logically possible that i am telling the truth?

"SO, how does this apply to intersexuals, or even hermaprodites? Again, you have no basis to say that. Rhetoric isn't an argument."

Haven't looked into it enough. No reason to change the definition of marriage though.

"The funny thing is, according to fundamental founding ideas in my country at least, there are three natural right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Nobody is denying anyone those rights.

"Marriage of two individuals would fall under the 'pursuit of happiness', even with the same gender."

No one is stopping homosexuals from forming life-long relationships.

"Oh please, don't use that excuse."

Excuse for what?

"My arguments change when they are refuted, unlike yours. See, this is why you are a bigot and I'm not."

What? I am a bigot because my arguments don't change? There seems to be total artistic freedom regarding the meanings of words.

"I've shown your diety to contradict itself, yet you will continue beleiving in it. However, when I see a contradiction, I'll work with the idea until I hit upon the right one."

Well. My strongest reason for belief in God is personal experience of Him in my life.

But if you see contradictions, please point them out.

"I swear, we learn more of our morality from hypothetical situations than anywhere else. After a couple of weeks of research, I've noticed the old Saturday morining TV shows have a ton of 'moral' teachings in them."

How do you know? If there is no objective morality then how can you tell what contains moral teachings and what does not?

"Actually, the argument for slavery started from 'God supports slavery'."

Have to do some research about that. Anyhow, i fail to see the biblical support for this.

"Its funny that your 'absolute' truth has no answer to the question of intersexuals or hermaphrodites though. Makes me wonder what the thing that wrote it was smoking to have left all of that out."

As i said, i haven't looked into it. Though, i do not se it as a reason for redefining marriage.

Mesoforte said...

Why not? It is the reason for why i believe thae way i do. Is it logically possible that i am telling the truth?

Nope, your inductive logic is not sound. As Galileo pointed out, the premises of deductive logic are based upon inductive logic.

Haven't looked into it enough. No reason to change the definition of marriage though.

I think there is.

Nobody is denying anyone those rights.

Pursuit of happiness.

No one is stopping homosexuals from forming life-long relationships.

Your stopping them from marrying. That's something they want to expierience.

Excuse for what?

For losing an argument.

What? I am a bigot because my arguments don't change? There seems to be total artistic freedom regarding the meanings of words.

If your arguments are refuted and you refuse to change them in some way, you measure up to the term bigot in my eyes.

Well. My strongest reason for belief in God is personal experience of Him in my life.

You've still contradicted yourself.

But if you see contradictions, please point them out.

Go back to the 292 comment post and look at how you both defined your diety and how I showed contradictions in both your first cause argument and your diety.

How do you know? If there is no objective morality then how can you tell what contains moral teachings and what does not?

Because the word 'moral' was taught to me and I idenify certain things within the definition of 'moral.'

Have to do some research about that. Anyhow, i fail to see the biblical support for this.

The people of that time did.

As i said, i haven't looked into it. Though, i do not se it as a reason for redefining marriage.

I do. Second, Christianity redefined marriage itself. There were times before when marriage has meant a myriad of different things.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"'Might' is not a very high probablility."

1) How do you go about estimating the probability?
2) If it is logically possible, and i claim these are my reasons, you cannot logically assume that my position is irrational.

"292 actually. And there I slammed your definition of 'god'."

Well, i claimed that God was ontologically separate from creation. You interpreted this as a statement that He cannot enact upon the world. If this is slamming by your standards, then ok.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to the universe as a whole. We aren't a closed system, but a system with a variable gravatational field."

As i understand it, those theories still presuppose an infinite past an creation ex nihilo, right?

"No they don't. You just find the idea hard to grapple with."

Ok, go re-read the examples with actual infinites. They do cause some absurd situations.

"How morality has worked in the past anyways is that the culture that looses to another culture is dominated by the more powerful culture. However, I find that rights based upon percieved societal wrongs."

So, if Hitler would've won the 2nd world war, his concept of morality would've been ok now?

Mesoforte said...

1) How do you go about estimating the probability?

Probability is based upon the amount of evidence you have.

2) If it is logically possible, and i claim these are my reasons, you cannot logically assume that my position is irrational.

You use two different words there. Logical and rational are two different things. And I can assume your position is illogical if you don't have sound premises.

Well, i claimed that God was ontologically separate from creation. You interpreted this as a statement that He cannot enact upon the world. If this is slamming by your standards, then ok.

Actually, you never would completely present your idea, and I took the words you used to slam your argument. Like saying that a timeless (which equates changeless) being can act as a cause. Hillarious.

As i understand it, those theories still presuppose an infinite past an creation ex nihilo, right?

Nope.

Ok, go re-read the examples with actual infinites. They do cause some absurd situations.

Only because you don't understand what I mean by infinite.

So, if Hitler would've won the 2nd world war, his concept of morality would've been ok now?

For a while anyways. Eventually, based upon the percieved wrongs of the people he was subjugating he would have been overthrown and the new people would be able to instill their version of morality.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

I messed up i meant

Those theories assume a finite past and creation ex hinilo

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
You don't have to. I simply gave you my reasons, and they might be true.
That’s a thin premise indeed. How do I know you’re not on medication? Unhinged? I’m not saying you are, but I don’t have any conclusive evidence, do I?
Really? If you say so. Pride is a difficult thing to handle...working on it.
Who doesn’t have issues w/it?
A few posts back we reached some 200 comments. That is the only thing i recall, might have been something else, but nothing i spent any time on though.
192 posts? Are you kidding me? Plus, you’ve enlarged your debate vocabulary. Please.
That i cannot prove to you. However, this would mean that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the whole universe, meaning it has some properties above those of its individual parts.
Seeing as the universe isn’t a closed system, for 1 thing. For another, there’s not 1 law of thermodynamics I’m aware of, that stipulates that energy ceases to exist in any form.
I guess one could say that the law (one of sciences most basic) doesn't apply to an infinite universe, but then one would have to show how actual infinites can exist. As previously stated, the existence of these lead to some absurd results.
Still skirting that particular query, I see. Show me 1 law of physics (hell, gimmee a good example, even), that energy ceases to be.
Absolutely. The problem is, some people/cultures seem to lack the twinge. Who is wrong and who is right if there are no objective laws?
Which cultures, exactly?
Uhh... interesting sentence. It would make sense if there was anything like "worhty of marrying ones own" in the first place. Then we could (hypothetically) talk about different degrees of worth.
Which really, there aren’t too many varying degrees. All things being equal, whoever does harm is of little worth (there are extenuating circumstances, of course: killing a mad dog, for example).
How does my opinion become your reality? Moreover, this statement cuts both ways.
That’s where we have ‘varying degrees’. You want to discriminate based on sexuality. But if you allow gay marriage, it’s not going to harm ANYTHING. If anything, it’s probably going to improve a # of areas in the human condition. Fidelity reduces promiscuity, for 1. Would probably reduce the populace of the ‘gay ghettoes’ for another.
Trying to get people to change their minds by name-calling is, in my mind, cheap.
I usually think so as well. However, when you make a claim, that a select person shouldn’t have a right that you take for granted, based on their lifestyle/sexual preference, that IS bigotry, in my book. Sorry, being honest.
Well if an intersexual is both man/woman it has no bearing on the fact that other people clearly are men and women.
Then what bearing does it have on the intersexual?
Got any examples from real life? Anyhow, i do not see it as a cause for redefining marriage.
Well, I COULD go dig up some porn, but I doubt you’d even look at it. It’s a lot like homosexuality 20 yrs. ago: it’s stuffed WAY back in the closet. I’d advise you do your own research: you really don’t listen to me very much anyways.
Hehe, well from my experience its quite a bit more.
Well, sure it is. No doubt. But that’s foundational, ain’t it? Procreation, all that?

MF:
Actually, intersexual is the new term for hermaphrodite, as the former is considered pejorative. See, Goose? That definition has changed too!

Mesoforte said...

They only work with small closed systems. The Second Law has never been applied to the universe as the whole and it cannot be realistically applied to the universe as a whole.

Mesoforte said...

KA-

Actually, intersexual is the new term for hermaphrodite, as the former is considered pejorative. See, Goose? That definition has changed too!

Heck, I didn't know that. Thanks KA. I've been out of the loop on that topic for a while now

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"Probability is based upon the amount of evidence you have."

And what is your evidence and how would you go about getting it?

"You use two different words there. Logical and rational are two different things. And I can assume your position is illogical if you don't have sound premises."

How can you show that i haven't experienced God in my life?

"Actually, you never would completely present your idea, and I took the words you used to slam your argument. Like saying that a timeless (which equates changeless) being can act as a cause. Hillarious."

Actually, that is not contradictory at all.

"Nope."

Got any links?

"Only because you don't understand what I mean by infinite."

Ok, artistic freedom reigns... what do you mean by infinite?

"For a while anyways. Eventually, based upon the percieved wrongs of the people he was subjugating he would have been overthrown and the new people would be able to instill their version of morality."

If Hitlers morality would have been adopted, who is to say that there is anything wrong with what he is doing then? Might makes right then.

Mesoforte said...

And what is your evidence and how would you go about getting it?

My arguments rest upon the inability of the other side.

How can you show that i haven't experienced God in my life?

How can I show that your not a 'nutjob'? Or, how can you show that I am not your deity? How can you show that I haven't created your universe and merely implanted myself in there? I think the burden of proof is on you.

"Like saying that a timeless (which equates changeless) being can act as a cause. Hillarious."

Actually, that is not contradictory at all.

That one wasn't, but it was a ridiculous idea. I still remember you saying that you didn't beleive in the Greek gods because they were bound to fate, but I showed that an omnipotent and omniscient being by definition would neccasarilly be bound by fate. Its still there if you want to reread it.

Got any links?

Your the positive claimant. Read any scientific journals lately?

Ok, artistic freedom reigns... what do you mean by infinite?

As long as there has been change within the universe, the universe has existed. Simple.

If Hitlers morality would have been adopted, who is to say that there is anything wrong with what he is doing then? Might makes right then.

In older times anyways. In American society for example, we have accepted the fact that yesterdays majority is todays minority and developed guarranteed rights so we don't have the bloody coups of other countries.

Mesoforte said...

"Like saying that a timeless (which equates changeless) being can act as a cause. Hillarious."

Actually, that is not contradictory at all.

Actually, after considering it for a moment, it is contradictory. To act as a cause requires a thing to change. If something is changeless it cannot make the change that is necessary to act as a cause.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"That’s a thin premise indeed. How do I know you’re not on medication? Unhinged? I’m not saying you are, but I don’t have any conclusive evidence, do I?"

You don't. I am just stating my reasons, and they might me a reality.

"Plus, you’ve enlarged your debate vocabulary. Please."

Well, i take that as a compliment

"Seeing as the universe isn’t a closed system, for 1 thing. For another, there’s not 1 law of thermodynamics I’m aware of, that stipulates that energy ceases to exist in any form."

I don't know when i said that energy ceases to be...maybe i did, but that was a mistake then.

The 2nd law applies to all the parts of the universe we know, why shouldn't it be true for all of its parts?

As long as the universe isn't infinite/connected to some other universe it is a closed system.

"Still skirting that particular query, I see. Show me 1 law of physics (hell, gimmee a good example, even), that energy ceases to be."

Well, i am not saying that energy ceases to be so no argument there. On the other hand, isn't it up to you to describe how infinites can exist?

"Which cultures, exactly?"

Historically, many cultures have. In society today we hear of individuals who lack the twinge and molest children for example. You knew that.

"That’s where we have ‘varying degrees’. You want to discriminate based on sexuality."

We discriminate everyday. If i go into an airplane i'll only allow trained pilots in the cockpit for example. I only allow the dentist to work on my teeth, not an average Joe.

"Fidelity reduces promiscuity, for 1."

So the only thing that'll stop promiscuity is marriage?

"I usually think so as well. However, when you make a claim, that a select person shouldn’t have a right that you take for granted, based on their lifestyle/sexual preference, that IS bigotry, in my book. Sorry, being honest."

Well, really, i'm not expecting much else for the "left" either

GooseHenry said...

Bedtime

Good night, don't stay up till 5 meso

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Heck, I didn't know that. Thanks KA. I've been out of the loop on that topic for a while now
I actually was corrected on it some time ago, so de nada.
Actually, after considering it for a moment, it is contradictory. To act as a cause requires a thing to change. If something is changeless it cannot make the change that is necessary to act as a cause.
Hey, that's pretty good.

I saw this on the http://apatheticagnostic.com website, can't find, quote from memory:

"If god is perfect, he cannot change.
If he cannot change, he cannot interact w/this world."
Something like that.

Mesoforte said...

As long as the universe isn't infinite/connected to some other universe it is a closed system.

Variable gravititational field.

On the other hand, isn't it up to you to describe how infinites can exist?


Its simple really, our black holes act as the giant recycling bins of the universe. The reason we don't run out of energy (through dissapation) quickly is because the universe has so much of it. Whenever that runs out though, there will be a lot of high mass black holes that will draw the energy and matter back in, compress it and eventually explode outward again. (From multiple places mind you)

So the only thing that'll stop promiscuity is marriage?

That or cutting guys balls off.

Good night, don't stay up till 5 meso

I only do that when I argue with people in different time zones.

And I'm going to take a shower and going to eat with my friends.

Mesoforte said...

KA

Hey, that's pretty good.

I saw this on the http://apatheticagnostic.com website, can't find, quote from memory:

"If god is perfect, he cannot change.
If he cannot change, he cannot interact w/this world."
Something like that.


I haven't heard that one yet. Oh well, it makes me feel good to know I'm not the only one to arrive at a similiar conclusion

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
You don't. I am just stating my reasons, and they might me a reality.
W/no evidence. I saw this 1 crazy lady sitting in the bushes, advising birds not to fight over a female. Hey, maybe she DOES talk to the birds, & they understand her? (this was very recent, BTW).
Well, i take that as a compliment
That’s fine.
I don't know when i said that energy ceases to be...maybe i did, but that was a mistake then.
Dude, didn’t say just you. Can’t find a theist who’ll illustrate it. Anywhere.
The 2nd law applies to all the parts of the universe we know, why shouldn't it be true for all of its parts?
It could, for all we know. Problem is, we don’t know all that much conclusively.
As long as the universe isn't infinite/connected to some other universe it is a closed system.
Again, we still don’t know that.
Well, i am not saying that energy ceases to be so no argument there. On the other hand, isn't it up to you to describe how infinites can exist?
I’m just going on an assumption, until someone can prove otherwise. I’m open, I’m waiting, for ANYONE to explain to me how matter wasn’t here at any time, or that there WAS no energy anywhere. W/o the bibble, I might add.
Historically, many cultures have. In society today we hear of individuals who lack the twinge and molest children for example. You knew that.
I was talking about cultures, not individuals. You’d be hard put to find any culture that was/is completely sociopathic to its occupants as well as outsiders. Those don’t tend to last very long.
We discriminate everyday. If i go into an airplane i'll only allow trained pilots in the cockpit for example. I only allow the dentist to work on my teeth, not an average Joe.
That’s way different, dude. People don’t usually require degrees to eat, have sex, or go to the bathroom. It’s 1 thing to have someone trained to do a specific operation (that actually REQUIRES a certain degree of finesse & technique), it’s another entirely to dictate to a group of people what they can & cannot do, predicated on sexuality.
So the only thing that'll stop promiscuity is marriage?
You tell me. I was talking about the trend in promiscuity among gays, but I guess that could be equally applied to any group of adults who aren’t married to other adults, who aren’t allowed to.
I could go on w/this explanation, if you’re having trouble reading the context.
Well, really, i'm not expecting much else for the "left" either
Oh, here we go again.
So it’s discrimination if it’s based on genetics, race, gender, religion, but not if it’s sexuality? Why just that 1 caveat? Explain that to me. Did you read my recent post on tolerance?

I consider the '1 woman/1 man' paradigm thoroughly debunked, BTW.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Its simple really, our black holes act as the giant recycling bins of the universe. The reason we don't run out of energy (through dissapation) quickly is because the universe has so much of it. Whenever that runs out though, there will be a lot of high mass black holes that will draw the energy and matter back in, compress it and eventually explode outward again. (From multiple places mind you)
So in short, the universe will never run out of energy of some sort, right? Matter, anti-matter, dark matter, it's all energy, correct?

remy said...

Well, this is free-ranging. Some of it is a bit over me head me thinks.

But I STILL haven't heard a reason why a man can't marry another man other than, "because it's wrong" which any third grader would laugh at, unless of course he/she were at a religious school where it is well known and obviously a truism that god made women to serve the needs of man who is THE ruler of all he surveys, except other men of course, so how could there be a marriage with two rulers since that would mean they'd have to compete to establish dominance, but if they figured that out then one of them wouldn't be the man and the whole marriage would end in divorce, unlike heterosexual marriage, which is forever. (deep breath)

Guess what? We recently had two Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen marry each other. Now the streets are full of blood and everywhere people run about aimlessly with a great deal of biblical gnashing of teeth, and, the frogs! the frogs!!

Krystalline Apostate said...

remy:
Well, this is free-ranging. Some of it is a bit over me head me thinks.
Thank Goose, & his penchant for red herrings.
They can be tasty sometimes. ;)
Now the streets are full of blood and everywhere people run about aimlessly with a great deal of biblical gnashing of teeth, and, the frogs! the frogs!!
LMAO!
You know the 10 'plagues' in exodus are symptomatic of volcanic eruption, right?;)

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Found it:
http://apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds/med02/med035.html

"If God is perfect then God cannot change.
If God cannot change then God cannot interact with the rest of existence.
If God cannot interact with the rest of existence then there is no way we can ever interact with God.
If we cannot interact with God then we can never know anything about God.
If we can never know anything about God we can treat God as non-existent from our viewpoint."

I think that says quite a bit.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"Variable gravititational field."

This is just an assertion. I've read briefly about this, as far as i know this still assumes a finite beginning and creation from nothing. Fill me in if i am wrong.

"Its simple really, our black holes act as the giant recycling bins of the universe. The reason we don't run out of energy (through dissapation) quickly is because the universe has so much of it. Whenever that runs out though, there will be a lot of high mass black holes that will draw the energy and matter back in, compress it and eventually explode outward again."

Still, if there is no external source supplying the universe with energy, things move towards equlibrium (=heat death). The oscillating system you mention (Ccontraction&expansion) still means that entrophy increases with every expansion, implying that the 1st expansion came out of nothing.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"W/no evidence. I saw this 1 crazy lady sitting in the bushes, advising birds not to fight over a female. Hey, maybe she DOES talk to the birds, & they understand her? (this was very recent, BTW)."

Well, by induction we can assume that they don't. Even so, my reasons might be a reality, right? And if they are my position is valid, right?

"The 2nd law applies to all the parts of the universe we know, why shouldn't it be true for all of its parts?
It could, for all we know. Problem is, we don’t know all that much conclusively."

No, but we should have a reason to think otherwise.

"Again, we still don’t know that."

Well, according to Big Bang cosmology we do.

"I’m just going on an assumption, until someone can prove otherwise. I’m open, I’m waiting, for ANYONE to explain to me how matter wasn’t here at any time, or that there WAS no energy anywhere. W/o the bibble, I might add."

Big Bang cosmology?

"I was talking about cultures, not individuals. You’d be hard put to find any culture that was/is completely sociopathic to its occupants as well as outsiders."

Well, we have cultures that "ought" to feel a twinge when circumsicing women for example. Even so, who is right and who is wrong if everyone just go by their twinges?

"Oh, here we go again.
So it’s discrimination if it’s based on genetics, race, gender, religion, but not if it’s sexuality?"

Racism is denying somebody their basic human right. Nobody is denying anyone their right when it comes to marriage, the right doesn't exist.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"If God is perfect then God cannot change.
If God cannot change then God cannot interact with the rest of existence."

So if somebody cannot chance they cannot interact? Non-sequitur

Mesoforte said...

This is just an assertion. I've read briefly about this, as far as i know this still assumes a finite beginning and creation from nothing. Fill me in if i am wrong.

Read Statistical Physics.

Still, if there is no external source supplying the universe with energy, things move towards equlibrium (=heat death). The oscillating system you mention (Ccontraction&expansion) still means that entrophy increases with every expansion, implying that the 1st expansion came out of nothing.

Nope. The Second Law, as I've stated before is a statement of statistical probablility. A system's energy can actually variate.

Well, according to Big Bang cosmology we do.


You probably don't understand how much "Big Bang" cosmology has changed in the last few years.

Mesoforte said...

So if somebody cannot chance they cannot interact? Non-sequitur

A non sequitur is any argument that has a conclusion that in no way logically follows from the premise.

If God is perfect then God cannot change.
If God cannot change then God cannot interact with the rest of existence.
If God cannot interact with the rest of existence then there is no way we can ever interact with God.
If we cannot interact with God then we can never know anything about God.
If we can never know anything about God we can treat God as non-existent from our viewpoint


That's not a non-sequitor. You need to change to interact with anything. It merely explains the logical ramifications of perfection, or in the case of my argument, a changeless being.

Mesoforte said...

still means that entrophy increases with every expansion

No, every expansion would allow for the reuse of the old energy. It would essentially restart the energy by compacting it and releasing it to allow it to flow outward again.

Mesoforte said...

Here's an interesting one to the refutation of the 'heat death' argument.

Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics an inexorable law of nature? Yes, according to Robbins [the arguer], because it "has never been contradicted." Never? Then what prevented his eternal, personal, and trascnedent god from suffering a gruesom heat-death? If the Second Law is not applicable to god, it is not inexorable. If this is so, on what grounds can the theist that the Second Law apllies to the entire universe and cannot, under any circumstances be contradicted? Atheism the Case Against God 254-255

Also-

Jeans's own studies in the realm of the second law of thermodynamics were all concerned with the kinetic theory of gases, in which the specimen under discussion is supposed walled around in a finite vessel; and to such systems the notion of a heat-death is applicable. But by no means is the same result to be predicted of the whole universe. Athesim the Case Against God 255-256

...in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must not be regarded as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the apllication of the law of increase in atrophy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium. Atheism the Case Against God 256

Mesoforte said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mesoforte said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mesoforte said...

Racism is denying somebody their basic human right.

Actually, racism is a feeling of prejudice based upon emotions.

Nobody is denying anyone their right when it comes to marriage, the right doesn't exist.

So, you don't have the right to marry either (even to the opposite sex). I'm glad we cleared that up.

Okay, its late I'm going to bed

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"That's not a non-sequitor. You need to change to interact with anything. It merely explains the logical ramifications of perfection, or in the case of my argument, a changeless being."

Does ones properties/characteristics need to change in order to interact?

This is so far-fetched. Why is one forced to change in order to act?

No, sorry, this just won't do.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"No, every expansion would allow for the reuse of the old energy. It would essentially restart the energy by compacting it and releasing it to allow it to flow outward again."

2 problems:

1) This does not address the entrophy that accumulates over each contraction/expansion
2) For the universe to contract, we need high gravity, which is a funtion of total mass. We would need approx. 10 times more mass in the universe for it to be able to contract

"Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics an inexorable law of nature? Yes, according to Robbins [the arguer], because it "has never been contradicted." Never? Then what prevented his eternal, personal, and trascnedent god from suffering a gruesom heat-death? If the Second Law is not applicable to god, it is not inexorable. If this is so, on what grounds can the theist that the Second Law apllies to the entire universe and cannot, under any circumstances be contradicted? Atheism the Case Against God 254-255"

This assigns properties such as material&mortal to God, making it a catergory fallacy

"Jeans's own studies in the realm of the second law of thermodynamics were all concerned with the kinetic theory of gases, in which the specimen under discussion is supposed walled around in a finite vessel; and to such systems the notion of a heat-death is applicable. But by no means is the same result to be predicted of the whole universe."

Why would the entire universe not have the same properties as its indivual parts?

"...in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must not be regarded as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the apllication of the law of increase in atrophy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium."

By this i take you mean an oscillating universe? If not please be more clear.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"The Second Law, as I've stated before is a statement of statistical probablility. A system's energy can actually variate."

If the second law is a statement of probability, why assume otherwise?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Well, by induction we can assume that they don't. Even so, my reasons might be a reality, right? And if they are my position is valid, right?
Not w/o evidence. That makes it an introverted anecdote.
Big Bang cosmology?
Where does the ‘big bang cosmology’ state that matter and/or energy never existed?
Well, we have cultures that "ought" to feel a twinge when circumsicing women for example. Even so, who is right and who is wrong if everyone just go by their twinges?
If we go by historical example, well, religious cultures exhibit much less of a ‘twinge’ than secular ones.
Racism is denying somebody their basic human right. Nobody is denying anyone their right when it comes to marriage, the right doesn't exist.
That’s bigotry. Benign bigotry, but bigotry nonetheless. You’re discriminating based on sexuality. That’s no different than basing it on race, religion, etc.
So if somebody cannot change they cannot interact? Non-sequitur
Yeesh, am I gonna have to diagram it out for you? I pick up a fork – my body moves (indicative of change – movement), I flex a set of muscles, again change, I lift it up against the pull of gravity – change again! Go look up the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle while you’re at it.
Face it – interaction = change. That simple.

Mesoforte said...

1) This does not address the entrophy that accumulates over each contraction/expansion

For the case for entropy, it is always confined to an finite space, in which the heat measured only within that finite space. However, seeing as the universe is apatially infinite, you casnnot realistically apply the Second law of thermodynamics to the universe as a whole, because you cannot set finite boundry on a infinite object. Please read up on your basics of physics before you go around sceaming your head off about heat death.


2) For the universe to contract, we need high gravity, which is a funtion of total mass. We would need approx. 10 times more mass in the universe for it to be able to contract

My god man! You know how much mass is within the universe!?! Who the hell told you?

This comment is courtousy of Alex M.

This assigns properties such as material&mortal to God, making it a catergory fallacy

So, you agree that the Second Law does not apply to your diety? Then the second law is not applicable in all circumstances.

Why would the entire universe not have the same properties as its indivual parts?

We draw the boundries as finite for any use of the second law. Because the universe is spatially infinite, you can't apply the same law.

By this i take you mean an oscillating universe? If not please be more clear.

I'm not speaking of merely an oscilating universe, I'm talking about multiple black holes appearing in the universe and then compacting matter until it explodes outward again.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"For the case for entropy, it is always confined to an finite space, in which the heat measured only within that finite space. However, seeing as the universe is apatially infinite, you casnnot realistically apply the Second law of thermodynamics to the universe as a whole, because you cannot set finite boundry on a infinite object. Please read up on your basics of physics before you go around sceaming your head off about heat death."

1) So space is spatially infinite? This means then that it has expanded for an infinite amount of time. We encounter problems with actual infinites here.

2) The above also assumes that there is some kind of power inlet somewhere that stops entrophy. Why should we think that is the case?

3) Why can we not apply the 2nd law to all of the universe? It applies to all the known areas of the universe.

Why should we assume there are parts where it doesn't apply? Since the universe is made up of its parts (and those we know of move towards equilibrium), then why is it not correct to assume that the 2dn law applies to the whole universe?

"My god man! You know how much mass is within the universe!?! Who the hell told you?"

I believe this is the common understanding of the scientific community.

http://www.answers.com/topic/big-crunch

"So, you agree that the Second Law does not apply to your diety? Then the second law is not applicable in all circumstances."

You are insisting that God has the same properties as the universe, committing a category error.

"We draw the boundries as finite for any use of the second law. Because the universe is spatially infinite, you can't apply the same law."

In order to be infinite, it must expand for an infinity. How do you make this go along with your theories of contraction/expansion?

If the last contraction happened a finite time ago, the universe cannot have reached infinity since it expands by successive addition, making an actual infinite impossible.

Or did the last contraction happen an infinity ago? By what scientific theory?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
We would need approx. 10 times more mass in the universe for it to be able to contract
Hey, I'm w/MF - where'd you get that? Share, share! You may want to give Hawking a call: I'm sure he'd be deeply interested in that info.

I enjoy both of you coming here & wrangling about thermodynamics (I learn a lot from it), but it looks like I'm going to have to devote 1 post a week where you 2 hash out the quantum mechanics of the universe all by your lonesomes. This thread kinda got a little hijacked.

You can both continue, I don't mind (little late for that anyways) - I'll be posting something about quantum mechanics this week - fairly soon.

GooseHenry said...

KA

I pulled it out of a debate between William Lane Craig&George Smith (the atheist writer who MF quotes often)

Anyway, check the link from answers i provided regarding the big crunch.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"Not w/o evidence. That makes it an introverted anecdote."

Tha could be true.

"Where does the ‘big bang cosmology’ state that matter and/or energy never existed?"

It says everything comes from a singular point with no dimensions. No dimensions - does not exist.

"That’s bigotry. Benign bigotry, but bigotry nonetheless. You’re discriminating based on sexuality. That’s no different than basing it on race, religion, etc."

Well, i guess we'll have to change the definition of bigotry then.

"Yeesh, am I gonna have to diagram it out for you? I pick up a fork – my body moves (indicative of change – movement), I flex a set of muscles, again change, I lift it up against the pull of gravity – change again! Go look up the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle while you’re at it.
Face it – interaction = change. That simple."

So your character/properties change whenever you act? If you say so...

GooseHenry said...

Krystal

Sorry for Hijacking your thread.

Discussing here is more fun. On the NGB you just get steamrolled with ad hominen and wild assertions.

Here is just get called bigot!

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I pulled it out of a debate between William Lane Craig&George Smith (the atheist writer who MF quotes often)
Which 1 said it? Got link?
Anyway, check the link from answers i provided regarding the big crunch.
???
Tha could be true.
Cogitate on it, then.
It says everything comes from a singular point with no dimensions. No dimensions - does not exist.
Ah, but energy doesn’t HAVE to have dimensions, does it?
Well, i guess we'll have to change the definition of bigotry then.
No we don’t.
So your character/properties change whenever you act? If you say so...
My character doesn’t necessarily change, but properties? Synapses firing, neurons sparking, air displacement, blood circulation, etc. Just inhaling is a change in physignomy.
Sorry for Hijacking your thread.
Ain’t no big thing. I learn a lot from the wrangling.
Discussing here is more fun. On the NGB you just get steamrolled with ad hominen and wild assertions.
Really? I thought most of the folks there actually were very respectful, up to a point.
It DID seem sometimes, like you weren't listening on occasion.
Here is just get called bigot!
Hey, there’s no malice in that. Really. I feel the need to be honest, even if it steps on toes. Either you listen, or you don’t. All I can do is point it out, & hope you see the errors of your ways.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I gotcha. It was in a post to MF.
I think you'd better re-read it. Seriously.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"Which 1 said it? Got link?"

For the debate, go here:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith0.html

Smith doesn't seem to object. Though the density/critical density seem to vary, some say it's not 0.1. So i might have been exaggerating a bit. It is however, too small:

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/FlatnessProblem.html

For the big crunch, go here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/big-crunch

That is more important. Evidence suggests that the universe will not contract. Which was the original point. Phew

"Ah, but energy doesn’t HAVE to have dimensions, does it?"

It cannot exist in nothing, can it? If you say so, then i think the burden is on you

"My character doesn’t necessarily change, but properties? Synapses firing, neurons sparking, air displacement, blood circulation, etc. Just inhaling is a change in physignomy."

Well, when we talk about God not changing, we mean His characteristics/properties.

"Really? I thought most of the folks there actually were very respectful, up to a point."

Some, some not.

GooseHenry said...

KA

I did. Miss this?

"The evidence of an accelerating universe is considered conclusive by most cosmologists since 2002.)"

Krystalline Apostate said...

It cannot exist in nothing, can it? If you say so, then i think the burden is on you
& again, not the proponent of ‘nothing’, remember? Lacking dimensions doesn’t render it ‘nothing’.
Well, when we talk about God not changing, we mean His characteristics/properties.
See, that hobbles you somewhat. In order to interact, your deity would have to change. Being perfect means never changing, ergo, the deistic construct would be more applicable.
Some, some not.
True enough. Then again, I’d see people explain items at length, & it did seem sometimes that you weren’t paying attention. That tends to rile folks up somewhat.
I did. Miss this?
No, but the Friedman models negate your ‘nothing’ comment, also:
”However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have—to most scientists' considerable surprise—shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity, but instead, accelerating, suggesting that the universe will not end with a Big Crunch, but will instead expand forever, though some scientists have contested this theory.[1] (The evidence of an accelerating universe is considered conclusive by most cosmologists since 2002.)”
I don’t know how we got on the big crunch.
So thus far, I see no reason to assume there'll be an end to matter and/or energy.

GooseHenry said...

Ka

"& again, not the proponent of ‘nothing’, remember? Lacking dimensions doesn’t render it ‘nothing’."

Funny that a naturalist should say that... it is immaterial, yet you say it is not nothing.

The Big Bang cosmology states that prior to the event neither time, space, matter nor energy existed.

we would still need a 1st cause for the immaterial singular point to pop out.

"See, that hobbles you somewhat. In order to interact, your deity would have to change. Being perfect means never changing, ergo, the deistic construct would be more applicable."

No, his attributes - spirit, infinite&eternal in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

These wouldn't have to change 1 bit for Him to interact.

"True enough. Then again, I’d see people explain items at length, & it did seem sometimes that you weren’t paying attention. That tends to rile folks up somewhat."

Sure, i admit to making mistakes. That doesn't mean that my arguments, insted of my person, should be attacked.

"No, but the Friedman models negate your ‘nothing’ comment, also:
”However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have—to most scientists' considerable surprise—shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity, but instead, accelerating, suggesting that the universe will not end with a Big Crunch, but will instead expand forever, though some scientists have contested this theory.[1] (The evidence of an accelerating universe is considered conclusive by most cosmologists since 2002.)I don’t know how we got on the big crunch. So thus far, I see no reason to assume there'll be an end to matter and/or energy."

1) This link was aimed at Mesoforte and his oscillating universe. It seems that the expansion accelerates contradicting the theory of an oscillating universe, ergo it had one beginning

2) The big crunch would then be the next contraction, in a series of several, of the universe

3) My argument is not that there'll be an end to matter&energy.

Mesoforte said...

1) So space is spatially infinite? This means then that it has expanded for an infinite amount of time. We encounter problems with actual infinites here.

Black holes contract matter and then boom again. And black holes radiate heat back into the universe (Hawking Radiation.)

2) The above also assumes that there is some kind of power inlet somewhere that stops entrophy. Why should we think that is the case?

Black holes radiate the heat that they absorb back out in Hawking Radiation.

3) Why can we not apply the 2nd law to all of the universe? It applies to all the known areas of the universe.

Your attempting to apply a finite theory on something that is infinite spatially, as you said, category error.

Why should we assume there are parts where it doesn't apply? Since the universe is made up of its parts (and those we know of move towards equilibrium), then why is it not correct to assume that the 2dn law applies to the whole universe?

There are places that it doesn't apply: Black holes we have learned radiate their own kind of energy from the energy they absorb.

I believe this is the common understanding of the scientific community.

http://www.answers.com/topic/big-crunch


They still don't know how much mass is in the universe.

You are insisting that God has the same properties as the universe, committing a category error.

You are applying finite theories to a spatially infinite universe, commiting a category error.

In order to be infinite, it must expand for an infinity. How do you make this go along with your theories of contraction/expansion?

It is infinite because it is constantly expanding into nothingness. And I'm saying that black holes recycle the energy that the universe uses (causing more 'bangs' from wherever they are located.

If the last contraction happened a finite time ago, the universe cannot have reached infinity since it expands by successive addition, making an actual infinite impossible.

The entire universe isn't contracting, bits in pieces are recycled through the black holes that are at the center of galaxies such as ours.

Or did the last contraction happen an infinity ago? By what scientific theory?

The entire universe didn't contract, bits and pieces do, recycling the energy they 'spend'.

The Big Bang cosmology states that prior to the event neither time, space, matter nor energy existed.

When's the last time you took a physics class?

we would still need a 1st cause for the immaterial singular point to pop out.


Immaterial=incoherent

Mesoforte said...

Goose

Goose, energy, heat or otherwise, can never really leave the universe. Because the universe is the totality of its parts, if energy ever started to 'leave', the universe would expand with it.

Also, you're never going to be able to prove an absolute using logic, science, or philosophy. None of them are designed to prove absolutes.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Funny that a naturalist should say that... it is immaterial, yet you say it is not nothing.

The Big Bang cosmology states that prior to the event neither time, space, matter nor energy existed.

This is why people get very irate w/you: you're not paying attention.
http://www.answers.com/big%20bang"
"A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."

Note that air is immaterial: it doesn't correspond to any of the 3 dimension - yet it exists.

Sure, i admit to making mistakes. That doesn't mean that my arguments, insted of my person, should be attacked.
I'll go along w/that up to a point - but I just went off on a white supremacist today, on the NGB.
Bigotry is bigotry - denying some1 else their rights based on race, religion, creed, or sexuality.

These wouldn't have to change 1 bit for Him to interact.
Who's cherry-picking definitions now?
Picking up a fork doesn't change my personality, does it?

I'm pretty much done w/this - you're trying to use falsifiable science (go look up falsifiability before you pounce) on an unfalsifiable abstract concept - sorry, that dog don't hunt.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."

Ok. Now, if we agree to that then we need a cause for the big bang.

"Note that air is immaterial: it doesn't correspond to any of the 3 dimension - yet it exists."

It can be put in a test tube and measured

"Bigotry is bigotry - denying some1 else their rights based on race, religion, creed, or sexuality."

Which i am not.

"Who's cherry-picking definitions now?"

Hey, these are standard definitions of God. Come on, it cannot be like you've never heard that before.

"Picking up a fork doesn't change my personality, does it?"

No

"I'm pretty much done w/this - you're trying to use falsifiable science (go look up falsifiability before you pounce) on an unfalsifiable abstract concept - sorry, that dog don't hunt."

GooseHenry said...

Meso

Which model are you referring to?

Moreover the scientific community seems to agree that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

This indicates that there is not enough mass to contract it.

Black holes might huff&puff by themselves, but this clearly is not enough to contract the whole universe.

zooplah said...

OK, I'm way late into the convo, but I thought I'd make a few comments.

First, don't quote Wikipedia as an authoritative source. The site itself says it's not. Use Webster's dictionary, Encyclopedia Brittanica or some other trustworthy source.

Second, if God did create everything and homosexuality wasn't part of his plan, then he sure arranged things oddly. It's been scientifically shown that gay people produce different pheromones and body odors than straight people, and these are most pleasing for gay people of the same sex but least for the opposite sex and straight members of the same sex. It's just a little too harmonious to be contrary to some alleged plan.

Third, the marriage debate is so stupid. Marriage should be a spiritual thing. Civil unions should be a federal thing. If religious people want some spiritual bond, choose marriage, but expect zero benefits; if you want benefits, regardless of whether you're gay or straight, you'll need a civil union. I see no reason why the pious heterosexuals can't can't have both, but the rest of us would do good to avoid marriage and its religious baggage.

Krystalline Apostate said...

zooplah:
First, don't quote Wikipedia as an authoritative source. The site itself says it's not. Use Webster's dictionary, Encyclopedia Brittanica or some other trustworthy source.
I use answers.com, because it references Wiki as well as the other 2 sources. In the media world, a fact-checker (a profession which doesn't seem to be put to use anymore) is supposed to garner facts from 3 different sources.

Second, if God did create everything and homosexuality wasn't part of his plan, then he sure arranged things oddly.

You definitely win the prize for understatement of the year. ;)
Third, the marriage debate is so stupid.
"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forest Gump.

Mesoforte said...

Which model are you referring to?

None of the ones you know about, obviously. You didn't even know that astronomy switched off the 'single point of origin' big bang and instead uses 'multiple bangs all over.' You can't use your high school or even college level alone anymore (especially since you haven't been in school for a long time), the observations change so much over the course of a few years that not even textbooks can keep up.

Moreover the scientific community seems to agree that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Did I say that the universe wasn't accelerating? I'm pretty sure that is what allows for a spatially infinite universe.

This indicates that there is not enough mass to contract it.

Who said that the entire universe would contract? I'm pretty sure that I said that things like galaxies and other bodies would contract into black holes until 'boom'.

Black holes might huff&puff by themselves, but this clearly is not enough to contract the whole universe.

I didn't say it would contract the whole universe. Why don't you argue with what I say and not what you think I say.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Ok. Now, if we agree to that then we need a cause for the big bang.
Do we? What's my favorite motto? ;)
It can be put in a test tube and measured
Again, missing the point. Air is still immaterial. It lacks length, depth, or width.
Which i am not.
Your disconnect is just...frightening. You'll let gay folks do anything else, but you won't let them marry? How is that not discrimination? They were able to get married prior to the xtians taking over.
Hey, these are standard definitions of God. Come on, it cannot be like you've never heard that before.
Red herring, non-sequitor. The original root was about being able to change in order to interact.

Let's face it: you want me to validate a prejudice against gay marriage via a group of people who claim it's taboo based on
1. An old book, &
2. A little voice in their heads (I defer you to my post, THE ID GONE WILD).
I really do wish you WERE joking.
It scares the everlivin' hell outta me that you're NOT.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, i get bullied all the time because it's popular to call me gay. (i'm not.) and it pisses me off to no end. i've been ganged up on in the locker rooms before. and i wish that the school did more about it. at my school, i can get a detention for saying "crap" if some kid tells a teacher, but according to school policy, unless the teacher sees it, i could walk up to them with my face bashed in and my arm broken, and they couldn't do a damn thing about it.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"Black holes contract matter and then boom again. And black holes radiate heat back into the universe (Hawking Radiation.)"

Ok. A perfect perpetual machine? That is not known of. Got link?

"Black holes radiate the heat that they absorb back out in Hawking Radiation."

See above.

"Your attempting to apply a finite theory on something that is infinite spatially, as you said, category error."

You cannot achieve an actual infinite by successive addition, only a potential one.

"There are places that it doesn't apply: Black holes we have learned radiate their own kind of energy from the energy they absorb."

Ok. But on a whole then, except the places where these perpetual machines are located, the 2nd law applies then. Which means that on a whole, it applies. Unless the black holes generate more energy than they absorb.

"They still don't know how much mass is in the universe."

No, but there is concensus about the accelerating expansion, implying not enough mass an there never will be.

"You are applying finite theories to a spatially infinite universe, commiting a category error."

So actual infinites exist?

"It is infinite because it is constantly expanding into nothingness."

Which makes it a potential infinite.

"The entire universe isn't contracting, bits in pieces are recycled through the black holes that are at the center of galaxies such as ours."

Ok, so the expansion must have had a beginning then. Scientific theory says that all matter&energy was initially located in one mathematical point, which essentially doesn't occupy space.

"When's the last time you took a physics class?"

17 years ago maybe.

Look, Meso, either provide a link or i am going to assume that you are making this up.

GooseHenry said...

Goose:

"Do we? What's my favorite motto? ;)"

Can't recall. Big bang, coming to be of space, matter, enrgy&time. Prior to that it was stored in one mathematical point. You ok with the fact that it popped out for no reason?

"Again, missing the point. Air is still immaterial. It lacks length, depth, or width."

Like saying water is immaterial.

"Your disconnect is just...frightening. You'll let gay folks do anything else, but you won't let them marry? How is that not discrimination? They were able to get married prior to the xtians taking over."

I am too being denied the right to marry whomever i want in that case.

"Red herring, non-sequitor. The original root was about being able to change in order to interact."

In that case you are equally guilty of non-sequitur. You claim that immutability implies immobility.

For example, saying that someone is of an immutable character means that they will not act contrary to their character even in trying circumstances. It certainly does not follow that they are immobile.

Mesoforte said...

You cannot achieve an actual infinite by successive addition, only a potential one.

You're still attempting to apply a theory meant for finite models.

Oh well, time for a change of argument-

We have previously mentioned that a finite universe may be considered an isolated system. As such, it may be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that its total entropy is constantly increasing. It has been speculated that the universe is fated to a heat death in which all the energy ends up as a homogeneous distribution of thermal energy, so that no more work can be extracted from any source.

If the universe can be considered to have generally increasing entropy, then - as Roger Penrose has pointed out - an important role in the increase is played by gravity, which causes dispersed matter to accumulate into stars, which collapse eventually into black holes. Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have shown that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. This makes them likely end points of all entropy-increasing processes, if they are totally effective matter and energy traps. Hawking has, however, recently changed his stance on this aspect.

The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject. Recent work has cast extensive doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to an "entropy gap", thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium with each time increment. Other complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_and_cosmology

Since entropy exists, and all energy is slowly becoming less useful, and someday in the future all energy will be completely evenly spread out over the cosmos and of no use to anyone, doesn't your statement imply that, in the universe's infinite past, energy/mass must have been infinitely the other way around? And, how is that possible?

Entropy started with the Big Bang. "Before" the Big Bang (and I use that term loosely), the Universe was in a singularity condition. There was no space, no time and no distance. All mass existed at exactly one point, defined by its own existence, because there was no volume around it (confused yet?). Because of this, all reactions taking place took place instantaneously, in zero time, because there was no time, because there was no distance, because there was no space. Without any of these, entropy doesn't happen. The Big Bang is responsible for the Universe's current incarnation, that is all. It has always existed, according to the most basic assumption in physics and of science

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/oldsite/creationism/faq.shtml

(actually a very good site.)


Ok. But on a whole then, except the places where these perpetual machines are located, the 2nd law applies then. Which means that on a whole, it applies. Unless the black holes generate more energy than they absorb.

You know what, I'm tossing the 'black holes radiate Hawking Radiation.' Because the problem is that that radiation has not been found. So, because a black hole does not radiate any energy from the matter that is pulled in, it is possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics by throwing matter into a black hole. So, the second law does not apply to the universe as a whole.

So actual infinites exist?

Do you understand what 'relativity' means?

17 years ago maybe.

You could always go back to college.

To quote this site-

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/oldsite/creationism/faq.shtml

Stop trying to rationalize your belief in God. You won't get very far.

Mesoforte said...

This site is good-

So, in a way, Einstein's Relativity disallows for the existence of God. If there was an omniscient God, he'd be in an absolute frame of reference, on an absolute timeline. According to Relativity, this cannot exist.

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/oldsite/creationism/faq.shtml

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Can't recall.
Everything just is.
Prior to that it was stored in one mathematical point. You ok with the fact that it popped out for no reason?
All matter was compressed. Go read your own links. Yeah, I’m fine w/it. Why wouldn't I be?
Like saying water is immaterial.
The whole point was to illustrate that matter could be fine or gross. You keep talking about matter like it’s solid, you can hold it in your hand. Matter is composed of energy. Some energy is measureable – some not.
I am too being denied the right to marry whomever i want in that case.
Oh? Who’s the lucky guy? ;)
In that case you are equally guilty of non-sequitur. You claim that immutability implies immobility.
No: the inference is that your ‘perfect’ deity, who allegedly transcends the boundaries of time & space, would be incapable of interacting w/non-perfection.
For example, saying that someone is of an immutable character means that they will not act contrary to their character even in trying circumstances. It certainly does not follow that they are immobile.
Missing the point grandly: immutable means incapable of change. Change is a necessary component in any interaction, whether on an atomic level, or even picking up the phone & talking to someone. You know, that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics you so love to bring up?

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
That site is great.
Of course, Goose won't read any of it.
Looks like it hasn't been updated since 2003.

Mesoforte said...

Looks like it hasn't been updated since 2003

Don't need to change a good thing. ^_~

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Don't need to change a good thing. ^_~
Ain't broke, don't fix it.
Hey, you outlasted Goose again! Holy crap, you deserve a medal!
Sadly, I'm fresh out. ;)

GooseHenry said...

Meso&KA

I had limited Internet access during the weekend.

"You're still attempting to apply a theory meant for finite models."

My point is, actual infinites are absurd whatever the theory is meant for.

I am just going to keep the following portion:

"Entropy started with the Big Bang. "Before" the Big Bang (and I use that term loosely), the Universe was in a singularity condition. There was no space, no time and no distance. All mass existed at exactly one point, defined by its own existence, because there was no volume around it (confused yet?). Because of this, all reactions taking place took place instantaneously, in zero time, because there was no time, because there was no distance, because there was no space. Without any of these, entropy doesn't happen. The Big Bang is responsible for the Universe's current incarnation, that is all. It has always existed, according to the most basic assumption in physics and of science"

From this i gather that
1) Ontologically prior to the big bang, the universe existed in a singularity, a mathematical point sans dimensions = infinitesmall

2) The big bang was the first moment of time, matter, energy, time&space.

3)Saying that the universe always exites as a mathematical point means nothing, since "always" refers to time, and that didn't exist prior to the big bang.

"http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/oldsite/creationism/faq.shtml

(actually a very good site.)"

Yeah , i checked it out.

GooseHenry said...

KA

"Everything just is."

Oh yeah, you can always retreat to that, i guess.

"The whole point was to illustrate that matter could be fine or gross. You keep talking about matter like it’s solid, you can hold it in your hand. Matter is composed of energy. Some energy is measureable – some not."

I thought we were talking about mathematical points with infinitesmall dimensions vs. air.

"No: the inference is that your ‘perfect’ deity, who allegedly transcends the boundaries of time & space, would be incapable of interacting w/non-perfection."

What is contradictory in that?

"Missing the point grandly: immutable means incapable of change. Change is a necessary component in any interaction, whether on an atomic level, or even picking up the phone & talking to someone."

1)God doesn't consist of atoms.

2) What does it mean when somebody is of an immutable character? Does it mean that they are incapable of any action?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Oh yeah, you can always retreat to that, i guess.
That's not a retreat, but a statement.
I thought we were talking about mathematical points with infinitesmall dimensions vs. air.
Do I really need to qualify my examples every single time? Go re-read the original example, please.
What is contradictory in that?
Here's what I'd like you to do: please shut off that voice in your head (yes, it's just you, ignore it), & just ponder that for a while.
1)God doesn't consist of atoms.
No, he ain't. He doesn't exist.
2) What does it mean when somebody is of an immutable character? Does it mean that they are incapable of any action?
Well, since there's no such thing as an 'immutable character', it's philosophical folderol.
The dictionary defines immutable as: "Not subject or susceptible to change."
I don't think there's anything that's immutable - all things change.

As in the past, I'm not particularly fond of cycling all the way back to an old post. I'll put something up so you & MF can wrassle out the meaning of the universe sometime this week.

Mesoforte said...

My point is, actual infinites are absurd whatever the theory is meant for.


And my point is you can't apply it.

From this i gather that
1) Ontologically prior to the big bang, the universe existed in a singularity, a mathematical point sans dimensions = infinitesmall


'Prior' to the Big Expansion is impossible, ie no time.

2) The big bang was the first moment of time, matter, energy, time&space.

Nope, the Big Expansion was the first moment of time and space. The other two were still there.

3)Saying that the universe always exites as a mathematical point means nothing, since "always" refers to time, and that didn't exist prior to the big bang.

That's is in fact why we say 'always.' So, as long as there has been change within the universe, it has existed.

As in the past, I'm not particularly fond of cycling all the way back to an old post. I'll put something up so you & MF can wrassle out the meaning of the universe sometime this week.

Haven't we done the origin of the universe enough times already. How about the design argument or something like that. Of course, I'm expecting St. Anslem's argument any time now.