🧠｜serious-chat

[jolly agate]

but ok

[thorny steeple]

It is a movie

[late storm]

What's Ghajini

[unreal sorrel]

its indian movie

[thorny steeple]

A bollywood version of chris nolan's memento

[jolly agate]

now whos that

[late storm]

good explanation

[thorny steeple]

the guy who made interstellar and the dark knight

[jolly agate]

i know hom

[thorny steeple]

https://tenor.com/view/congrats-the-office-happy-yay-celebration-gif-4115606

[jolly agate]

i shall take my leave

[late storm]

i don't read fiction, even i like Sci-Fi

[jolly agate]

my your next 24 hours be good

[thorny steeple]

ask him about Israel

[thorny steeple]

Read Hawking's Brief History of Time.

you will like it if you like space and time.

[late storm]

already read years before

[thorny steeple]

may your whole life be whole.

[late storm]

now i am reading the origins of political order

[mortal spruce]

i'm more of a fiction reader

non-fiction dosen't compute in my system like fiction does

[thorny steeple]

unexpected, hence interesting,

[thorny steeple]

one of my friends is reading it too.

[thorny steeple]

are you an idealist?

maybe it is your door to reality.

[mortal spruce]

kind of

[mortal spruce]

it helps me calm down

[thorny steeple]

make sure you do not get lost in it (please do, because it is better to get lost in the passion than to lose the passion.)

[mortal spruce]

lost in what? my imagination?

[thorny steeple]

yeah

but if it is your power, then you will flower.

you will exhale poetry and write novels.

[mortal spruce]

i already do

i fancy myself a story writer

[thorny steeple]

lovely, may you be blissful.

Har Har Mahadev 🕉️ 🙏

[thorny steeple]

lol, we have a Scott Fitzgerald here.

[mortal spruce]

[late storm]

in The Discoverers A History of Men's Search to know His World And Himself, Daniel Boorstin roll out his accounts by presenting the discussion on Time(first book) and Space(second book). very good scientific history book. if there's some relevence with Hawking's book you mentioned

[thorny steeple]

his whole work revolves around space and time.

there might be some relevance.

[thorny steeple]

The things that calm you liberate you. And the ones that excite you bind you.

[late storm]

time and space, embedded in Boorstin' mind, so we can see arrangement of the book

[thorny steeple]

There is an Indian concept that time and space is a mental phenomenon. If you transcend the mind, you are beyond it.

[late storm]

nirvana？

[lavish finch]

maya

[thorny steeple]

Kind of, the whole yogic and tantric system is designed for that.

[lavish finch]

"the world is an illusion"

[thorny steeple]

Yeah

But it is a hard pill to swallow, because it is extreme.

[late storm]

yogic and tantric quantum theory?

[thorny steeple]

Quantum cohesion yeah.

Infinity and Zero are one.

[late storm]

i should admit the religious cohesion among indians

[thorny steeple]

They say the way of Buddha is too unearthly, the way of Lao Tzu is very earthly, and both these have a baby named Zen, which is balanced.

[thorny steeple]

😂 😂 😂

there is none.

[late storm]

but also the damping factor against globalization

[late storm]

heard this meme first time

[late storm]

and in my memory, Zen is an endemic branch of Buddha

[thorny steeple]

It is a mixture of Chinese and Indian philosophy.

Well balanced, and intact.

[late storm]

i see

[late storm]

if being a vegetarian in India, then not sip any alcohol?

[thorny steeple]

what does it have to do with alcohol?

[late storm]

love and peace, ephemeral happiness at least 😆

[thorny steeple]

India has a very diverse culture, and there are temples where you can offer alcohol to a deity.

And then you can drink it as a blessing.

there are esoteric rituals where they purify alcohol through mantras and then consume it.

there are some masters called aghora, they get stoned, eat human flesh, drink alcohol, and chill.

[late storm]

i am very interested in anthropology, including unique/diverse culture(s) of India/Indians, but haven't much time to explore.any book recommendation?

[thorny steeple]

I love anthropology, but I am a misanthrope.

If you really want to learn about Indian culture then tell me what in particular you are looking for.

because India has contributed a lot in philosophy, science, business, economics and arts.

so what are you looking for?

[late storm]

general history, i don't like Cambridge or Oxford series, not scholar after all

[thorny steeple]

I will give you an Indian book.

[late storm]

or you can give me the title or cover of high school history textbook

[thorny steeple]

Who is your favorite person from India?

[thorny steeple]

I will send you a pdf.

[late storm]

every CEOs in America

pirate a book only a minor violation,so i appreciate the pdf

[thorny steeple]

lol

So you like technology?

[late storm]

forget the spelling issue

India history from the use of fire

to the present

[thorny steeple]

There is a book that I have, it has 1673 pages.

It encapsulates it all.

you want it?

[late storm]

that's ok.i read 50 nonfiction every year, at least 20000 pages, just one tenth

just tell me the title

[mortal spruce]

1673!

i need that

whats the name?

[thorny steeple]

I sent it.

[late storm]

Rationality From AI to Zombie, reading now,1813 pages

[thorny steeple]

perhaps they are trying to recoup their lost credibility. xD

[thorny steeple]

I have a compilation of some Indian books, it has 40k pages 😂

[thorny steeple]

The Book Of Secrets.

[late storm]

no way, my parents never expected me to be an expert

[craggy sphinx]

mm

[late storm]

who's the author

[thorny steeple]

The author of this book had read more than 1,00,000 books.

[thorny steeple]

Acharya Rajneesh

[orchid rover]

Hey what's up?

[late storm]

i will do some research

[thorny steeple]

There was a guy named Dr. HS Sinha. He has great knowledge about Indian history, but usually his discourses are not in English.

[late storm]

Guru.that book is more about spiritual, i need history😆

[thorny steeple]

You will find history in it. The whole Indian history is spiritual.

But if you want politics, then read Mahabharata.

[late storm]

no refutation could be organised

[late storm]

serious discussion

during the beer time

[orchid rover]

That is to say?

[thorny steeple]

There is a problem with Indians: they do not translate scripture. Hence, you have to read commentaries. There are scriptures that I cannot even read as an Indian since there are more than 22 languages here. So if you want some real Indian juice, you have to extract it from wherever you get it in English.

[late storm]

through the religious ties?

[thorny steeple]

https://g.co/kgs/je2GcP

try this, you might like it.

[thorny steeple]

You said you wanted to learn about fire.

[late storm]

that is great, i plan to read The Anarchy The East Company next month, interposing reading will be interesting

the timelime,from fire to present

not fire itself

[thorny steeple]

Have you read The History of Mankind by Friedrich Ratzel?

[late storm]

nope, german is my fourth language, and my performance sucks

still quagmired on the stage of ich bin something

[thorny steeple]

Got it.

[thorny steeple]

this one will do then.

[late storm]

yes, highly praised on Goodreads

[late storm]

thanks for talking and the books, i have to enjoy secular stuff , to draw some meanings why we are on this planet.see you later

[thorny steeple]

lol, you are welcome, have fun!

[late storm]

you too

[thorny steeple]

🕊️

[thorny steeple]

İs there anyone who homophobic? I want to hear her/his arguments about this subject

[buoyant oriole]

I have nothing against homosexuals, I'm just not in favor of them.

[narrow brook]

I think there is no arguments to be homofobic

I mean, valid arguments

[twin glacier]

i don’t support homosexuality but i do respect their choices

[thorny steeple]

I disagree. One could argue that being a homosexual goes against their morality, perhaps even including their religion. I might not feel the same, but I could appreciate it's a valid argument. However, if one claims that homosexuality is inherently wrong, I would have plenty to say about that.

So, for example, such a person might argue:

1. I think homosexuality is immoral.
2. Therefore I consider homosexuality wrong.

However, I don't think this is a valid argument:

1. Homosexuality is shunned in religious texts.
2. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Why? Because it's Reification, using religious texts containing abstract ideas as though they were absolute fact.

[narrow brook]

makes sense

but I think morality has a lot to do with the context, culture and time of a ethnic grupo... I don't think a person can consider homosexuality wrong based on morality... some cultures in past used to accept canibalism, sacrifices. I think a person consider homosexuality wrong based the missrespect and lack of right it is to other person.

btw it's just a impression I'm not sure about that

I think a valid argument is: I think homosecuality is unethcial, therefore I consider homosexuality wrong

because ethics is the study of moral

and how moral is valid or not

I mean, ethics study the essence of morality, how it implies in human behavior

[thorny steeple]

People are more moral than they think, and far more immoral than they can imagine.

[narrow brook]

yeah, like morelity is relative

[buoyant juniper]

hello guys, i want to ask you about your opinion on what happening in gaza now

is*

[astral helm]

hello foks

[idle sierra]

Fear of change and the unknown, perhaps?

[thorny steeple]

@narrow brook I find it easier to address specific statements or assertions in a response like this, so I'll do that.

"I don't think a person can consider homosexuality wrong based on morality... some cultures in past used to accept canibalism, sacrifices."

I assume your argument is as follows:

1. Some past cultures accepted cannibalism and sacrifices.
2. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be considered immoral.

I think this is a non sequitur, because it doesn't follow that just because some past cultures accepted acts we would now largely consider reprehensible, homosexuality cannot be considered immoral. These are two unrelated things.

[idle sierra]

I can't really start an argument about it because it should be a basic right to choose your partner in life imo

It all comes down to saying yes or no when someone asks you out.

[thorny steeple]

I think you can have an interesting and insightful discussion about it, without it affecting anybody's right to choose a partner of a given gender.

In order to understand opposing views, sometimes you have to get your hands dirty, figuratively speaking.

[idle sierra]

Well, I did make a statement, so guess I'll wait for someone to refute it...?

Dunno tbh

[thorny steeple]

Oh, this? --> "Fear of change and the unknown, perhaps?"

Sounds plausible. Those are two things many people struggle with, I think it's fair to say. Given some cultures have for a long time shunned homosexuality, I can see why it would be very difficulty to adjust to a new ideology in which it's accepted. It may be a matter of time.

I think open and respectful conversation on the matter is important, too. If we don't openly explore our beliefs, we're less likely to consider others.

[idle sierra]

Accepting changes in society has always been a lengthy process after all.

[thorny steeple]

"I think a person consider homosexuality wrong based the missrespect and lack of right it is to other person."

I assume by 'missrespect' you mean a 'lack of respect'.

When you say 'lack of right it is to other person', do you mean that someone doesn't respect a person and their rights?

[narrow brook]

yes

I'll try to explain myself

so morality changes from one culture to another, therefore assuming "1. I think homosexuality is immoral2. Therefore I consider homosexuality wrong" assumes that homosexuality is wrong for a specific culture. So on a generalist view I think a valid argument would be 1. I think homosexuality is Unethical 2.Therefore is consider homosexuality wrong since ethics is: "part of the philosophy responsible for investigating the principles that motivate, distort, discipline or guide human behavior, reflecting esp. regarding the essence of norms, values, prescriptions and exhortations present in any social reality."

this is understandable?

if it isn't I can re write, Im not good showing my ideias

[thorny steeple]

"so morality changes from one culture to another, therefore assuming "1. I think homosexuality is immoral2. Therefore I consider homosexuality wrong" assumes that homosexuality is wrong for a specific culture."

I don't agree that it assumes that. You're not accounting for other aspects which can affect one's morality, such as peers, family, laws, religion, etc. Because of these other factors, it doesn't follow that it's strictly the culture which affects one's view on homosexuality simply because morality changes from culture to culture.

I couldn't quite follow the rest, unfortunately. It might help if you could spread out your thoughts a little more clearly, as I've done with paragraphs.

[narrow brook]

alrigh

maybe later

[thorny steeple]

I'm understanding most of what you're saying, though. Your English is good, it's just difficult to discern the individual thoughts and points.

[narrow brook]

alrigh thx

[idle sierra]

My best arguments against homosexuality are the fears I mentioned before, reproduction (but we aren't on the edge of extinction, so it doesn't count imo), and the fact that many people find it weird. Despite saying that I don't mind, I'm still not accustomed to seeing homosexual pairs, but I don't think that's enough reason to grab the torches and the pitchforks.

[thorny steeple]

Well said, and I agree.

I hadn't considered reproduction.

[idle sierra]

Well, it's not a problem right now.

[thorny steeple]

I wonder how quickly those of us who aren't against homosexuality would change our tune if that were to be a current issue, if at all.

[idle sierra]

I could see myself switching sides, but as someone who isn't interested in having a family (yet?) I probably wouldn't.

I'd like to avoid being a hypocrite...

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, I think I'd switch, too. I wouldn't suddenly think being a homosexual is wrong because it's inherently immoral, but that it's wrong because it's illogical to let humanity die off. However, that's a whole new issue, and possibly a Red Herring.

[idle sierra]

Let's twist those words a little bit; we have to fight overpopulation with homosexuality!

Seriously though, I can't come up with a decisive argument against it.

[thorny steeple]

That actually is a fun argument for homosexuality:

1. We're dangerously overpopulated.
2. Resources are dangerously low.
3. Homosexuality doesn't biologically lead to children.
4. Therefore, homosexuality is moral.

It doesn't really follow that it's moral, but there's something there, I think. 😆

I could argue that it's logical for our survival and general wellbeing, thus it's moral, or at least, not immoral. However, it would probably still clash with other aspects we've talked about above.

[idle sierra]

5. There are a fair amount of orphans who could be helped by these families.

[thorny steeple]

Hell yeah.

are you trying to find an argument against and in favor of homosexuality from a morality standpoint?

[idle sierra]

Both.

[thorny steeple]

Against, initially, but I digressed a bit.

Lol, well, all of my arguments are kind of against it.

Interesting!

I also have the scientific argument against it.

Please do share.

Not all at once, preferably. So we can discuss them separately while avoiding essays. 😛

[idle sierra]

We already have arguments in favour of it, so let's see the opposition.

We might want to take it to the debate chatroom tho

[thorny steeple]

first, the logical argument, logically the male body is designed specifically for the female body and vice versa, I'm not going to elaborate more 'cause it's kind of inappropriate. xD

[idle sierra]

Counter argument: the human body has a lot of holes.

[thorny steeple]

I honestly don't want to debate it, I'm about to sleep anyway, so I'll just share some of my views and I'll have to hit the sack.

[idle sierra]

Fair enough

[thorny steeple]

If your argument is

1. The male body is designed specifically for the female body.
2. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

Then, this doesn't at all follow. This isn't an argument to morality but one of puzzle pieces fitting as evolution intended. The premise itself is correct, but the conclusion doesn't follow. I think that's actually an Appeal to Nature.

[thorny steeple]

Lol, yeah right. xD

Amadeus has the best counterargument, TBF. 😆

[idle sierra]

Thanks!

[thorny steeple]

no, the argument is as follows:
premise: the male body is specifically designed to fit with the female body (even psychologically).
premise: the female body is designed specifically to fit with the female body (even psychologically).
conclusion: homosexuality, as a sexual and romantic attraction, is illogical, given the nature of how things should work.

it might even seem like a malfunction, which actually links to the scientific argument.

[thorny steeple]

"İs there anyone who homophobic? I want to hear her/his arguments about this subject" — the original question which prompted this awesome discussion. I misinterpreted this discussion as one of morality, but the definition of homophobia suggests it's one of why a person would fear or have prejudice against a homosexual individual. That's frustrating on my part, but your argument stands firm.

[thorny steeple]

yeah, people should ||fertilize their ears||. xD

I have no counterargument. You're right, it's logical, because the conclusion follows the premise. It's a valid reason, as I see it, for one to be homophobic.

[thorny steeple]

as a person who opposes homosexuality, I hear a lot the term homophobic, it's ironic 'cause most of the people who label me as such are afraid to hear my arguments. xD

I try to stay open to opposing views.

Provided your logic and reasoning is sound, I'm usually open to other views.

[idle sierra]

Counter argument:
1.: Despite this, homosexuality is a phenomenon and it isn't unlikely that there are some unknown factors at work (I don't read research papers, take the latter with a grain of salt...?)
2.: It was around for ages, but religion came around which led to the disappearance of it, resulting in a false idea that it is a new thing.
3.: I made an argument about reproduction earlier, homosexuality could be some sort of a failsafe, I could try elaborating further, but I'm not that certain about this direction either.
4.: The human body - including the brain - has a "normal" way of working and a few "errors" here and there which differentiate the individual from the rest. Who's to say that the same can't go for sexuality?

[thorny steeple]

you have my respect, this is what I really like when discussing an issue with anyone, and it's genuinely admirable, 'cause not everybody is like that.

Sorry, I jumped the gun without hearing Amadeus out. 😆

[thorny steeple]

this actually would call out the scientific argument, wanna hear it?

wait.

I think I can make a counter argument to your counter argument without relying on the scientific argument yet.

[idle sierra]

Sure, but there's one more thing: I consider my standpoint as neutral and my personal argument on this topic is that everything comes down to saying yes or no when someone asks you out.

[thorny steeple]

FFS. I just spent ages typing out a solid counterargument, which this damn server threw away, giving me no chance to simply edit it accordingly. 🙄

[idle sierra]

I noticed the ping and saw the text disappear, rip

[thorny steeple]

The nut-shell is that, Amadeus, it's unclear what your conclusion is. If you're concluding that homosexuality is wrong not wrong because of those premises (assuming first 3), then I'd argue it doesn't follow. The 4th premise or conclusion itself is an argument, I think, which I did plan to separately address, but that went POOF. 😆

The numbering thing I used is:

Premise
...
Conclusion

[idle sierra]

I'm arguing in favour of homosexuality.

[thorny steeple]

Oops, yeah, I mean right, not wrong. 😆

[idle sierra]

My third argument is an area I'd like to explore, and let's be honest, it's an idea at best.

[thorny steeple]

"Sure, but there's one more thing: I consider my standpoint as neutral and my personal argument on this topic is that everything comes down to saying yes or no when someone asks you out."

This?

From what I see there, you're saying:

1. Everything comes down to saying yes or no.
2. Therefore, homosexuality is not wrong.

Is that right?

[idle sierra]

No, that's the conclusion I have based on my experience.

[thorny steeple]

Oh, gotcha.

[idle sierra]

That's my personal take, yeah, but I have to consider more factors to make this debate worthwhile.

[thorny steeple]

Homosexuality is wrong

A mass sin

Beside religion, it is common sense that it is wrong

@thorny steeple Religion aside for the moment, why is it common sense that it's wrong?

Humans have always been 2 Genders

[idle sierra]

Gender and orientation aren't the same thing and homosexuality dates back to the ancient Greeks. Probably further.

[thorny steeple]

Wanting to change it is simply impossible, there are xxx, xxy chromosomes nothing else u can't just create s literal new system

[thorny steeple]

You mean making sexual interactions with the same gender?

How is that not wrong ☠️

Disgusting

[thorny steeple]

counter argument:

1. this one really require a whole different discussion honestly, so I'll just say it's not a phenomenon as you think, it's more like a deviation from an objective scientific point of view.
2. not really, historically, the first recorded homosexual acts was 2400 BCE (before common era), while Hinduism is thought to date back to at least 3300 BCE, it's still not a definitive answer, as there is a big part of history we don't know anything about, so we can't know which one came first (historically, or based on historical records) to determine the causal-relationship of both.
3. it's flawed, you can't count on homosexuality as a failsafe, you already said that we still don't know the exact cause of this inclination, also, it's known that homosexuality has been a source of certain diseases, such as gay related immune deficiency (now known as AIDS), it was first introduced by 5 homosexual males, so it's not a very strong argument, it might simply lead us to go extinct, right?
4. sexuality is not yet fully understood by biology, and genetics, but it's safe to say that from an objective sense, it can't be really considered normal nor natural, 'cause the natural inclination should align with the physical and biological structure.

[thorny steeple]

That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that simply because there have always been 2 genders, homosexuality is wrong. These are two separate things.

[thorny steeple]

Idk I thought homosexuality was the same as the rainbow people

What are "rainbow people"?

Rainbow flag

[idle sierra]

The rainbow people are neurodivergents in general, not just sexual divergents.

[thorny steeple]

Oh, pride? Like, LGBTQ+?

Yes those

Ah, homosexuality is included, as far as I know.

[idle sierra]

It is.

[thorny steeple]

Lesbian, Gay, Bi, something, something, +

Oh, T = trans

Is Q queer?

But overall making sexual interactions with the same gender can't be right and it has many negative effects

[idle sierra]

The flag used to mean more if I remember well: neurodivergents in general, which also covers ADHD, autism, and so on.

[thorny steeple]

Like do you really get lust to the same gender?

That's got to be sickness

[thorny steeple]

Why can in not be right? And what negative effects?

[thorny steeple]

one can identify as homosexual while still having masculine qualities, just like any man, I'm not saying I support transgenderism or homosexuality though, I'm just reflecting what happens in real life.

@thorny steeple You're asking a lot of questions and making a lot of assertions, but you're not actually presenting your case.

[thorny steeple]

Diseases

[thorny steeple]

Fair point. However, STDs are not exclusive to homosexual sex.

[idle sierra]

Heterosexual contact has its own stuff as well.

[thorny steeple]

Contraception also exists.

[thorny steeple]

Well that's fkd up

Again, why?

So a homosexual person lusts on same gender 100%?

AFAIK, that's the general gist of homosexuality.

Someone who is bi swings both ways.

[idle sierra]

So a heterosexual person lusts on the opposite gender 100%?

[thorny steeple]

What is heterosexual now?

[idle sierra]

Heterosexual is what you would call "normal"

[thorny steeple]

What

To put it another way, heterosexuality is strictly a man and a woman having fun time together.

@thorny steeple Why is homosexuality wrong?

Right u need to name the normal one if there are other various types

You were just told twice what the normal one is: heterosexuality

[thorny steeple]

U fr? its pure disgust

[idle sierra]

That's a personal level, but that doesn't prove anything.

[twin glacier]

that is not a valid point

[thorny steeple]

You want scientific reason?

Sure.

[idle sierra]

Right, Flare owes me with a research paper...

[thorny steeple]

You believe there is only two genders right?

But, this argument is invalid:

1. Homosexuality is disgusting.
2. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

Because your premise is incorrect. Homosexuality is to many not disgusting, therefore it's not true that it's absolutely disgusting. As a result, the conclusion doesn't follow, thus it's an invalid argument. You've taken a subjective opinion and concluded something as fact. This is known as a non sequitur, because the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

[idle sierra]

We're arguing about orientation, not genders.

They're two different things.

[twin glacier]

indeed

[thorny steeple]

I'm OK with hearing .0110q out about gender. It might lead to a valid and relevant point.

[idle sierra]

I mean, we'd probably understand what they'd say, I just want to use the proper word here to avoid confusion.

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, I'm with you there. It avoids definitional issues and arguing two totally different things. Easy trap.

[thorny steeple]

take it easy my friend, many people believe that it's okay, I was presenting intellectual arguments before to support that it's wrong, from an intellectual, scientific, logical point of view.

[thorny steeple]

yes, but we could argue that homosexuality is not the norm for the majority of people (I myself would be disgusted from male-to-male homosexual acts), and therefore, it could be considered abnormal.

Wanting to have sex with the same gender is mental illness/ psychological disfunction, everything were created as a male and female even the plants and animals all living species. So if we with the most complex organ that has ever been studied with the limitless capabilities think that it is okay to do the quite opposite of life's natural functionality and reality, we are not okay

[thorny steeple]

But whether or not it's abnormal speaks nothing to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. Murder happens all the time, but it's still no less immoral.

[idle sierra]

Many animals are known to have sexual relationships with the same gender and some have only one, so all of those can be considered homosexual.

[thorny steeple]

I understand what you wanna say, it's the way you're presenting it that is wrong, you mean that it goes against the natural process and generally the physical, biological, and psychological structure of all living things.

[thorny steeple]

"Wanting to have sex with other gender is mental illness/ psychological disfunction"

Are you qualified to arrive at that conclusion? If not, can you cite scientific studies or papers that provide evidence for this premise?

Plenty of people worldwide have a wonderful sexual and romantic life with a same-sex partner; there is no dysfunction.

However, where there could be dysfunction is a person not accepting their homosexual desires, suppressing them to the point at which it greatly negatively impacts their lives. These are very different matters.

"So if we with the most complex organ that has ever been studied with the limitless capabilities think that it is okay to do the quite opposite of life's natural functionality and reality, we are not okay"

The complexity of our brain pays no relevance to the subject of the morality of homosexuality.

[thorny steeple]

I might not provide enough reasons for you to understand cuz I'm not eligible for that, as a religious person my creator knows what has created and how it should be, I'm curtain that there will be long lasting and regretful effects of such unnatural desirable act

[thorny steeple]

It's OK if you're struggling arguing these things. I don't fault you as a person. These are difficult matters, especially with the doctrines of your religion included.

[thorny steeple]

yes you're right, right and wrong are both concepts related to people's moral systems, sometimes it could be subjective, I was actually trying to make a different point, which is more related to whether or not homosexuality could be considered abnormal.

However, I would recommend you to challenge these beliefs you hold so dear. How can you be so sure you value them so highly if you don't respect them enough to challenge them?

[idle sierra]

Humans often act irrationally, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. Now, if we were facing a global extinction, I would agree that homosexuality is wrong because it hinders the survival of humanity, but considering that there are over 8 billion of us, that won't be a naturally occurring problem for a while.

[thorny steeple]

Thanks, I'm not very good arguer, but seeing a sin is not right to remain silent, I'll inform myself and maybe I'll give u valid reason for why it is not good

(Scientifically)

[thorny steeple]

"as a religious person my creator knows what has created and how it should be, I'm curtain that there will be long lasting and regretful effects of such unnatural desirable act"

This is likely the crux of why you belief what you do.

You have a core belief, I suspect:

My religion is true.

Perhaps also:

I must be pious.

The idea of homosexuality directly contradicts these core beliefs. However, this is possibly only due to religion. You are still free to form your own ideas, free from the restraints of your religion.

Imagine this: If you weren't religion, how would you feel about homosexuality? Keep in mind, you would no longer have religion telling you it's wrong.

[idle sierra]

The way I see it, sins can cause societies to crumble, right? Back in the old days of yore, mortality rate was quite high, so mass homosexuality could have posed an issue, however that is not the case anymore.

[rare hatch]

Why is this a inssues for you?

[thorny steeple]

'is this' 😉

[idle sierra]

Hence even if a holy scripture said that homosexuality is a sin, the threat it used to pose simply doesn't exist today, rendering its position arguable.

[thorny steeple]

that's not actually true if he is a Muslim like me, as Muslims we submit our will and our beliefs all to Allah only, as Allah (God) is omniscient and we understand very well he knows what's beyond the knowledge of any human being, and therefore, he's the objective source of morality.

anyways, I gotta go to sleep now, maybe I'll present the scientific evidence against homosexuality tomorrow, see ya guys. 👋

[thorny steeple]

I'm sorry, I may have missed your point. You've said it's not true, but I don't see a reason for that. Can you explain?

Oh OK. Goodnight, Flare. Thanks for the honest and friendly discussion.

[idle sierra]

Debating the existence of a god or multiple would be interesting on its own...

[thorny steeple]

I'm a huge fan of debating religion. I find religion especially interesting.

[idle sierra]

Good night and I'll be waiting for those papers

My standpoint on religion is probably a lot more mundane than the average

[thorny steeple]

I have to be honest. This was a great outcome.

So far. 😛

[thorny steeple]

of course, you said you're free from the restraints of your religion, that's not true, while he's absolutely free to do whatever he wants (assuming he's a Muslim), he's still obligated by Islam that for example, homosexuality is a sin, I know because I was an agnostic atheist once and reverted to Islam, so I kind of understand both sides (Muslims who are not reverts could also understand both sides, I'm not saying it's only 'cause I've been there and you can't understand unless you do that).

[idle sierra]

We discussed most of the things there are to discuss except the science, so we could call it a successful debate.

[thorny steeple]

Yep.

[thorny steeple]

Ye sure, I understand, how would I look at it as a non religious person, it is really hard because we all human revolve around our creator. But here u go, it might not have the effects you all looking for, but as a human our desires drives us, we do no know if it is right or not we just do it as a desire sometimes we might be aware of the effects yet we still do, homosexuality does have mental effects because your body knows the physical reality of how it works, so mind and body is not one, and I've searched most of the homosexually people have higher rate of suicide and depression and other negative mental health states

I don't treat debating as us vs them, but the exchange of ideas and presentation of arguments in favor of them. The important part is the exchange. Provided people go in with an open mind and a kind heart, I think good things have a chance of happening.

[idle sierra]

I agree. The proof of this mentality's success is the fact that we all agreed that this was a good debate while "failing" to convince the other party.

[thorny steeple]

I truly believe that homosexuality was an idea like natural men were not driven to same gender, so it has been implemented to affect society in many ways because of how many different type of people exist in it so many debates and mixed feelings will occur, as ideas are strong
Religious man will fight the idea of homosexuality, as of the one who wants it will fight back, boom a spark in society, so we're not doing anything here everyone will follow what they believe u believe in science effects of homosexuality I believe in the natural reality of human race (how god created us)

[thorny steeple]

"it is really hard because we all human revolve around our creator"

You've presupposed the existence of a creator, but I understand it's because of your faith.

"as a human our desires drives us, we do no know if it is right or not we just do it as a desire sometimes we might be aware of the effects yet we still do, homosexuality does have mental effects because your body knows the physical reality of how it works, so mind and body is not one, and I've searched most of the homosexually people have higher rate of suicide and depression and other negative mental health states"

What I find most fascinating in this part of your message, is that you've used the evidence for high suicide rates among homosexuals as evidence that homosexuality is wrong, yet it's likely the attitude you've presented here today (e.g., "disgusting") which lead to such an unfortunate action. My reasoning is that, if a homosexual is happy with who they are, is not constantly shunned and told they are disgusting, why would they feel such turmoil over their orientation? Surely, they would simply be happy and live their life?

[thorny steeple]

nice, have a look at my early discussion with @Assassin Manque about why God necessarily exists.

@thorny steeple it was kind of a big discussion, but you can start reading from here, if you want to have more context, feel free to trace the full discussion from its start through the replies.

[thorny steeple]

Ye, I knew you would say it's because of my faith, it became certainty I've had some struggles but I've found my way

[idle sierra]

I wouldn't say it's a necessity, but given the fact that you can't scientifically prove a higher authority's existence - or the opposite - I put the topic on hold in my head.

[thorny steeple]

The burden of proof falls to those making the claim.

I misunderstood. Regardless, I suppose it's worth pointing out.

[idle sierra]

Lemme try gathering my thoughts before making a neutral claim and providing no proof while holding my stance.

[thorny steeple]

Ultimately trying to do something that is unnatural will bring you something bad maybe not now but it will eventually. Not religious but how life works, the strong makes the rules, the modern system shaped our life, as of I believe in the more higher power which is God, and nothing god forbids has given me benefits, neither the thing that has been allowe has given me harm, and if I were to do what I want desirabley I'll fall to my doom by my own hands.
So my answer might be religious I guess it is, lol, even if I wasn't a religious person my natural and reality being itself tells me not to do things that goes against the reality of how everything were created

[thorny steeple]

@idle sierra I highly recommend you have a look at my discussion with @Assassin Manque, I've proven that you can definitely prove God's existence scientifically (not from the observational part of science, but remember, science is not only about observations, it requires deduction as well etc..., archeology is one scientific field that requires examining fossils and deducing history).

[idle sierra]

Do you have any keywords which would help me find the convo?

[thorny steeple]

I've just noticed this in the server rules:

"We are not a political server. Whilst we are all affected by different events around the globe this server is not a space for discussion that may cause upset, distress or offence to our members. Examples being, but not limited to undertaking debates relating to global vaccines, wars, historic events etc."

😐 Does that include religious debate, however cordial and respectful? If we're booted from the server, I guess we'll find out.

[thorny steeple]

@idle sierra yes, you can read from the messaged I replied to here.

It's just a desire the homosexuality right? And there is no wrong in enjoying sexual interactions with same gener? This is your say?

[thorny steeple]

no, the server is to a great extent a home for free speech, we can discuss these matters but while abiding by the rules.

if you find someone annoyed by what you're saying, then the server would ask you to wrap up the discussion with him there.

but if the person if involved in the discussion, I've encountered such situation before.

I gotta go to sleep now, seriosuly. xD

[thorny steeple]

"Ultimately trying to do something that is unnatural will bring you something bad maybe not now but it will eventually."

This isn't true. Doing something bad will not ultimately lead to something bad. Humanity frequently goes against nature and succeeds, such as in creating cures to counteract disease. Saying "it will eventually" is also not a given.

"Not religious but how life works"

It is not how life works — see above. Bad things can happen from unnatural actions, but that doesn't inherently mean anything. Bad things happen both naturally and unnaturally. Animals slaughter each other, play with their suffering pray, assault each other, and so on.

"and if I were to do what I want desirabley I'll fall to my doom by my own hands."

This is also not a given. You've choosing to discuss homosexuality today, yet it does not follow that you must now face doom by your own hands.

goodnight guys.

[idle sierra]

I read through your points, and I got a couple of late-night arguments against it.

Should I ping you or leave it to another day altogether?

[thorny steeple]

obsessive-compulsive disorder

[thorny steeple]

What about OCD?

[thorny steeple]

Yes, homosexuality is just a desire; an orientation. That is what I'm saying. There is no inherent wrong in sexual interactions with the same gender. That's my stance, because I've yet to see any evidence or hear any sound or strong arguments to the contrary.

[thorny steeple]

Are you asking me?

[idle sierra]

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, we'll debate the fine-tuning of the universe and the non/existence of a higher power based on the uncertainties subatomic particles, gravitons, and black holes pose.

[thorny steeple]

😆

[idle sierra]

I was asking Flare, but it appears I was too late...

[thorny steeple]

Oooh, gotcha.

[idle sierra]

I could go over my arguments in a nutshell.

[thorny steeple]

Got it

[thorny steeple]

yes, ping me and I'll respond at my earliest convenience.

[idle sierra]

Alright, gotcha boss 👍

You're about to read the thoughts of some random guy who's struggling to stay awake (not really), trying to debate the existence of a power beyond all imagination with your next morning coffee.

[thorny steeple]

Just another Sunday, for me. 😛 I'm tired and have had a banging headache all day, but I'm still debating these things! For the love of it all.

Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it! Luke 11 :28

[idle sierra]

Considering the one-sided nature of this debate, I'll just dump my thoughts here before going to sleep as well. First of all, my conception of a god has a free will, so that's what I'm arguing against in the "climax".

1.: A Fine-Tuned World
The gravitational paths of objects just in our solar system are funky almost without exception. Sure, you could say that it's a god's plan to get humanity moving across dimensions by yeeting the Moon into the unknown and crashing the Earth into the Sun, and I would more or less agree. Did you know that a lot of the uncertainties we have now come from gravitation? (you probably do, I'm doing this for dramatic effect)

2.: The Big Bang
I remember reading about the theory of white holes and the limit of black holes, but it's a vague memory and I don't want to sit here for hours researching, so this topic could definitely use a revisit later on. As far as I remember, a white hole and a collapsing black hole is very similar in the way that they both spew matter out of themselves, and the Big Bang might have been one of such events. It's a given that reality existed before the Big Bang, but there's a chance that we're at the very tip of the iceberg that is the history of everything.

3.: The Existence of God?
While I believe there is something unthinkable out there, I doubt it has a free will, which makes it unsuitable for my idea of a god. That's basically it, our opinion might differ because of a personal definition.

Despite referring to it as the climax, it ended up as the opposite, huh?

The way I see it, you argue that there is no explainable evidence for this many coincidences, so it had to be created by someone, while I'm saying that we don't have enough to make a clear verdict, but believe that we will at one point unless we go extinct (plus the free will and all).

[spark salmon]

hello guys

[worn pond]

Hi

[craggy sphinx]

In its initial manifestations, a white hole does not have the ability to eruption.it is the exact opposite of a black hole.

And it is not a fact that such objects exist, just like wormholes

there is no evidence that this is how the universe came into being

[ebon pelican]

Has the world come into existence on its own?

[craggy sphinx]

i don't know

I don't care how it came about

I think this is not a final statement

[craggy sphinx]

hello

[idle sierra]

Reading my message back, I didn't specify that the existence of a white hole is theoretical as well, my mistake. However, if a white hole at work is similar to The Big Bang, it's very likely that we won't ever see it. My main point is that the creation of the known universe might be a smaller product of whatever's out there.

[craggy sphinx]

Maybe

but this is a hypothetical object.

Maybe in the future we will find out how it came to be.

[idle sierra]

The whole mini-debate started with the existence of a god, so that was a given. I think we'll learn or be able to prove how it came to be at one point, but as I said, we probably know even less about it than we thought.

[craggy sphinx]

your nickname reminds me of someone

[idle sierra]

Imagine reality pulling an Alan Wake tho

[craggy sphinx]

Amelius

[idle sierra]

Nothing comes to mind, sorry.

[craggy sphinx]

Don't worry
it's just the name of a philosopher

[idle sierra]

That explains everything 😅

I don't read much philosophy.

[thorny steeple]

Aurelius too

What do you think about chronic illnesses? Is cancer more dangerous than war?

[ornate siren]

But Aurelius was a Stoic

[ornate siren]

Hard to compare

[thorny steeple]

Stoicism is also a philosophy.

[ornate siren]

By that definition, you should have named every philosopher in the world.

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, but these are just famous philosophers.

[ornate siren]

Tons of them

[thorny steeple]

Billions

[craggy sphinx]

don't call me sick, but are you constantly talking to your inner self?

[thorny steeple]

yes

[narrow brook]

Hello

[worldly brook]

you were asking me questions that made me uncomfortable and annoyed.

[lusty zenith]

Too much rizz it seems

[narrow brook]

Does anyone likes Math?

[pine jasper]

i do hate math

[narrow brook]

There is a really good channel on YouTube called 3Blue1Brown

I'm loving his videos, He Just explains everything so clearly and intuitive

It's Just an diference perspective of math comparing with school

Learn Math of school is really trash

[pine jasper]

AHHAHA YEAH

[pastel epoch]

Math is boring... only you have to prove a triangle is a triangle and lhs is equal to rhs

[ornate siren]

Not if you understand it
Especially higher maths

[narrow brook]

When you see the power of math, you will change your mind

[pastel epoch]

Guys chill
I know its interesting...after all am a med student 🥹

[narrow brook]

That is cool

I'm doing computer science

I'm absolutly loving it

[pastel epoch]

That's cool
Computer science is interesting ngl
I used to score 90+ in school in computer(java)

[narrow brook]

Nice!

Java is an intrusting language

[pastel epoch]

Trueee

[narrow brook]

Its a pretty old language, but very intrusting for a introduction of computer science and learning programming because it has a lot to do with OOP.

And I'm learning it at college

[pastel epoch]

Trueee
Even though I don't remember much about it. It's an interesting language and my teacher always used to say it's use to design some apps

[paper chasm]

I'm always confused about how should I use '' have had '' . Can any of you please explain when should I use ''have had '' in a sentence ?

[hard pawn]

Hey everyone I'm new here my name is Ahmad and I'm from Egypt

[narrow brook]

good question

I'm searching and "have had" as to do with something that happened and was finished in past, but still matters in present (present perfect). For example: "We have had a meeting with the new clients". The meeting occurred in past, but matters (it implies in the present).

the "had" in "have had" is the past participle form of "have" (it is the conjugation of the verb "have" in past)

[thorny steeple]

Hi, Ahmad. What's it like in Egypt?

[narrow brook]

it can be changed by any another verb, like: I have finished my homework.

[hard pawn]

It's foggy, some cold here

[thorny steeple]

That's not using 'had', though.

I've had enough.
I've had to go to town many times.
I've often had to think about things.
We have all had to breath at some point in our lives.
Have you ever had a nightmare?
How many times have you had to bite a crocodile back?

[narrow brook]

true

[thorny steeple]

Actually, my mistake. I'm a native, but definitely not too familiar with English tenses. Apparently both "have had" and "have finished" are present perfect, which I assume is what you meant.

[narrow brook]

yea, it is

[thorny steeple]

It's funny how it's all just natural to me, yet I don't know all the basic English tense lingo and nuances. 😆 The only time I really paid attention to tenses was for German, or back in English classes a million years ago (I'm old).

[narrow brook]

yea u are native so makes sense

[worn pond]

So u know English grammar well?

[thorny steeple]

I believe so. I certainly went to great extents to ensure as much, and I've learned a lot because of German. When I started learning German (years ago), I didn't really know much about features of grammar, like nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, verbs, prepositions, independent and dependent clauses, predicates, subjects, objects, and so on and so on. All this stuff I learned only in the last few years. However, I do have gaps in knowledge, as shown here. I've been working on it, lately. If anything, so I'm more useful when helping people with their English.

[worn pond]

Where are you from

Guys how can I become fluent English in just one year?

[hard pawn]

I'm from Egypt what about you?

[thorny steeple]

The UK.

[thorny steeple]

I'm not sure that's a realistic goal, unless you're gifted, and/or are especially driven with a great tutor.

[worn pond]

Hmm

[thorny steeple]

If by fluent you mean someone as good at English as a native English speaker, or very, very close.

I don't doubt it's possible for a regular person to get really good in a year, though.

[worn pond]

Give me tips

[thorny steeple]

I could never hope to learn to be fluent in a language in a year, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to offer such tips. However, you want a really good tutor. You probably want one-on-one tuition, so the lessons can go at your speed and be tailored to how you learn. You'll probably need to immerse yourself in the language, such as by listening to English music, watching media with English subtitles or voices, etc. You'll need to sleep well, nourish the brain, have enough time, and be determined. The best way would probably be to move to and study in an English speaking country, like England, America, Australia, or Canada.

[narrow brook]

What a good way know my english level?

I don't know if I am advanced or intermediary

[craggy sphinx]

test

[craggy sphinx]

for more information - #📚｜english-questions

[idle sierra]

I'd say that it's a question of vocabulary, grammar, and listening, so yeah. Tests.

Listening to a few accents to improve your listening could be helpful if you're feeling confident.

[spring plank]

a

[fluid geyser]

Hey! I'm free if anyone's got any questions. DM me if so

[tawny shore]

Hmm!

[tawny shore]

Nice bro.

[flat obsidian]

👏🏻

[exotic fern]

Hello everybody.

[tawny shore]

Hola.

[exotic fern]

@tawny shore Hello!

[upper dune]

Hi

[craggy sphinx]

hello

[late storm]

holla

anyone play Xbox here

[surreal hinge]

serious chat dude

its okay

[orchid totem]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1165243333250134087/1170326552794365952/PPRZC1YHF08Q68U24B.gif?ex=6558a289&is=65462d89&hm=7c57c9b65951cf36edbb6b6f48a0cbd7b9cd51b994c90f772630424fb50763c4&

[late storm]

seriously play and chat

[surreal hinge]

nevermind

[late storm]

even play cynically, but without paradox, still remain seriously

[thorny steeple]

1. Fine-Tuning
it's funny 'cause the gravitational constant is one of the most popular fine-tuned constants, while it's true that there are a lot of mysteries surround the gravitational force etc etc, it's not outright to say they are uncertainties, it's possible to predict the effect of gravitational force with a high degree of accuracy, using Newtonian gravity and Einstein's theory of general relativity, the things we don't know about them are still subject to empirical studies and observations, you probably mean the dark energy, which is the most mysterious force in cosmology that we haven't yet understood properly, but this is all irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument.

2. The Big Bang
I don't know what does white holes and black holes have anything to do with the big bang theory, apart from the fact that white holes have not been yet confirmed to exist anyway, the big bang is an explosion that formed the known universe from an infinite density and temperature of energy, mass, etc... (known as the initial singularity) the evidence for the big bang are overwhelming and are explaining it from almost all aspects of how it has occurred.

3. The Existence of God
God is defined as the ultimate uncaused cause of everything, that if we define based on the Kalam cosmological argument only, but many of his attributes are indicated by a lot of things in this universe.
if you believe we have free will, then it's totally unlikely that God doesn't have free will too, as the one who DESIGNED the universe and everything in it, including us, humans, he must have been conscious and have free will.

to be honest, that was a pretty simple argument, perhaps you need to make a decent search first in order to form a solid argument, but I hope I made the whole thing clearer for you now.

[late storm]

where u from？ur monicker induce me to recall a very unique character of a TV show

not the quantum theory guy

[surreal hinge]

yeah he's a chemistry guy

[late storm]

yeah,u got what i mean

[surreal hinge]

im from New Mexico to answer that

[late storm]

super cool there, if have a minivan

[surreal hinge]

and you already know my residence
i dont need a pizza though

[surreal hinge]

sold it to the scrapman

bye
gotta cook

[late storm]

understandable

[smoky skiff]

why is noone typing

[late storm]

compose a poem

[smoky skiff]

Noone was typing, and I was gripping.

[late storm]

but that poem had been confiscated before it seeing a nascent twilight

nothing intriguing, worse than the mundane

don't be shy, practice

i miss Mike,met yesterday

need him to deliver some spiritual power

[craggy sphinx]

Hello beings of the highest light

BigBang

heh,

[late storm]

why Galileo got blinded after the inquisition trial, too much light from observing the Sun

[idle sierra]

Back to the part of fine-tuning, I meant that everything is slowly falling apart and the average funk gravity has going on. Though I admit that I was being sloppy, my main points remain: we lack information that could explain the root of the "uncaused" cause and my argument about free will is the main (actually, the only personal) reason why I'm sceptical about the existence of a higher power as I believe in free will, but that's a debate on its own.

[idle sierra]

Oooh, I just thought of twisting the topic towards a different direction

I'm a bit afraid of throwing free will in as a topic though because I can't defend it....

[thorny steeple]

could you elaborate further? I'm not getting your point here.

[thorny steeple]

I believe in free will and I can easily defend it.

don't worry about it.

[idle sierra]

My hero

Back to the topic though, which one should I elaborate on? Because I don't know if I can.

I can definitely see problems with how I worded the second one though...

[late storm]

Mr. Free Will is innocent, there's not any business to do with him,will leave him free

pun not funny at all

[thorny steeple]

why does free will make you doubt his existence?

Hello! Can you help me?

hi serious people

how serious are you out there?

[idle sierra]

Because I find it more logical that the cause of everything is a rabbit hole of events we won't completely uncover for a long long time. I also see exploration as at least one of the meanings of life, so having something I could work on until death provides some comfort. It's not reassuring for me to accept anything just because.

[idle sierra]

Wery seriuos.

[thorny steeple]

ah, that left me more confused. 😵‍💫

what do you mean that the cause of everything is a rabbit hole of events?

[idle sierra]

It's bottomless.

[thorny steeple]

are you trying to imply infinite regression?

[idle sierra]

Having an infinite amount of things to uncover does sound nice to me.

[thorny steeple]

still don't understand.

Lol.

what do you mean uncover? I'm providing an argument of an intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent, ultimate creator.

he is to be taken as an entity, not a series of events.

[idle sierra]

By uncovering I mean explaining through science.

[thorny steeple]

do you mean like observing him?

[late storm]

i prefer topless

[idle sierra]

~

[idle sierra]

Sort of? I just have no idea where to put an ultimate creator on the list and I'd rather set out to find something I can incorporate into a new invention than someone, no matter how cool they are.

[thorny steeple]

it's not a matter of coolness or anything like that, it's a matter of necessity, the creator of this universe is indicated by everything, this creator is obviously unimaginable, and certainly unobservable, we can only observe his effect and creation.

I hope you read the argument I pointed you out yesterday, it covered most of these things.

one sec.

[idle sierra]

I did, but I can't recall everything right now

Got it saved in my search bar tho

[stoic crystal]

what are we talking about right now? i'd love to join in. could someone catch me up?

[idle sierra]

It's a debate about the existence of a god

[thorny steeple]

@idle sierra

[stoic crystal]

Ah, perfect.

[neon gorge]

yo anyone need help with assignments?

im good at powerpoint

[stoic crystal]

I'll put my two cents in, then. I personally believe there is no such thing as a "god" or multiple "gods". I believe there was nothing, and then at some point in time, the stars aligned (I know, ironic) and every"thing" was created. It is so inconceivable that it makes sense that we as people created something to fill in that void (again, I know, pun unintended), but in my opinion, the universe was one giant coincidence.

[idle sierra]

My very carefully processed and highly intellectual arguments I'm using now are:
1.: I'd rather find more and more things to learn than an ultimate reason.
2.: If the whole world is built on chains, logic follows that there should be more chains and some of them probably predate the universe.
3.: A god has to come from somewhere as well, did they have a creator too?

[thorny steeple]

what's the odds that the universe could exist coincidentally? and how did it come into existence? out of nothing? if yes, it violates the first law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, if no, there should be an explanation for how it came into existence, so the existence of God is necessary for this universe to exist, and it's not filling the void, it's the universe denoting his existence.

[idle sierra]

But my most academic point against a god is that I want cool science stuff and if a god exists, it might mean the end of the list of stuff there is to learn.

[deft turret]

lol

[thorny steeple]

no, 'cause to assume God had a creator, we'd be forced to assume that creator also had a creator, and so on and so forth, this is called an infinite regression, and it's impossible, I'm kind of lazy to explain this, but I already explained it once, so I'll point you out to the message.

@idle sierra

[thorny steeple]

I don't think the existence of God changes anything, he already existed before you realize it, so you still have a list of things to learn anyway. xD

[idle sierra]

This is almost as if we'd say the Big Bang just happened and now we should all worship the boom.

[stoic crystal]

There are theories that before the existence of the universe (that breaking point is commonly referred to as The Big Bang) that everything was void-filled. It was simply nothingness. Here, it's more easy to imagine what it would be like if the universe were to die out. After the last star in our universe dies out, what remains? absolutely nothing, right? and what happens when that point of absolute nothingness (mostly containing singular atomic particles) collides, under the absolute circumstance that it just so happened to well, happen? A universe is born, and with it, elements that have formed from those previously mentioned atomic particles. Each of these elements are like the materials to make a house. The universe has the blueprints, but until it has the right ingredients, it cannot happen. The fact that our universe exists is a miracle, but it's not necessarily impossible.

[idle sierra]

I'd say The Big Bang was either a collapsing black hole or a white hole, but as there are no clear evidences for or against, I'll vouch for going as far as possible while keeping humanity alive.

[thorny steeple]

no, it doesn't, first of all, worship has nothing to do with this, if you don't worship God, he still exists.
second, the big bang was the beginning event of the universe, if the universe was eternal, then sure, we could say God doesn't exist, but the universe had a beginning and was created, it can't pop up into existence out of nothing, 'cause nothing produces nothing.

[idle sierra]

A creator also had to come from somewhere though, and that's the impossibility that makes me avoid this topic in general.

[stoic crystal]

well, in relation to that, there are also some theories that our universe wasn't actually the first. it might have been an offspring of another universe that existed way before ours. At some point, there may have been a "god" (if we are going by the definition of that inconceivable being that existed as a building block for the existence of the universe), but at this point, it may have been dead for hundreds of billions of years

[thorny steeple]

ah, it's a lot of things to write, I'm getting lazy honestly. Lol

[craggy sphinx]

this is a hypothesis

[thorny steeple]

luckily, I already refuted most of what you guys are saying, I'll point you out to each message that responds to your arguments.

[craggy sphinx]

not a theory

[stoic crystal]

you're right. apologies.

[craggy sphinx]

no no

why are you apologizing?

[thorny steeple]

@stoic crystal

[craggy sphinx]

you can share your ideas

and that's cool

[idle sierra]

The best I could do is to agree to disagree.

[stoic crystal]

^

[thorny steeple]

if you could accept the idea of an eternal universe, it's so similar to the idea that God is eternal, meaning that he had no beginning.

[static pivot]

Hello

Goodmornyan everynyan! Cats don't actually "nya!". It is merely a Japanese invention meant to delude us into spending too much time watching anime and too little time caring about each other. I will be the torch-bearer and make the first move and kindle the flames of your mornyan. So tell me, are you ok? I care a lot, please tell me. Thank you. Ask somebody else if they're ok.

[idle sierra]

A minor correction here: I'm accepting the fact that I'll never know and want to believe in progression rather than a cause that can be pinpointed.

I'm using "pinpointed" pretty loosely here, but you get the point.

[thorny steeple]

nah, I don't think I get your point, do you mean God doesn't exist 'cause you can't comprehend that?

[idle sierra]

We're as ok as we can get while debating the existence of a higher power (which is a 7/10 for me), wbu?

[stoic crystal]

If God is a placeholder for a concept of true beginning of the universe, I'm willing to agree, but I think "God" is more of a concept that is finite. Created so it could be comprehensible in a universe where the entire concept of our being is to be incomprehensible.

[idle sierra]

I have a similar approach as well, but I'm fixating on the part that it's incomprehensible, therefore we must be approaching the topic from the wrong direction or we are missing vital information which could only be obtained by moving forward - and that's what I think we should do, both in science, both in this conversation.

[narrow brook]

Guys I got a problem. Im desesperate I dont have any hope about the future, I feel lost in this world everything looks lifeless. Im really desesperate. Btw thx for listening

Just don't have anybody to listen

[idle sierra]

I usually reach out to friends and/or my hobbies when I feel like there's nothing to do and the world has stopped around me. Maybe that could help you as well.

[weary crater]

Violation bro

[thorny steeple]

we lost spirit of world bro

since our childhood

[tribal ocean]

Does anyone want to read together and learn words later? Please be around my level.

[thorny steeple]

God is defined as the uncaused cause of the universe, the big bang is the theory of how the universe began, the universe was in a state called the initial singularity before the event of the big bang, all matter and energy were compressed into an infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, this initial singularity exploded, forming planets and galaxies and causing the universe to expand as it does right now, we know that the universe existed here, but what, or rather who, caused it to explode from the state of singularity, this is called the causality law, we know that the universe began to exist, there should be something that caused it to exist, that cause is what is known as God.

it's not a made up concept just to fill in the holes as many people think, I used to think the same when I was an agnostic atheist, but it's really illogical to believe his existence is impossible, it's the absolute opposite.

Do you think that there is private property before agriculture and permanent settlements?

[idle sierra]

Now that's an interesting one! Time for me to give some surface-level insight.

Gotta ask though: we're talking about the stone age, right?

[thorny steeple]

Yes

[idle sierra]

Gotcha

[ebon pelican]

https://youtu.be/4Fh2BY_qE58?si=j86EpbZtnagkBdVc

[visual blade]

Nonsense

[ebon pelican]

He is making sense

[visual blade]

No

[visual blade]

Everyone defends their own position. So I don't see it as meaningless.

[timber cobalt]

Do Children Have a Financial Obligation Toward Their Parents?

[thorny steeple]

it makes a perfect sense for a rational human being.

[timber cobalt]

Thanks! I just want to see the opinion of others regarding this topic.

[idle sierra]

That's why I'm saying that even if we assume a creator, the situation remains an impossibility. Someone had to come before it to design said creator.

[thorny steeple]

Cyclical.

@idle sierra what opposition do you have about the impossibility of infinite regression?

Except it doesn't follow that some entity or weird event had to be behind that initial cause, however improbable or illogical it might seem.

it's either you have a series of created creators back to infinity, which is impossible given that infinite regression is impossible, or you have an uncreated uncaused ultimate cause.

It also doesn't follow that there must have been an initial extraordinary complexity, then yet more complexity is created. It goes against Occam's Razor, but even if you allow it, it still doesn't follow.

[idle sierra]

My conclusion is that it won't be a mystery solved by me, but fortunately I care more about the path than the result in this scenario.

[thorny steeple]

If you argue Fine-Tuning, because things seem so finely-tuned, therefore God, it also doesn't follow and has its holes of reasoning. Of course we're going to say things are so finely-tuned that we exist, because we exist; not like me can nip on over to next door's universe to find it's different, with no intelligence, because the laws of physics are different than here. It's just a bit of a mess, really. If you argue strong anthropic principle, that has holes, too. To me, the weak anthropic principle seems compelling, but, IIRC, still similarly flawed.

I'd present better argumentation, but I'm too drained. Barely slept. But, food for thought.

[thorny steeple]

true, but Occam's Razor states that between two or more alternative explanations, the simplest and with the least amount of assumptions is the right one, what other explanations that are not more complex and have less assumptions than the existence of God? there essentially is no assumptions about the existence of God, it's an existence by necessity.

AFAIK, it's not about assumptions but about the observation that simplicity leads to complexity, as in evolution, our societal development, what we see in space, etc.

Unless there are different interpretations.

[idle sierra]

People denied the existence of a heliocentric world at first, I could see a breakthrough happening with a similar effect.

[thorny steeple]

The assumptions thing does make sense, I suppose, if you consider that it's still simplicity before complexity. However, it's not a rule, it's just an observation.

I often call cyclical, but I accept that an initial creator could have always existed. However, the absurd thing about it is if you have to go through all of these hoops to demand that a creator must have always existed, why not simply say that we have always existed?

[idle sierra]

[thorny steeple]

how have we always existed?

How has God always existed?

[thorny steeple]

what I meant is that how have we always existed given the beginning of the universe itself?

It's OK to say you don't know something. I don't know is the answer, because we don't know.

what do you essentially mean when you say we have always existed?

The same thing you mean when you say God has always existed.

It doesn't follow that we must always have existed, it doesn't follow that a creator must always have existed, and it doesn't follow that there is no creator, all simply because we exist. It's OK to say we don't know. We don't know.

[idle sierra]

Finding it out will be one hell of a ride though! Probably.

[thorny steeple]

Maybe

[thorny steeple]

yes, it's totally okay to say I don't know when you don't know, the Kalam cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument still stand though, they provide an evidential explanation for how God exists.

[stoic crystal]

I hope I live to see the day we are able to answer those questions

[thorny steeple]

But so far, a total lack of sufficient evidence.
Either way, really.

[idle sierra]

I don't mind if it won't be solved in my lifetime, there's plenty of stuff to do before going ahead.

[thorny steeple]

it follows that we have always existed if it's proven so, but in reality, the opposite is true, however, if we settle on the existence of God then we also have to conclude that he always existed, and that he's eternal, otherwise, we'd be calling for infinite regression, which as I explained is impossible.

is necessarily impossible, not just impossible.

[thorny steeple]

good news, we're already there. 🎉

[idle sierra]

You mean it has to be impossible to make sense.

[thorny steeple]

xD

My issue with Kalam's cosmological argument is a simple one: it assumes everything must have a cause. It doesn't follow that just because everything we know of has a cause, the entire universe must therefore have a cause, let alone God. There's also Occam's Razor, as I mentioned. Trying to waive away cause and effect by saying, oh there was probably some incredibly complex being or entity which somehow created all the incredible complexity we see. It seems pretty weak. Not that Occam's Razor is always true, or that it's a given that it's always true.

For all we know, the multiverse hypothesis is actually true, and it turns out we're just a universe which spawned into being through some incredible series of events in whatever would be outside or between the universes, but then it gets potentially cyclical, because if we assume that as evidence that everything has a cause, then what about that which holds the universes? We just don't know. While that might imply that Kalam's view is valid, I think it just highlights our ignorance such that that variation of the cosmological argument is pretty much neutered.

[thorny steeple]

no, I mean it's impossible due to our existence, infinite regression requires a first event, you can easily see the contradiction here 'cause infinitey doesn't have a beginning, and therefore, it disproves itself primarily.

[stoic crystal]

there is no such thing as "impossible". There will always be a more than 0% chance that things will happen. It may be 0.00000000000000000000000001%, but impossibility as a concept is the only thing that is impossible

[thorny steeple]

prove it.

[stoic crystal]

For example, there is a more than 0% chance that your hand will fall through the table or bed or whatever you're resting your hands on right now. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen, but it might !

[idle sierra]

I'd creep out if my hands and the table decided that they'll leave enough space between their own atoms to let that happen...

[thorny steeple]

It's an unfalsifiable claim that nothing is impossible. To know what's impossible, we would probably need to know everything that is possible. It's illogical.

[narrow brook]

I don't know if that adds something to the conversation, but let's observe for a moment nature. Nature follows many proportions, paterns, math functions, laws and simetry, it works perfectly. How could center of a stupid large amount of mass and energy being expanded by an explosion could have created all of this paterns, laws, proportions and simetry.
Think for a moment:
What really are the chances of a huge explosion have created all of that paterns randomly?

[idle sierra]

"Perfectly" is a bit of an exaggeration tho...

[narrow brook]

Why?

[idle sierra]

Black holes, the Moon leaving the Earth, Earth having a tilted rotational point and also closing in on the Sun, the natural appearance of materials that ruin the atmosphere, changing magnetic fields, constantly changing orbital paths, black holes...

And black holes.

[stoic crystal]

See, that's my point there. We don't know what is impossible and possible, so the fact that our universe was created just out of pure coincidence, might as well be possible

[idle sierra]

You might say it works as it was supposed to, but to that I'll respond: it works.

[thorny steeple]

@stoic crystal Yes, it's possible.

I will never argue that creationism is impossible, because that would be illogical. Well, unless I were given sufficient evidence that it's impossible.

[stoic crystal]

same here. it's just...a different way of looking at the world. an unscientific one, yes, but it's still valid

[thorny steeple]

the causality is natural law that the almost everything in the universe follows, when we apply it, we apply it on the universe, it's a false assumption that we somehow apply it on something else, even though it still logically applicable on things beyond the universe.
Occam's Razor is an argument in favor of the existence of God essentially.

and with all due respect my friend, how have you ever ended up with the conclusion that the multiverse is true.

[stoic crystal]

if you say you like oranges, I can't say "well oranges are a hoax. oranges can't be proven" just because I have never seen an orange in my life. In the same vein, everything we talk about here, today, they are hypotheses

[thorny steeple]

it absolutely has no single valid scientific evidence to prove it, it's simply a hypothesis, and this is essentially the more complex alternative to the existence of God, really.

[idle sierra]

Exactly.

[thorny steeple]

I mean it goes against the Occam's Razor principle.

[thorny steeple]

yes, "accurate" is the proper term here, imprefection could be intentional, doesn't indicate in any way that God doesn't exist.

[thorny steeple]

Occam's Razor makes no sense with creationism, because it's about simplicity to complexity. An extraordinarily complex entity or being able to create the entire universe must, by my reasoning, quite obviously be more complex. Asserting that a God must have created us all, because of an observation we've seen in this tiny part of the observable universe we happen to have evolved in, is just as ridiculous as me asserting that the contrary is true. Regardless, by your own admission, "almost everything" works with Occam's Razor, but you're cherry-picking by devising a way the Occam's Razor supports creationism, yet disregarding the evidence to the contrary, which in this case, is the simplicity to complexity point of it.

[idle sierra]

I'll go back to observing mode, there's nothing I can add to the convo other than repeating that we know too little and we might be approaching from a wrong direction to begin with.

[stoic crystal]

^

[thorny steeple]

By the definitions I've heard of God, he is 'all-powerful', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', and 'omiprescient'. Definitionally, he is more complex.

[thorny steeple]

I actually have refuted such claims already, so I'll again point you out to my response, one sec.

@thorny steeple

I'm feeling like I'm repeating myself.

[idle sierra]

Too bad it goes against stuff we have scientifically proven.

[thorny steeple]

there is a reason why I stopped debating the existence of God with atheists, invincible ignorance fallacy.

(on the atheists end)

[idle sierra]

The thing is, I used to be Christian.

[thorny steeple]

ironically, I used to be an agnostic atheist.

[idle sierra]

Yup, saw when you mentioned it.

Having belief in someone who guides you through life isn't a bad thing and I don't ask you to abandon your faith. Just have enough respect for people with an equally valid opinion and don't imply people who don't agree with the statement that "the iPhone was created, thus the man was created by a god" are irrational while that begs the question of the existence of a creator behind said god.

[thorny steeple]

I could argue that the multiverse is more complex than God, it requires the existence of extra dimensions and other physical phenomena that are not directly observable, let alone that it does not have a single valid evidence for its validity.

"there are other proofs around you that certainly indicate an intelligent creator (such as the anatomy of the giraffe, which is incredible to say the least"

This is conveniently overlooking the obvious flaws in evolution. A giraffe's laryngeal nerve goes all the way down the neck, then loops back up. Utterly ridiculous. Evolution isn't about perfection though, it's about getting the job done such that something procreates per natural selection. This is not evidence of an intelligent creator at all. There are many things in evolution you can see which are really bizarre. Another one which comes to mind is an insect called 'Daddy-Long-Legs' over here, which apparently has a dangerous venom, but no fangs with which to distribute it. I mean, it won't take long to find many more examples of why evolution is imperfect; it certainly doesn't demonstrate an intelligent design. While I'm saying evolution, I am essentially referring to the same thing you are, but you're focusing on the result and calling creator.

Even our body has weird flaws. The same hole (our mouth) from which we breathe is also the mouth into which we place food.

[idle sierra]

The whole thing behind this ordeal is that no one knows, and so there is a room for possibility.

[stoic crystal]

In a space where there is nothing, there is the possibility for everything

[thorny steeple]

If you argue that anything is more complex than God, let alone more of what God made allegedly so effortlessly, aren't you simply undermining the power of God? You're saying that God is so almighty and powerful that he could create the entire universe with the click of his finger, yet creating more of them is just too much? Even to argue that something is too much for God diminishes his power. If anything, I feel like claiming something to that effect is moving the goalposts.

[idle sierra]

I'm glad you brought up my counter argument from when we discussed a certain topic last time

[thorny steeple]

"life relies on certain conditions to exist, these conditions are available on certain planets, which allow life to emerge"

A fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is the convenient omission of the following:

• We haven't found life anywhere else.
• We don't know what prompted abiogenesis
• We haven't even travelled outside of our solar system

Therefore, concluding God created us or that those things somehow provide proof to God's existence is invalid. You've essentially said maybe, maybe, maybe, therefore God, except you've done a sleight of hand by assuming them as concrete fact.

[idle sierra]

Is anyone up for discussing this topic? Sounds like something interesting could come out of it.

[stoic crystal]

i'd totally be willing!

But, I wonder what they meant by that question. Are they saying that once you're an adult, you should give your parents some of your money, or are they talking about while you're living in their household as a minor

[thorny steeple]

I'd be interested in that, too.

[idle sierra]

The way I understand it, the question is about taking care of your parents when they get old. We got something similar in my country and you can take people to court with it.

[thorny steeple]

Wow.

[stoic crystal]

ohhhhh. over here if you treat your children bad, when you're old and need caretaking, they send you to Baby Jail aka THE NURSING HOME

(i joke, mostly)

[idle sierra]

I don't think children should be obliged to take care of their parents, that's what the government supposedly issues money for in retirement. This will sound inhumane, but let's look at the child like an investment for a moment: you won't get a return if you don't take good care of it. Why should someone feed you if you treated them badly enough to make them ignore you?

[thorny steeple]

I'm not too familiar with this topic, as far as debating it goes, so this will be slightly out of my wheelhouse.

Some thoughts:

• What if the parents were abusive?
• What if the parents gave the children up for adoption?
• What if the parents are in prison?
• What if the children lack enough money?

[idle sierra]

I'm under the assumption that people would take care of their parents if they were treated well.

So it shouldn't be an obligation.

[stoic crystal]

Yup. Once my ma gets too weak to walk, I'll definitely put most of my time and effort into caring for her. But I couldn't say the same if i still lived with my biological mom.

I'd say it depends on the relationship you have with your parents, and how much time you have in your life to care for them

[idle sierra]

Exactly my point, this shouldn't be a thing they could fine or sentence you for.

[stoic crystal]

agreed

[idle sierra]

And on the other hand, the government was supposed to issue them money they paid to get back in retirement.

I don't know is there anything else I could add...

[stoic crystal]

yeah i don't think its a debate if we both agree with one another

[weak lance]

hello y'all

[idle sierra]

Hi there, interested in joining a short debate?

[weak lance]

hmmm

[idle sierra]

There's a huge problem right now: we actually agree.

[weak lance]

what's the problem?

[idle sierra]

We agree with one another.

[stoic crystal]

if there's no one on the other side of the debate it's just a normal conversation!

[weak lance]

what is the deabate about?

[idle sierra]

This.

[idle sierra]

And this is the direction we headed towards based on the question.

[weak lance]

hmmm i mean some parents "want" money from their childern

[idle sierra]

We're debating whether children are obliged to give said money or not, but "unfortunately" we have similar views.

[weak lance]

okay

in my eyes, all the childern could give some of their money, when they work, to their parents when they still live with the parents but it's still the parents choices and the childer/child has to be okay with that

[idle sierra]

I have an idea for a counter argument if you agree with us as well.

[weak lance]

just my opinion

(btw sorry if my english is a bit bad)

[idle sierra]

You made yourself clear dw

[weak lance]

okay good 😅

that's why i am here

[idle sierra]

So, back to my take on this:
While it shouldn't be an obligation, I think taking part in the household's finances is common courtesy. You aren't obliged to, but if you don't help in any way even though you could, you're a pretty nasty guy.

[weak lance]

but u live in the house from ur parents and u use water and power

[idle sierra]

My opinion greatly changes if said child could move out, but decides to stay: you're living in someone's home and if you use your position as leverage to avoid being thrown out, you're scummy.

[weak lance]

electricity*

[stoic crystal]

personally, my sister (who still lives at home despite being an adult) pays rent to my mom to help pay the bills. i feel like it's a common courtesy

[weak lance]

u say it

[stoic crystal]

crap do we all agree again

[idle sierra]

Okay, I could make a counter argument against my earlier statement if you also feel stuck.

[stoic crystal]

I will let you guys debate. I got some stuff to do that i totally forgot about. bye bye!!!

[idle sierra]

See you later then

[weak lance]

byee

[thorny steeple]

@thorny steeple I didn't see your messages saying I believe the multiverse hypothesis is true. I don't actually think it's true, because it's just a hypothesis, as you pointed out.

[visual blade]

What is the difference about?

[thorny steeple]

Anybody having Ielts in a week ?

[narrow brook]

explaining a problem to yourself doesn't get easier to understand and vizualizate the problem?

or I'm just weird

It just sounds weird but it kinda works

[thorny steeple]

yes, I'm intentionally neglecting such things, 'cause they simply don't exist, there are no evolution legacies, let's take the example you provided, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, it's assumed by many evolutionists that the fact it's looping under the aortic arch and the right subclavian artery and going all the way up to the larynx is in fact a bad design, and specifically by the joke Richard Dawkins that it's an evolution legacy, however, we must understand that the larynx don't directly attach to nerves coming from the brain, but rather, two nerves branching from the vagus nerve, this is an vital nerve that interfaces with the parasympathetic control of the heart, lungs, and the digestive tract, and provides sensory fibers, the funny thing though is that the first nerve which supplies the larynx, which is called the superior laryngeal nerve, is directly connected to the larynx, so there is already a nerve that is directly connected to the larynx, and the recurrent laryngeal nerve which goes all the way down and gives cardiac branches to the deep cardiac plexus, and branch to the trachea, esophagus and the inferior constrictor muscles, so my question here to you, what would happen if you cut off these branches that connect to various organs?
fun fact: did you know that the exact looping laryngeal nerve exists in camels, okapis, humans etc.. Lol, what a coincidence that it takes the same route in all of these species, yet it's totally inefficient and doesn't serve a purpose. xD
check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

[thorny steeple]

Daddy-Long-Legs don't possess any venom essentially, let alone possessing a dangerous venom, and yes they also don't have venom glands and fangs, they are different than venomous spiders, it's a myth carried by many people on the internet.
https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology/arachnology-and-entomology/spider-myths/myth-daddy-longlegs-would
https://spiders.ucr.edu/daddy-long-legs
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/daddy-long-legs-truth-myth-misnomer-spider/102784822

[thorny steeple]

your last point about the mouth breathing and eating at the same time, reminds me of list of vestigial organs composed by Robert Wiedersheim, when he mentioned many of now known very vital organs in this list, Lol, these things really turn into arguments against evolution day after day, he mentioned Pituitary gland, which he didn't know at the time it was like the button that produces most of the bodily hormones required for various organs. xD

[thorny steeple]

now for how wonderful the giraffe's neck is designed, let's ignore any accurately designed system and focus only on how its heart pumps its brain with blood, despite it's very long neck, this requires its heart to be so strong in order to pump blood all the way up against gravity, which is true, its heart weigh more than 11 KG, it's also 60 CM tall and is very thick, therefore, it intensively pumps blood to the brain, now what happens when the giraffe lays its head down to drink from a lake? now the heart works with the gravity, the blood pressure should be extremely intensive that it explodes its veins, which is not the case due to many systems, first the giraffes intricate valves in its jugular veins help control blood flow and slows it down, but that is not enough, the blood pressure even after being reduced is able to cause the small arteries connected to the brain to explode, here a network of blood vessels that works similar to a sponge comes into play, which absorbs the pressure and gently distribute the blood in the giraffe's brain, it's called "rete mirabile", and also known as the wonderful network, as I said earlier, it's truly wonderful, let's stop it here so that we don't over complicate stuff, now I want you to tell me how many fossils of failed samples required to produce such interdependent systems like these out of mere random mutations and blind natural selection, billions of transitional fossils should be everywhere, although it's not the case, imagine the same exact process occurs for the female giraffe as well, now imagine billions of different species having to go through billions of years of evolution, with billions of transitional fossils, incredible isn't it?

I hope you now understand that the burden of proof essentially lies upon you to explain how evolution could cause these accurate systems while being threatened by the challenges I provided, at the same time, I hope you understand that it's not right to deny the efficiency of certain systems simply because we don't yet know what purpose they serve.

I'm incredibly sorry for this whole wall of text, but really a claim could be made that requires books of responses in order to explain why is it problematic despite being plausible at first glance.

[thorny steeple]

I don't know what you meant here then. 🤷‍♂️

[hot galleon]

Thanks for this laughing

[hot galleon]

YESSSS !!!!!!!!!

That's so true

Believers prefer to get response with their gods instead of research the real cause

[thorny steeple]

wow! you're that guy whom I destroyed his claims once, Lol, welcome back from the dead.

@craggy sphinx @humble lion
guys, do you remember this guy? xD
he came back, but jeez, with no single response to the main argument, Lol, such a disappointment frankly.

[hot galleon]

I'm gonna to sleep so I don't have time to answer

[hot galleon]

Lol, I'm a life, do you think it's important for me to answer of your message instead of my life?

[thorny steeple]

How Works the economy in Gaza, If them import food,clothes and others thing what them export?

[hot galleon]

I'm student in higher education...

So I have to work hard

[thorny steeple]

Rich

[thorny steeple]

No rich

[hot galleon]

No In France it's free

[thorny steeple]

sure, but you have time to mock my arguments, as I said, disappointment.

[hot galleon]

So good night, I already answered to your ridiculous message

[thorny steeple]

In Brazil you need do a test to take a loan with the governament that in theory you will pay this when you can take a job

[thorny steeple]

aha, that's a very good excuse, you have the time to make ridiculous claims and not to defend your blind faith.

[hot galleon]

You said the same things lmao

[thorny steeple]

Reality: You can't take a job and now you have a debt with the governament later of a Lot of study

[thorny steeple]

oh, I get it, this is the best you can respond with, no wonder you can't comprehend such sophisticated arguments.

Thank you by ignore me , I like when people do it

[thorny steeple]

sorry bro, that other guy really gets on my nerves. 😅

[thorny steeple]

No you, him

[thorny steeple]

I see.

[hot galleon]

I didn't ignore your message

I read that

[thorny steeple]

😄

You're cool

[hot galleon]

You too

[thorny steeple]

I discovered that "cool" too exist in french

[hot galleon]

Yes, there are a lot of word in French wiches the same spelling and meaning in English

[thorny steeple]

I Saw this word in français in a random channel in TV XD

It was a film in french with subtitle

[hot galleon]

For an English native speaker, French is probably one of the most easy language to learn

[hot galleon]

What was the film ?

[thorny steeple]

But instead is hard

[thorny steeple]

I don't know ;-; was a child with your mom

[hot galleon]

Yes , but it's easy when you compare to Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arabic etc.

[thorny steeple]

I speak portuguese and English is a shit to learn, when I speak in english the people say that my english isn't clean

[hot galleon]

His mom*👍

[hot galleon]

Oh ! Good luck for your learning

[verbal nymph]

Same here

[thorny steeple]

why the system of numbers in français is so stranger?

[hot galleon]

I don't knoww but I agree that's number in French is stranger

[verbal nymph]

English its not that hard, but the pronunciation sucks sometimes

[hot galleon]

97 in French is four twenty ten seven...

[verbal nymph]

Wait what?

[thorny steeple]

In français use the system Sixth decimal

[hot galleon]

Yes it's true lol

[verbal nymph]

How

[hot galleon]

I don't know

[verbal nymph]

I still dont get it

Why they use a different decimal system?

[hot galleon]

78 is sixty ten eight...

[thorny steeple]

A français saw a English using the system decimal and say I don't will use the same system of a English, yuck

[verbal nymph]

DUDE

Lmao

[hot galleon]

Are you LGBT ? I support LGBT 💪

[verbal nymph]

Yep i am

[hot galleon]

Courage for the discrimination in the world

Personally I'm not LGBT but I support it

It's so sad that people was discriminate for their sexual orientation

[thorny steeple]

I only don`t care

[verbal nymph]

I think thats better

That thing about "courage" its weird

But the supports its aways good

[hot galleon]

Yes but don't discriminate they please

[hot galleon]

Violence against the LGBT it's hard

[verbal nymph]

In brazil its not

Just old people that keeps saying about god and stuff in the holy bible

[hot galleon]

There are countries that sentence LGBT to death penalty

Did you know that ?

[verbal nymph]

Ik

[hot galleon]

Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of people whose cause violence against LGBT even the country authorize to be LGBT

In France for example

[thorny steeple]

because them don`t want that you go to the hell

[verbal nymph]

I don't understand this, its my choice and that doesn't affect other people

[hot galleon]

Yes and you're not necessary believe in God.

[verbal nymph]

Violence against me because of this?

[hot galleon]

Religion caused the LGBT hating

[verbal nymph]

I dont believe in it

[hot galleon]

Me too

[hot galleon]

That's the fact which is a small talk

It's one of the principal reason of my Islam leaved

[thorny steeple]

No, the people do it

[hot galleon]

The people just obey to the religious texts

[thorny steeple]

if you can found a sentence that say

[hot galleon]

What's religion do you believe?

[verbal nymph]

🤝

[thorny steeple]

he said about the holy bible, and the bible say that who is it go to hell and nothing more

[hot galleon]

I didn't read bible, so I can't found the text, I just read the Coran

But I already hear people who complained about the homophobia in Christianism

[verbal nymph]

it is about the world creation, thats they args

"And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them."

[thorny steeple]

not is homophobia because the logic of bible is that god created the human to be a family and who is against the family is away from the god and when do it you go to the hell

[verbal nymph]

exacly

but its different in every religion

thats why i keep myself away from it

[hot galleon]

"who it go to hell and nothing more",
Nothing more ?! Hell it's the worst thing that a human can undergoes

[verbal nymph]

lets stop talking about religion please

[hot galleon]

For me God isn't exist cause of this reason

Okay sorry

I just want to understand the thinking of people about believe

[thorny steeple]

yes, but in theory you chose stay away from god

[verbal nymph]

so, what u guys doing rn?

[thorny steeple]

Because the holy bible is being telling since of the first humans

The god sent your own son to pay the sin

@hot galleon are you french, right?

[devout shale]

lol

Nice joke

[open plover]

A lot

[verbal nymph]

Wdym?

[open plover]

lots of stuff

[jolly agate]

what is hell??

does it even exist

[lusty zenith]

Going to hell is the worst? Have you ever gone to work

[craggy sphinx]

?

hello beings of the highest light

[ebon pelican]

In this community, I've observed that many engage in religious debates, which is absolutely fine—there's no harm or negativity in that. However, since the main goal of this server is to improve our English language skills, we should be mindful when discussing sensitive topics. If we engage in discussions on sensitive topics like religious debates, we need to be considerate of certain things. While it's your right to express your opinions, it's essential to keep in mind that we cannot force others to believe what we believe. Therefore, if a religious debate arises, let's focus on reaching a constructive conclusion rather than engaging in conflict. Both sides should strive to extract something positive, and in handling negative aspects, show respect and gracefully express disagreement, avoiding any form of hostility towards others.

[jolly agate]

my man raised from the ashes

[idle sierra]

I was the one who naively suggested it, so I'm willing to take responsibility.

[lusty zenith]

What would #🧠｜serious-chat be without people arguing about politics or religions every 2 days

[jolly agate]

hello beutifull soles who have yet to eat the fruit of death.

[idle sierra]

Hi there

Death, you say? Guess it's time to argue about death then.

[jolly agate]

what even is their to argue about

its inevitable

[idle sierra]

Its nature, I guess? Whether you should fear or embrace it.

[jolly agate]

it dosent matter weather you fear or not

[idle sierra]

I'm a little in-between because dropping dead would make me unable to continue my work.

But then again, it's inevitable, so why bother?

[jolly agate]

death is the pinnacle peace for oneself

[idle sierra]

That's the thing, death itself isn't what makes it menacing imo, it's the fact that you could be having the project of your life (I like writing and it takes a lot of time), but it could be stripped away because papa reaper came knocking one month early.

[jolly agate]

well it is what it is

btw is everything a choice

[idle sierra]

From this "writer's standpoint", even though my life reaches a closure, the characters I poured days, months into creating and developed care for won't get their ending.

[jolly agate]

that will simply become your legacy

[jolly agate]

i may be weong

[idle sierra]

You're right about that, but it doesn't solve the problem.

[jolly agate]

cause its your work, some one else cant produce exact same quality as yours

unless

[idle sierra]

That's why I'd be torn were I to leave my characters without an ending.

[jolly agate]

you Reincarnated

[jolly agate]

you would not

you would be dead

[idle sierra]

Well, in a practical viewpoint I'd be too dead to care, but I do right now.

[jolly agate]

why worry, when you know its bound to happen

[idle sierra]

It doesn't mean I have a constant fear of death though, I just prefer seeing what I started to the end.

[lusty zenith]

Sorry for interrupting @idle sierra I have something I want to talk to you about if you don't mind. Friend request sent

[idle sierra]

Sure, I'll read it in a couple of minutes, gotta get ready for the day, so if you two will excuse me...

[jolly agate]

you are excused

[idle sierra]

Thank you very much

[jolly agate]

have a good 24 hours

[thorny steeple]

What do.you think about Max Stirner

[idle sierra]

I'll do you one better: have a good 25 hours!

I'm not sure I got the right idiom, but let's just ignore that for now-

[worn pond]

Hello

What's "I'll make it up to you" mean?

[thorny steeple]

who?

[worn pond]

Thx dude 🤣

[crude glade]

@simple grove
Hello
How political can we get in the chats?

[maiden path]

what isTeam Delusional @crude glade @thorny steeple

[thorny steeple]

probably just not make the discussions heated

[thorny steeple]

?define delusional

[cursive bobcat]

Word: delusional

Definition (adjective): suffering from or characterized by delusions

Definition requested by dragon67667

[thorny steeple]

?define delusions

[cursive bobcat]

Word: delusions

Definition 1 (noun): (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
Definition 2 (noun): a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
Definition 3 (noun): the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas

Other definitions can be found here

Definition requested by dragon67667

[thorny steeple]

i hope now u know what is team delusional

[maiden path]

i know it now, i just don't understand why they are called like this

[thorny steeple]

dunno that

[craggy sphinx]

?define God

[cursive bobcat]

Word: God

Definition 1 (noun): a material effigy that is worshipped
Definition 2 (noun): any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
Definition 3 (noun): the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

Other definitions can be found here

Definition requested by eisanse

[craggy sphinx]

yes , the third option is better

[toxic jay]

for those who want to practice English, go to the left side menu - Events (Above announcements and server shop)- click on Events and you will see activity start in 10 minutes, you can attend as a speaker or listener

[prisma torrent]

?define space

[cursive bobcat]

Word: space

Definition 1 (noun): (printing) a block of type without a raised letter; used for spacing between words or sentences
Definition 2 (noun): the unlimited expanse in which everything is located
Definition 3 (noun): the interval between two times

Other definitions can be found here

Definition requested by leomax0

[hot galleon]

There isn't have a unanimous definition of God, that's the real problem

[jolly agate]

?define world

[cursive bobcat]

Word: world

Definition 1 (noun): people in general; especially a distinctive group of people with some shared interest
Definition 2 (noun): people in general considered as a whole
Definition 3 (noun): all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you

Other definitions can be found here

Definition requested by goodsgood

[craggy sphinx]

Why ?
everyone agrees that God is the highest and perfect form.

[jolly agate]

he was just checking the bot

[craggy sphinx]

unlike us, he never makes mistakes

[craggy sphinx]

in definitions of god now

[hot galleon]

Now For Exemple for Spinoza God is Natur, for Einstein God is the lake of knowledge, and for Christian or Muslim for example isn't the same God, God in Christianism have a kid, contrary to Islam

There are a lot of exemple

For deist God doesn't have religion

[craggy sphinx]

I'm talking about God as a being

not about divisions of opinion

[hot galleon]

For Spinoza God isn't a being

For Einstein too

[craggy sphinx]

maybe

[hot galleon]

And a lot of people condiser god like a spirit

So there isn't an accurate definition of God

[jolly agate]

all if them could be a part of the one god. just in different form

[craggy sphinx]

yes, it's possible.

but I'm talking about the common definition of this . what is popular now

[hot galleon]

If I say God loves LGBT do you agree with that ?

[hot galleon]

Yeah I see

[craggy sphinx]

maybe, how do you know that this is not so?

[hot galleon]

I can refers to the religious texts, but I agree nobody know what's god want, in the same religion, text is not a common understanding, there are many movement in the same religion

In France there are Imams who support LGBT

[jolly agate]

dont care.

are you saying like he loves lgbtq more then the normal human being as an exanple

[ebon pelican]

Wait what

[hot galleon]

Isn't a joke

[jolly agate]

how did the god know lbgtq exist

[hot galleon]

It is real I can send you a video

[ebon pelican]

Sure send it

[hot galleon]

https://youtu.be/-AuHvu9pyl0?feature=shared

[hot galleon]

God in monotheistic religion is omnipotent and omniscient

[jolly agate]

bruh do u even understand that

[hot galleon]

Yeah, so there isn't a same understanding even in the same religion

That's my point

[jolly agate]

just because we do not have the same understanding, it does not mean that theyy all cant be one. we just dont know enough.

[ebon pelican]

I want to convey a collective perspective from all. In every religion, whether someone is an imam, a priest, or any religious figure, they might have their personal beliefs. You can't judge an entire religion, or God, based on the views of few individuals.

It's a personal choice or what ever u can say. If you ask all the imams in the world, they might say this person has gone mad.

As Muslims, we don't hate LGBTQ people. We dislike the sin, not the sinner. Our religion may categorize such activities as sins, but it doesn't mean if someone is gay or lesbian, we should start hating them. If someone commits a sin, we dislike the sin, not the sinner. So, I've expressed my opinion; you can agree or disagree with it.

[hot galleon]

I'm not agree with that because you cannot say homosexuality is a sin, it's like you saying "we hate the sin of being black people" that's absurd, because black people like homosexuality isn't a choice, for exemple you don't choose to love someone that's a natural reaction.
So I disagree with God to consider homosexuality is a sin

You can agree or disagree with it

[craggy sphinx]

don't have to agree or disagree

[ebon pelican]

What I've told you about (sin ) is not my personal opinion; it's written in our religion, in our book. If Islam prohibits something, I've just conveyed that to you.

The rest of what you're contemplating is your own perspective. It's possible that what you're thinking is good for you based on your beliefs, and what I'm thinking is good for me based on my beliefs. I'm adding you to my friends' list. We can discuss this topic in detail if you're interested.

[maiden path]

thx for removing one of the millions of misunderstandings about Islam

[craggy sphinx]

what to do if you are too lazy to do useful things?

[jolly agate]

have fun my friend

if you too lazy to useful things. then have fun, being lazy.

[crude glade]

Read event chat

[craggy sphinx]

lol

[thorny steeple]

I know that we haven't had conversations that much, but you're already one of the people I like the most in this server, so let me advise you, some people will just mock your religion for the sake of it, they don't wanna be convinced, they'll use logical fallacies, they'll be intellectually dishonest, and might even deceive you , so be careful of the guy you're referring to, I've already sensed ignorance and arrogance in him, and finally I wish you all the best. 🤍

[ebon pelican]

Thank you so much brother for the compliment, tbh I'm here to improve my explanation skills . I just try to criticize in a manner that, despite any disagreements, the person doesn't feel offended by my words.

[craggy sphinx]

what guy

criticize my ideas, I will be only glad

[thorny steeple]

the Ryad guy.

[thorny steeple]

what?

[craggy sphinx]

it is the engine of progress

[thorny steeple]

İs there any argentinian in here? what do you think about your last elections results?

[thorny steeple]

agreed.

[neon gorge]

hello guys

[thorny steeple]

Hi

[neon gorge]

how yall doing

[thorny steeple]

Good and you

[neon gorge]

im doing great

[thorny steeple]

Nice to hear that

[craggy sphinx]

hello

[neon gorge]

hello

[thorny steeple]

I feel that publicly attacking a person's character is in poor taste and not conducive to an open and respectful discussion or debate. While I agree that some people will mock religion for the sake of it, it doesn't follow that someone who disagrees with your view or who criticises and points out flaws in reasoning is simply mocking your religion for the sake of it.

Ignoring evidence or valid logical arguments contrary to your belief in favor of your own arguments for your belief, is a common form of cognitive bias, called confirmation bias (AKA: cherry-picking), although it is understandable, especially when dealing with a core belief (e.g., "I am pious" / "I am a good person"). You kindly said to me once that I had your respect, because I'm open to other views, provided the logic and reasoning is sound; perhaps you can find this openness in yourself and reflect earnestly on the validity and soundness and strength of your own arguments.

Regarding our recent discussion on religion and creationism, I apologise if I had been too aggressive in my argumentation — I was tired and admittedly perhaps a bit too blunt. I've heard so many arguments for and against these things, good and bad, that I was likely just going through the motions, so perhaps I had forgotten that I was interacting with someone with deep, personal beliefs. I should've perhaps been more charitable. However, I endeavored to address your arguments, not your character.

I'll leave it there, but I hope you take this message in the good faith it was intended. 🙂

[thorny steeple]

Dear OSM, I apologize for any offense my previous statement about "some people will mock your religion for the sake of it" may have caused. It was not directed at you, and I hold you in high esteem. I appreciate your advice and my positive opinion of you remains unchanged. However, I find Ryad's constant mockery of my arguments to be disrespectful and lacking in intellectual merit. A review of the chat will reveal that he offers no constructive criticism, only personal attacks. I hope you can understand my frustration. If my words have caused you any annoyance or bother, I sincerely apologize.

[thorny steeple]

Greatly appreciated. 🙂

[craggy sphinx]

I remember one guy told me: Why did God create time if many Muslims do not have time to perform prayer on time?

damn

[normal dune]

Hi guys

[craggy sphinx]

hello

[craggy sphinx]

WELCOME

[thorny steeple]

hello lads and lassies

[thorny steeple]

is not a joke clown

[tawny shore]

Hola

[ornate siren]

He's a native

You haven't seen anything yet.

[civic vessel]

Do we say thoroughbred only in regard to horses? Or it's as good to any pets?