Science or something more?

[Nadinus]

A lot of our opinions and views on the world, morals, ethics, are very much determined by our basic outlook - that of whether we believe science is everything, or whether there is something more.
This affects arguments relating to medical issues, moral dilemmas, all sorts of things. One person who believes that science is enough to explain everything will argue on a completely different line to someone who thinks there is something more which it can't.
Personally I am of the latter opinion.
So anyway, discuss whether or not science is everything.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, since science is the study of how the world and it's forces work and function with each other around us, then yes.

[Amit]

science will be able to explain everything eventually

it's the choice of the individual to believe in that though

it does a hell of a lot better explaining many pertinent things in the world and universe around us than any religion out there though :-]

[spitfirejunky]

I don't even think science will explain everything, but there wasn't a choice that didn't assume I must rely on religion to explain things if science can't.

Humans will probably be extinct before science can explain a number of phenomena.

[_Sock]

But if there are other intelligent races in this universe there will still be science.

[spitfirejunky]

If we're gonna start assuming that other races exist, we might as well assume God exists.

[_Sock]

Well if there was a really bad point to make, good job.

[Amit]

If we're gonna start assuming that other races exist, we might as well assume God exists.

???????

well that was an interesting jump in conclusions

[Petros]

There can never be a formal unified theory of knowledge that can explain everything. There are fundamental theorems of logic that prove this.

[Nadinus]

My opinion is that I think there are forces in nature, which we can neither see nor detect, but that they exist, something along the lines of a god (but not actually) and that science doesn't extend to explain them.

[_Sock]

Yeah like the wind I can't see that.

[Nadinus]

:///

[_Sock]

:\\\

You can see the wind?

[Nadinus]

No, but you can feel it, and scientifically explain it.

And I have a feeling I know you....

[_Sock]

Can you scientifically explain this feeling.

[Nadinus]

Hi Chad.

[_Sock]

Let's not jump to conclusions this is pnwi you need empirical evidence.

[Nadinus]

lol k

I think the evidence points towards me being correct though.

[RockAndRoll]

My opinion is that I think there are forces in nature, which we can neither see nor detect, but that they exist, something along the lines of a god (but not actually) and that science doesn't extend to explain them.
If we can't detect it in any way what's its relevance to us?

[BassRevelation]

My answer: Obviously not

Thats why we have philosophy.

Besides, i'd throw religion in the philosophy category.
My opinion is that I think there are forces in nature, which we can neither see nor detect, but that they exist, something along the lines of a god (but not actually) and that science doesn't extend to explain them.
Science is the study of nature. Things that science cannot explain are dubbed 'supernatural,' so there's no way science can even have a hand in proving/disproving such things.

[Amit]

funny how no one gets raped or killed in the name of socrates :-X

[lunchforthesky]

My answer: Obviously not

Thats why we have philosophy.

Besides, i'd throw religion in the philosophy category.

Why am i not surprised.

[Amit]

kind of funny how so many people voted yes

they probably misread the question :-(

[CrossTheBreeze]

kind of funny how so many people voted yes

they probably misread the question :-(
how so?

... I voted no anyways

[_Sock]

Science can't currently explain many things. o.0

[Amit]

how so?

... I voted no anyways

Does science explain everything?

Yes, it does 9 64.29%

lawlz

[sweboy]

Science can explain everything that goes on in the universe, but it can't explain what the hell the universe is. It can perhaps explain how the universe was created, but it can't explain "why" it was created. But that doesn't imply that there is magic fingers or flying spagetthi mosters involved.

Science is the study of nature. Things that science cannot explain are dubbed 'supernatural,' so there's no way science can even have a hand in proving/disproving such things.

The reason science can't explain supernatural things is that they don't exist.

[Mr. Ron]

funny how no one gets raped or killed in the name of socrates :-X

Philosophy killed my parents. :(






EDIT: Question to those who voted NO. What is the "something more" in your opinion? Just curious.

[Amit]

read the god damn question

does science explain everything

who the hell actually believes this to be true at this current moment

[lunchforthesky]

i know i know,

but its obvious how he intended it.

its basically a choice, science, religion or a mix

[AlienEater]

damn I voted yes

[Mr. Ron]

read the god damn question

does science explain everything

who the hell actually believes this to be true at this current moment

It doesn't explain everything right now.


But I voted yes because it mostly likely will in time.

[Amit]

but then you aren't answering the question being asked >:[

[Mr. Ron]

but then you aren't answering the question being asked >:[

I realized that after I voted, unfortunately. I admit my mistake.

[Amit]

ok cool :-]

[rancid22]

EDIT: Question to those who voted NO. What is the "something more" in your opinion? Just curious.

i voted no because at the current moment science does not explain everything. i can only wait it out.

[lunchforthesky]

This poll is worded **** and doesnt have an answer for science doesnt yet know everyhting but the answer will never be and God did it.

[spitfirejunky]

???????

well that was an interesting jump in conclusions

What makes it more a jump to conclusions than assuming that something you haven't yet observed (other life forms that practice science) exists?

Well if there was a really bad point to make, good job.

Don't dance around the point.


EDIT: Grammar

[Amit]

there is plenty of evidence out there which suggests a high probability of intelligent life being out there

the evidence for god...not so much :-\

[Electronic Wolf]

My god is an awesome god, he reigns from Heaven above with wisdom, power, and love. My god is an awesome god.

[Mr. Ron]

there is plenty of evidence out there which suggests a high probability of intelligent life being out there

the evidence for god...not so much :-\

What about Tacitus mang!11>?

[spitfirejunky]

there is plenty of evidence out there which suggests a high probability of intelligent life being out there

the evidence for god...not so much :-\

Link me to something that provides evidence for species that practice science on par with humans.

I'll concede that the God example was a bit farfetched, but my point is that we can't answer that question with such assumptions. We'd be jumping to conclusions by assuming that there is a race out there that not only practices science, but is more advanced in it than humans.

[Mr. Ron]

My god is an awesome god, he reigns from Heaven above with wisdom, power, and love. My god is an awesome god.

omg we had to sing that at every "mass" at my school. Such an annoying song. The only thing more annoying than the song are the stupid hand motions that go along with it.

[Electronic Wolf]

I remember some people doing hand motions and never being able to figure out what the hell was going on. So usually I just asked if I could use the restroom and hung out there until mass was almost over.

LORD I LIFT YOUR NAME ON HIGH
LORD I LOVE TO SING YOUR PRAISES
I'M SO GLAD YOU'RE IN MY LIFE
I'M SO GLAD YOU CAME TO SAVE US

YOU CAME FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH TO SHOW THE WAY
FROM THE EARTH TO THE CROSS, MY DEBT TO PAY
FROM THE CROSS TO THE GRAVE, FROM THE GRAVE TO THE SKY
LORD I LIFT YOUR NAME ON HIGH

[Petros]

What about Tacitus mang!11>?

Hey, he was right about some road in Rome now... :p

[Mr. Ron]

I remember some people doing hand motions and never being able to figure out what the hell was going on. So usually I just asked if I could use the restroom and hung out there until mass was almost over.

LORD I LIFT YOUR NAME ON HIGH
LORD I LOVE TO SING YOUR PRAISES
I'M SO GLAD YOU'RE IN MY LIFE
I'M SO GLAD YOU CAME TO SAVE US

YOU CAME FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH TO SHOW THE WAY
FROM THE EARTH TO THE CROSS, MY DEBT TO PAY
FROM THE CROSS TO THE GRAVE, FROM THE GRAVE TO THE SKY
LORD I LIFT YOUR NAME ON HIGH

Hahaha. Oh man that brings back memories I wish to forget.


http://i10.tinypic.com/4gf27va.jpg

[Amit]

Link me to something that provides evidence for species that practice science on par with humans.

I'll concede that the God example was a bit farfetched, but my point is that we can't answer that question with such assumptions. We'd be jumping to conclusions by assuming that there is a race out there that not only practices science, but is more advanced in it than humans.

i'm just saying the probabilities are inherently much higher for advanced alien life forms existing than for god existing

[Lupus]

Whether science can explain everything, I don't know. But so far it has failed to.

[Amit]

it's explained hella lot more than any religion out there ever has

[badtaste]

Yes, science explains everything. Unfortunately, we have yet to understand the science behind some things, or we yet have to discover the explanations of events.

[StrawberryFieldsForever]

My personal opinion is there is some sort of higher force of nature, but it is absolutely nothing like "God" in the current sense of the word.

[Mr. Ron]

My personal opinion is there is some sort of higher force of nature, but it is absolutely nothing like "God" in the current sense of the word.

Do you mean that nature should be revered, since we sprang from it?

[rancid22]

i think religion will continue to stand strong until science has answered every question religion tries to answer.

man created religion to answer these questions and many have been answered. hence why the roman and greek religions are no longer around. there gods attempted to explain forces of nature to which we now have answers. the big question that science has yet to answer, which IMO is the main reason religion still exists, is the creation of earth and life and whatnot.

[Smokey D]

Roman and Greek religion disappeared long before science good accurately explain the natural phenomena those gods related to. Conversely, Hinduism continues to thrive despite its pagan origins.

[BassRevelation]

it's explained hella lot more than any religion out there ever has

in terms of nature, yes.

As far as philosophical issues, no. Science cannot answer such things as the meaning of life, or one's purpose. Philosophy did however come before natural science.

[Smokey D]

To be fair, philosophy cannot categorically solve any of those problems either. What it can do, however, is offer an internally consistent system based on metaphysical assumptions in which we have faith. In many ways, science is merely an extension of this but differs in that it has empirical not merely logical support.

[badtaste]

Do you mean that nature should be revered, since we sprang from it?


Hey, Mr. Ron, is Richard Dawkins the guy who bashed religion?

[Mr. Ron]

Hey, Mr. Ron, is Richard Dawkins the guy who bashed religion?

I would say he uses stiff criticism when dealing with religion.


He has many books about it. His latest being The God Delusion.


Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

[Amit]

i think all of his mindless and idiotic critics have sadly turned him into what he hates the most :-X

[Mr. Ron]

I agree.

[badtaste]

I would say he uses stiff criticism when dealing with religion.


He has many books about it. His latest being The God Delusion.


Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Thanks, I'll look into it.

[spitfirejunky]

i'm just saying the probabilities are inherently much higher for advanced alien life forms existing than for god existing

Point taken. But the point of that post was to keep things in perspective. If we're going to answer the threadstarter's question, it's best to keep the answer in the framework of what we actually know.

And is Chad really _Sock?

[Lupus]

it's explained hella lot more than any religion out there ever has

Couldn't agree more.

[Thasis]

Sciene explains everything. We just havn't discovered all of science.

[jaredong]

i always thought that if there were alien cities and whatnot in other planets, it would more so shake the ideas of God more so than anything, considering how religion is like "God made *us*".

what i find that religion fails at is how when they're original theory fails they dont say "we're wrong" so much as "naw, there is this *other* theory that we did not include. Its like "We believe that dinosaurs were in the ark". But when its shown that dinosaurs cannot be in the same time in history they're like "God purposely aged the bones to test out faith". And when thats shown false they add another theory to fit they're previous ones. Science on the other hand has shown to accept they're faults and propose another hypothesis. Its the scientific method.

Course there is more to our lives than just science. Until you can quantify things such as "thought" or "love", you wouldnt be able to use science in it. You could study it... but it will always remain intangible.

Maybe you had a supercomputer with the uberest technology. You map out every single cell in the brain and for the emotion "fear" all these cells react. For "love" all those cells react. You can actually make someone feel "love" by stimulating all of the correct cells. However, you would never be able to *experience* what kind of fear they are experiencing. The mind is one of the things that science can never fully explain.

----
heres a time article of God Vs Science for your reading pleasure

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

[lunchforthesky]

in terms of nature, yes.

As far as philosophical issues, no. Science cannot answer such things as the meaning of life, or one's purpose. Philosophy did however come before natural science.

There is no higher meaning of life, thats why it cant be explained


other than to procreate of course.

[The Digital Pimp]

Science, logic, and reason are not the only ways to access truth.

[Smokey D]

If something is illogical, it probably isn't true.

[PerpetualBurn]

If something is illogical, it definitely isn't true.

[ringworm]

And is Chad really _Sock?

i'd bet on it:)

(if Chad is also LightFantastic)

[RockAndRoll]

There is no higher meaning of life, thats why it cant be explained


other than to procreate of course.

That's not a higher meaning.

[Smokey D]

If something is illogical, it definitely isn't true.

That's wrong. You can have a true conclusion from an invalid argument.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah...that's a stupid thing to say.

[Nadinus]

Philosophy killed my parents. :(






EDIT: Question to those who voted NO. What is the "something more" in your opinion? Just curious.

My personal opinion is there is some sort of higher force of nature, but it is absolutely nothing like "God" in the current sense of the word.

This.
I think however hard scientists try, they can't explain our consciousness or awareness. I also believe that there is a force which keeps things in balance, which defines right from wrong. I guess you could call what I believe in is spirit.

[Mr. Ron]

This.
I think however hard scientists try, they can't explain our consciousness or awareness. I also believe that there is a force which keeps things in balance, which defines right from wrong. I guess you could call what I believe in is spirit.

So you're a diest/pantheist then?

[lunchforthesky]

I dont mind deist. I disagree with them but at least there's no dogma and no agenda. If deism caught on id be satisfied.

[Smokey D]

Yeah...that's a stupid thing to say.

No. It's true. It's raining. When it's raining, I use my umbrella. Therefore I am inside. At the moment of me writing this, it is both raining and I am inside, but I'm not using my umbrella. Hence, a true conclusion from an invalid argument.

[PERFECTXDARK]

My opinion is that I think there are forces in nature, which we can neither see nor detect, but that they exist, something along the lines of a god (but not actually) and that science doesn't extend to explain them.
123

[Amit]

My opinion is that I think there are forces in nature, which we can neither see nor detect, but that they exist, something along the lines of a god (but not actually) and that science doesn't extend to explain them.

this still makes me LoL

[PerpetualBurn]

No. It's true. It's raining. When it's raining, I use my umbrella. Therefore I am inside. At the moment of me writing this, it is both raining and I am inside, but I'm not using my umbrella. Hence, a true conclusion from an invalid argument.

I retract in so far as to say that I believed the original reference to logic was making the point as to whether the conclusion is logically possible, not whether the argument can take a valid form.

[Jon]

Science + Karma.

[PerpetualBurn]

Where do you get this mystical idea of karma from?

[Jon]

just in my experience that if you try and be a good person (not helping starving children in africa or working for oxfam; just generally trying to be nice to people you're with day to day, and such) then things work out well for you.

when you start picking on people unnecessarily or generally being a cunt, your life falls apart.

If that's karma, great; if not, then it still works for me.

[PerpetualBurn]

A lot of nice people have a crap life.

[Jon]

well they're not me, and everytime something goes wrong in my life I can generally trace it back to some great act of dickheadedness I've commited in the past weeks or months.

[Light Fantastic]

A then B

so A must cause B

no

[PerpetualBurn]

I like the way you accuse people that are the victims of tragedy of bringing it on themselves.

It makes me think that you're a good person. Or that you compartmentalise your beliefs rather than actually extend them in to reality.

[Jon]

no no, I'm not saying that it applies for everyone, I'm just saying that thats how I live my life and it seems to work out for me.

I read the Tao Te Cheng a while ago and it just sort of made sense to me. I don't know how much of it I remember, and how much of it I'm even paraphrashing, but things that clicked in my mind when I read it have stuck.

[PerpetualBurn]

Oh. I forgot you were special.

[Jon]

Who are you to say that one person's beliefs are more valid than anyone elses?

Surely the concept of being nice to people and having a good life in return is more plausible than some 7-headed donkey flying through the sky on a magic carpet 9000 years ago telling everyone to kill everyone else, or whatever the masses believe these days?

[PerpetualBurn]

Who are you to say that one person's beliefs are more valid than anyone elses?

Well, if it qualifies me, I think I'm a fair bit smarter than you.

Surely the concept of being nice to people and having a good life in return is more plausible than some 7-headed donkey flying through the sky on a magic carpet 9000 years ago telling everyone to kill everyone else, or whatever the masses believe these days?

Plausible, yes, but to imply that some mystic force is in the universe protecting you so long as you're happy and smiley is pretty stupid.

[Jon]

Well, if it qualifies me, I think I'm a fair bit smarter than you.
I seriously doubt that.

I just put very very little effort into the internet.
Plausible, yes, but to imply that some mystic force is in the universe protecting you so long as you're happy and smiley is pretty stupid.
How about you go to Finsbury Park with a megaphone and say that Islam is stupid?

[Electronic Wolf]

What's that got to do with anything?

[Jon]

He's saying someone's beliefs are stupid because they don't make sense to him.

I respect everyone's beliefs, even scientologists. Right to beliefs, I should say.

If someone wants to believe in something, especially something that doesn't harm them, then there is not a problem as far as I am concerned.

If someone bases their life on Xenu then good luck to them :)

But surely what PerpetualBurn has just said is basically racism? (or religionism, I guess).

[Electronic Wolf]

But what good will shouting "Islam sucks!" do?

[Light Fantastic]

You can believe what you want, it doesn't mean you aren't stupid when you chose to believe illogical stuff.

[Jon]

About as much good as shouting 'Jon's beliefs suck!' does -- i.e. no good except to the bigot who has a minor mental advantage.

or something.

I just don't see where he gets off telling me that what I think is invalid, where he wouldn't dare go into a room full of Jews, Muslims or Christians and say the same thing.

Belief is belief, no matter how widespread it is.

[Light Fantastic]

Well, just because nobody is stupid enough to go and start conflict like that where they would be at a huge disadvantage against an angry mob, or whatever you think would happen, doesn't mean you can't logically dissect what you or anyone else believes.

You better think it's ok to believe what I believe or I'm going to hit you upside the head. What?

[Amit]

He's saying someone's beliefs are stupid because they don't make sense to him.

I respect everyone's beliefs, even scientologists. Right to beliefs, I should say.

If someone wants to believe in something, especially something that doesn't harm them, then there is not a problem as far as I am concerned.

If someone bases their life on Xenu then good luck to them :)

But surely what PerpetualBurn has just said is basically racism? (or religionism, I guess).

there's a difference between respecting everyone's beliefs and respecting their right to have beliefs

:-\

[Jon]

I respect everyone's right to have beliefs, fullstop.

I respect everyone's beliefs, as long as they do not harm anyone else.

I can't believe we're having an arguement about how legit 'do unto other as you would have done to you' is, essentially.

[Light Fantastic]

You respect the belief that the West needs to be totally and completely destroyed to save humanity from it's evils?

You respect white nationalist beliefs?

etc


So you respect complete stupidity. Ok then, says a lot.

[Amit]

i don't respect the beliefs of fundamentalists tbh

[Jon]

i don't respect the beliefs of fundamentalists tbh
basically, yeah.

because those beliefs harm others.

on the other hand obviously I have no problem with moderate Islam, because it has no intent of harm to the West.

With White Fundementalism -- no, I don't support White Power, because its inherently evil. I support being proud to be white, I guess, because non-whites are encourage to be proud of their ethnicity, so it just makes sense to be proud to be White, although its not something I really dwell on.

The only other thing I can think of that I really passionately support is the right to equality between religions - if you are allowed to wear a turban to work then you should be allowed to wear a cross, etc. If there is a legitimate reason for it to not be allowed (such as in the veil debate) then again I support the right for it not to be allowed.

[Light Fantastic]

I'm pretty sure just thinking these things hurts nobody. I still don't respect stupidity in beliefs.

[badtaste]

I'm pretty sure just thinking these things hurts nobody. I still don't respect stupidity in beliefs.

I sorta think the same way as you do, but perhaps weaker minded people (non Jedis) need such beliefs to live their lives?

[PerpetualBurn]

He's saying someone's beliefs are stupid because they don't make sense to him.

I'm saying they're stupid because they don't make sense at all. Not just not to me.

I respect everyone's beliefs, even scientologists. Right to beliefs, I should say.

You respect paedophiles that think touching children is beautiful.

Wow.

If someone wants to believe in something, especially something that doesn't harm them, then there is not a problem as far as I am concerned.

There's that compartmentalisation again. Not all beliefs in action are harmless. Hence society not liking paedophiles. But then maybe you respect the beliefs of kiddy fiddlers. I don't.

If someone bases their life on Xenu then good luck to them :)

They're still idiots.

But surely what PerpetualBurn has just said is basically racism? (or religionism, I guess).

"You think stupid beliefs are stupid therefore you are racist."

Best
Strawman
Ever

I especially admire the way you turned me attacking YOUR beliefs into me attacking ISLAM.

That took talent.

[Jon]

1) Typo I think
"If someone wants to believe in something, especially something that doesn't harm others, then there is not a problem as far as I am concerned."

Hence fundementalists, murderers, rapists, paedos and Coldplay are still bad.

2) I'm still wondering how you can say that trying to be a good person is stupid :confused:

*goes and stabs someone*

[PerpetualBurn]

Because a) sometimes good beliefs harm others
b) beliefs that don't harm others can still be stupid

You claim to respect all beliefs until you come across ones that you arbitrarily dislike, and then this notion of respect gets ignored. That's hypocrisy and inconsistency.

It's not bad to do good things. It's stupid to suggest that you have an alright life therefore karma protects you and you only. Which is what you said.

[-1up!-]

I'm saying they're stupid because they don't make sense at all. Not just not to me.

You respect paedophiles that think touching children is beautiful.

Wow.

There's that compartmentalisation again. Not all beliefs in action are harmless. Hence society not liking paedophiles. But then maybe you respect the beliefs of kiddy fiddlers. I don't.


That's stupid. Wanting to touch kids has nothing to do with belief, it's just a sexual deviancy. It's physical attraction. You're equating that with a spiritual belief. lol if something makes no sense right now, it's you.

[Light Fantastic]

How is believing all non-whites are inferior deserve respect, for example? It doesn't harm anyone if you don't act on it so you will still respect this belief?

[Electronic Wolf]

White nationalism does lead to a lot of violence, so how you can respect that and then constantly jump on someone just because they're Muslim is absurd and a bit retarded.

[Jon]

That's a completely different arguement.

Basically what I believe works for me, and if other people want to believe that then they are free to, and if not then idc.

Anything other than that is forcing your beliefs on someone else, which is wrong.

You wouldn't walk past a synagogue, say 'omfg the red sea never parted duhhh' and expect a rabbi to come out and try and convert you, because at least for Judaism (which is the only religion I have proper knowledge of), everyone is free to believe what they want.

I believe that being cool = good life, being a twat = bad life, but that's just my opinion.

[Electronic Wolf]

Aren't you a drop out and a drug addict? This system is working against you, bro.

[spitfirejunky]

there's a difference between respecting everyone's beliefs and respecting their right to have beliefs

:-\

This.

[sweboy]

You respect paedophiles that think touching children is beautiful.

Wow.


what

And you don't respect paedophiles?

[Mr. Ron]

Wait, who's respecting pedos?

[sweboy]

Someone's not respecting pedophiles (an adult who is sexually attracted to young children - dictionary.com)?

[Mr. Ron]

Why should I respect a pedo?

[lunchforthesky]

If he doesnt act upon his desires then i dont see why not.

[Mr. Ron]

See, personally, I don't think people I disagree with deserve respect if they don't earn it from me. Respect must be earned. If I think pedos are wrong, I'm not going to think their beliefs are ok as well. Thats just me.

[lunchforthesky]

Well if they accept that it would be wrong of them to molest children but because they are born that way they cant help be sexually attracted to minors then i actually respect them for managing to resist their urges.

But broadly respect is a very ambigious term and we dont owe respect to anyone.

[Mr. Ron]

Well if they accept that it would be wrong of them to molest children but because they are born that way they cant help be sexually attracted to minors then i actually respect them for managing to resist their urges.

But broadly respect is a very ambigious term and we dont owe respect to anyone.

I understand they cannot be cured, but I just can't find it in my heart to feel sorry/respect them for wanting to rape children. I don't think I'm in the wrong for that, either.

[PerpetualBurn]

Basically, stupid beliefs don't get respect.

[Mr. Ron]

mmmhmm.

[lunchforthesky]

I understand they cannot be cured, but I just can't find it in my heart to feel sorry/respect them for wanting to rape children. I don't think I'm in the wrong for that, either.

Not all Paedophiles wish to rape children, it just beocmes their only choice, not that it should be legalised but a lot fewer paedophiles would rape children if they were allowed consenting sex with them.

Although there are two types of paedophiles really. The one's who like 2-10 year olds and the ones who like 11-16 year olds. The latter being far far more forgivable.

[Mr. Ron]

Not all Paedophiles wish to rape children, it just beocmes their only choice, not that it should be legalised but a lot fewer paedophiles would rape children if they were allowed consenting sex with them.

Although there are two types of paedophiles really. The one's who like 2-10 year olds and the ones who like 11-16 year olds. The latter being far far more forgivable.

That doesn't change the fact that a 30-40 something year old is having sex with a minor....Do kids that young even fully grasp what consent is? Plus, NO KID will ever walk away from that experience unscarred for life.


You can't just let a dangerous mental disorder run amok.

[sweboy]

No one chooses what they are attracted to. So disrespecting pedophiles is not in any way different from disrespecting homosexuals, black people, women or whatever. I don't see how you can disrespect someone for being born the way they are.

[Mr. Ron]

No one chooses what they are attracted to. So disrespecting pedophiles is not in any way different from disrespecting homosexuals, black people, women or whatever. I don't see how you can disrespect someone for being born the way they are.

There's a difference between dangerous things people are born with, and harmless things people are born with. Pedophilia has more potential to be harmful.


Would you say it would be ok if a 40 year old man had sex with a 14 year old?

[Africa]

When I was watching that show where they set up people in chat rooms and have them meet at houses and scold them and then arrest them, I forget the name of that show, I was getting kind of annoyed. It doesn't justify those people's pedophilic actions but really what kind of little girl talks dirty like that in a chat room? What kind of little girl tells the guy to bring condoms and lube over to her house? Something tells me these news people are acting way too willing and I think people who actually do this pedo stuff to little kids must be much more demanding and manipulative.

[Mr. Ron]

When I was watching that show where they set up people in chat rooms and have them meet at houses and scold them and then arrest them, I forget the name of that show, I was getting kind of annoyed. It doesn't justify those people's pedophilic actions but really what kind of little girl talks dirty like that in a chat room? What kind of little girl tells the guy to bring condoms and lube over to her house? Something tells me these news people are acting way too willing and I think people who actually do this pedo stuff to little kids must be much more demanding and manipulative.

You'd be surprised what young kids will say. When I was still in high school I heard some really gross things come from the mouths of 14 year olds.

[Africa]

You'd be surprised what young kids will say. When I was still in high school I heard some really gross things come from the mouths of 14 year olds.

Common they would actually invite an old guy with saggy balls to their house and have sex with him? Kids talk dirty because they know they're not supposed to, or they're lying about it to be cool in front of their friends.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, you might go back and notice how I phrased the subject of paedophilia to make all these subsidiary arguments irrelevant.

I said people that believe touching children is a beautiful thing. That's a belief. Not just a sexual deviance.

But unlucky people.

Anyway, the entire notion of respect is that certain things should be held in higher esteem than others. So to say that you respect all beliefs equally negates the entire idea of respect.

[lunchforthesky]

There's a difference between dangerous things people are born with, and harmless things people are born with. Pedophilia has more potential to be harmful.


Would you say it would be ok if a 40 year old man had sex with a 14 year old?

Probably not although there is a huge difference between that and say a 10 year old girl. It would of been perfectly acceptable for Romans. At 14 they vhave gone through puberty usually, so are only a minor in terms of the alw not in terms of nature.

[sweboy]

There's a difference between dangerous things people are born with, and harmless things people are born with. Pedophilia has more potential to be harmful.

I really don't think prejudice is the way to go when judging people. If black people statistically commit more crimes than white people, do black people deserve less respect since they have "more potential to be harmful"?

Imagine two infants lying next to each other (not in a naughty way though). How can you respect them differently based on how their brains look? That's the same thing as respecting them differently based on how their skin looks. And how can you disrespect a man who lives all his life without ever doing anything wrong, just because he's attracted to children (and probably feels like **** and has a ****ed up emotional life because of it too)?


Would you say it would be ok if a 40 year old man had sex with a 14 year old?

Totally irrelevant, and no.

EDIT:

Yeah, you might go back and notice how I phrased the subject of paedophilia to make all these subsidiary arguments irrelevant.

I said people that believe touching children is a beautiful thing. That's a belief. Not just a sexual deviance.


You respect paedophiles that think touching children is beautiful.

Wow.


what

[PerpetualBurn]

I think it's fairly obvious.

Ask something more specific if you're too dumb.

[sweboy]

The "what" was not actually a question (notice the lack of a question mark), it was an expression of confusion (one commonly used on the Internet) over the fact that you said that you that used the word "believe" when you actually used the word "think". Yes, "think" can be used as a synonym to "believe", but read on.

If you need something more specific to be able to answer: If you meant "people that believe touching children is a beautiful thing" (as in "belief" and not sexual desire), why did you use the word "pedophiles", which refers not to people that have a belief, but to people who have a biological sexual desire?

[PerpetualBurn]

If I thought people on an internet forum posted with consistently accurate punctuation, you may have a point. But really, it still should've had a question mark anyway, pillock.

The context made "think" and "believe" pretty much synonymous.

Same for the latter part with respect to inane semantics.

In conclusion, you fail at pedantry.

[sweboy]

So by: "Pedophiles that think touching children is beautiful."

You actually meant: "Pedophiles that for non-sexual reasons believe that touching children is beautiful."

Since sexual desire was irrelevant, you might as well have said "gardener" or "communist" - but since you used the word "pedophile" it for some unexplainable reason seemed like sexual desire was relevant. I can't put my finger on what though, but I apologize for my stupidity.

In conclusion, you fail at using the word "pedophile".

[PerpetualBurn]

I said

You respect paedophiles that think touching children is beautiful.

I meant

You respect paedophiles that think touching children is beautiful.

[Mr. Ron]

Probably not although there is a huge difference between that and say a 10 year old girl. It would of been perfectly acceptable for Romans. At 14 they vhave gone through puberty usually, so are only a minor in terms of the alw not in terms of nature.

Times change, society changes. Everything that was "right" back then isn't right now for good reasons.


I just can't accept an old man having sex with a young person. It's going to be very damaging for the kid.

[Mr. Ron]

I really don't think prejudice is the way to go when judging people. If black people statistically commit more crimes than white people, do black people deserve less respect since they have "more potential to be harmful"?

Imagine two infants lying next to each other (not in a naughty way though). How can you respect them differently based on how their brains look? That's the same thing as respecting them differently based on how their skin looks. And how can you disrespect a man who lives all his life without ever doing anything wrong, just because he's attracted to children (and probably feels like **** and has a ****ed up emotional life because of it too)?



Totally irrelevant, and no.

EDIT:




what
I don't care if he has those urges, as long as he stays away from kids, everything is cool.

[Volumnius Flush]

I believe in an Almighty God, the Creator of the galaxies and foresky, who gave His only begotten Son that whosoever beklieveth in Him should have everlasting life. Amen.

[Apollyon]

I believe in an Almighty God, the Creator of the galaxies and foresky, who gave His only begotten Son that whosoever beklieveth in Him should have everlasting life. Amen.

I believe in spell check and a dictionary. Have you ever heard of them?

[lunchforthesky]

I believe in an Almighty God, the Creator of the galaxies and foresky, who gave His only begotten Son that whosoever beklieveth in Him should have everlasting life. Amen.

I believe in things that have evidence supporting them, sadly you dont.

[Volumnius Flush]

I believe in things that have evidence supporting them, sadly you dont.

Who's the troll now? This is the fourth topic you've sought out my posts to demean and attack me. This has gone too far and will stop immediately.

[lunchforthesky]

haha or what, youll get God to Smote me. Its an argumentative forum, we discuss politics thats kind of the point.

[rancid22]

I believe in spell check and a dictionary. Have you ever heard of them?

his only misspelling was "believeth" and "foresky". i have no idea where he pulled out the word foresky but believeth was just an obvious typo seeing as the "k" is next to the letter "l" on the keyboard.

[The Digital Pimp]

haha or what, youll get God to Smote me. Its an argumentative forum, we discuss politics thats kind of the point.

It's "smite".

[lunchforthesky]

It's "smite".

Its both actually.

[Smokey D]

Smote is the past participle of the verb 'to smite'.

[Petros]

Smote is the past participle of the verb 'to smite'.

he's not going to be smitten in the past right?:p

[Chrysostom]

I believe there is something more, but it is not accurately described by any of the major religions.

[Smokey D]

he's not going to be smitten in the past right?:p

Smitten is the passive form of the past tense for smite.

[lunchforthesky]

Fine :p