12 Reasons Why Gays Shouldn't Marry

hmm..i'm beginning to think that there might have been...just might have...a little sarcasm in those twelve reasons, for they convinced me none.

You don't come at my beliefs because they are much more open to viewpoint than yours. People seem to confuse getting a thought process rammed down your throat as narrow-minded. Religion-based thinking is as narrow-minded as thinking can get. Every now and then you run across people like Led By Fire who have some other type of thinking; but that is rare. He does not defend the Bible with more Bible, because he realizes that's fruitless. He has a lot of what some people lack, a basis of fundamentals. I'm open, but not to narrowmindedness. Present me with some substance, and we can have a discussion. Else, prepare to be torn down. For example: From the King James version of the New Testament Matthew 2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and we are come to worship him. If the star was in the East, then why did the so-called “wise” men travel to the West? Did they simply lose their way, accidentally going in exactly the opposite direction and somehow managing to find baby Jesus? Did they suppose that a star in the East meant that a savior was born in the West? Were they so unintelligent that they couldn’t follow a single star, instead going in the diametrically opposite direction? It seems to me that the three Wise Men were actually quite dull. More like the three Wise Guys, I say. Lost in translation my **** either, I can translate the Greek transcript also. Not to mention most Christians (educated) conclude that this was a forgery by the Italian monk Josephus, and that most of his testimony may have lost it's credibility. My board purpose is to get people to realize that there are always going to be someone better and smarter than you on a subject. Simply because one reads necessary material on the subject.

:x :x :x :x

I am serious when I say if I post 1/4th of the knowledge that I post on other boards, I will single handedly chase everyone away. For the most part, I take it easy on Bible matters by just stating my opinion of what I've learned and not evidencing it. But if you want me to evidence stuff now, I suppose I shall. 1) It is true that we choose what to fill the gaps with -- god or natural factors, supernaturalism or naturalism. However, historically, naturalism has time and time again filled such previously recognized gaps, while supernaturalism has no comparable track record. Therefore, it's only reasonable to assume that naturalism will similarly continue to fill the gaps in out understanding, pushing supernatiuralistic claptrap farther and farther to the fringes of knowledge. 2) Methodologically, supernaturalism is in fact a superfluous solution. In order to claim supernaturalism as a causal factor, you must still add in all the naturalistic factors first, and then tack on the supernatural on top of it; in effect, your choice is then between two systems of equivalent predictive power, one more complex (naturalism + supernaturalism) and one less complex (naturalism alone). Correctly employing Ockham's Razor as a methodological tool, we then must favor the purely naturalistic explanation. 3) The supernaturalist hypothesis is ill-formed, because it utterly lacks any and all predictive power, thus being unfalsifiable. In it not a well-formed hypothesis, and thus is fundamentally, irrepairably unscientific. 4) On a related note, supernaturalism is meaningless because it is by definition above and beyond the natural world, yet all of our modes of knowledge are fundamentally sensory, and deeply grounded in the natural and the physical; which is to say, if the supernatural cause existed, we could in no way, shape, or form actually know anything about it. We couldn't possibly tell a difference between a supernatural god having created the Universe, a supernatural cosmic tree frog pissing it out, and a supernatural highschool science club creatng it as a lark. In epistemic jargon, supernaturalist hypotheses are radically underdetermined. 5) Funally, the supernaturalist ID hypotheses are deeply broken because, fundamentally, supernaturalist ID is based on invalid transposition of context. It takes concepts we know from our daily physical existence -- intelligence, design, plannining, purpose, etc. -- and tries to instantiate them in a context which lacks any and all environmental features upon which our conceptualization of these things depends. For example, we see intelligence in terms of ability to manage and process information -- but what information is there outside Universe? or how about time? Intent implies time, but time is a feature of the Universe, meaningless outside it; etc. In effect, such hypotheses are guilty of anthropomorphizing Universe, in ways only marginally less naive than the prehistoric people assuming that thunder must be angry at them.

This whole thread has gone to shyt...

So if supernaturalism is meaningless, why do you believe that there actually is a higher being?