Ahhh I see what you’re saying.
The tranny obsession is getting ridonkulous. There will be a rollback in ten to fifteen years and it won’t be pretty. As to lifting, there’s ample evidence that rampant juicing can mess up your hormones so that your horny head ends up looking another way. It’s insane for a society to try to promote it, instead of offering therapy.
1 Like
But we would have to say less plausible than what the article discusses? After all we know humans exist.
In some ways, the existence of God would make transgenderism more plausible. Science does not exist as we define it in a universe with God. If god and other supernatural beings can violate scientific laws, then are they really laws?
How exactly does reading up on astrophysics increase the plausibility of a god? I would think the plausibility of a god would be independent from me reading astrophysics.
Also, if you expand your definition of god to be open ended, then sure that increases the plausibility a whole bunch. If we can claim natural forces are god, then the plausibility goes way up. However, I am not sure what good that does us.
Plausible in the sense that you’d be finding it plausible. If you learn about what the universe is thought to consist of, where people think it comes from and what time and space is, you’d find a god more plausible because other scientific reasoning is equally as outlandish. If you believe one, the chance increases that you’d believe the other.
Funny how arrogant some atheists always get, even if the arguments that there is one or there isn’t are equally as bad.
Besides that, there is another reason that has to do with you, why it would be better for you to believe in one. Even though you can decide that Dir yourself. Humans have an inherent relationship with mysticism, our whole society and history stands on that fundament.
Belief does not discredit science in any way. Science makes it even more believable that there’s more to our universe than what meets the eye, cause there is.
Superstition is an evolutionary trait. Humans who were prone to superstition had a greater chance of survival.
I agree. Does not run counter to what I’ve wrote.
I used to see God in nature and space, but not any more.
I haven’t seen any reason to specifically say that there isn’t a god, but I also haven’t seen evidence to support it either.
I guess I am off the position of not being convinced.
I really just want everyone to be happy, and not be hard on others that are different.
2 Likes
Did you get LASIK too?
2 Likes
I just got it actually lol.
1 Like
God/s have been around for all of history because they were used to explain the unexplainable. Over time science has slowly been able to make sense of the universe around us and God/s have been proven to be responsible for less and less.
Doesn’t mean God/s doesn’t exist. But if you are satisfied with God/s being the answer to a question about a phenomena, then you are favoring faith over science.
In any case, who knows? No one. That’s why it’s called faith. Just don’t be a dick, and try to make the world better before you leave it.
There is no effective difference between a man who believes himself to be Napoleon, believes himself to be a dog or believes himself to be a woman.
It is mental illness.
2 Likes
You’re so edgy.
The concept of a negative position in argument is usually fallacious. You are as limited in disproving a universe that does not require a god as disproving a universe that requires a god.
The real question is whether the concept of god is superfluous and whether a universe with a god versus a godless universe can not be distinguished by any test, so in reality the philosophical argument that you can’t prove a negative should be seen as an argument that you can’t disprove a logically superfluous and in-distinguishable position.
For example, if people lack the ability to exercise non-deterministic free will, (a widely held position among intellectual athiests), then the concepts of rationalism and truth would be logically invalid since our lack of freedom would make our conclusions “inevitable” and there is no test that can distinguish between a deterministically inevitable conclusion that is rational from an deterministically inevitable conclusion that is not rational. The terms “rational” and “true” would become superfluous and so would be off limits and the concept of rationalism would be internally inconsistent.
So god is only “non-disprovable” if god is logically superfluous and a universe with a god is indistiguishable from a universe without a god. The non-disprovable negative argument is a fallacy then, as it is usually used, as it should be viewed as “there are statements (indetectible gremlins make atoms vibrate) that can’t be disproven” not that “all positive statements are non-disprovable.”
1 Like
Does evolution leave the world better off over time? Being the product of evolution, should we act in our genetic best interest? Did the Soviets and Nazis try to leave the world better off?
Having taught trans kids and also academically studied psychology, I have to say that I do believe there is a genetic basis for transgenderism which probably involves genetic mosaicism between cells of different organs of the body. We may even find mixed male and female chromosomes. Most mammals have a significant rate of members with mixed genetic sex cell in their population (more than 1%). Furthermore, the concept that the “sex” chromosome determine sex is a fallacy. We just decided that based of substantial tendencies, but there are genes on other chromosomes that affect masculinity and femininity. For the most part, if you have no Y “sex” chromosomes you will be phenotypically female. People probably have a right to classify others by their biological phenotype, (if I were physiologically male and psychologically female I would use the restroom that matches my physiology since urinating and defecating are not major psychological events for my but primarily biological, though may border on religious experiences at times) but I would also recognize other dimensions in people besides sex organ development that describe characteristics linked to psycho-sexuality. That being said, if someone has female physiology and male psychology then they are not male, they simply have 2 different genetic phenotypes. Either it is a “disorder” or their mixed sex traits are not a disorder and should be accepted. Undoing one’s physiology to “match” one’s psychology is admission of disorder. Also, if there is a genetic basis for transgenderism, then people should be counselled based on their genetics, not their feelings.
Also, as I recall from most recent research, doctors who accept transgenderism as a thing also find that 70%-90% of patients who have transgender ideations are not transgender but exhibiting some diagnosable mental defect like PTSD, or depression, and also people who consider themselves at some point to be transgender and undergo sexual transition have lower lifespans than those who chose to live as their biological sex, with those who “dress and live” trans to their biological sex have decreased lifespan and reported quality of life and those who surgically transition have even greater loss of lifespan and lower quality of life.
1 Like
There is a strong argument that the world would be better without us. The immorality in the actions of those groups would be their discriminatory manner under such argument.
Both the Nazis and Soviets thought they were creating a better world. But they were dicks about it (understatement of the year?).
Have you considered a career as a history teacher?