|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 12, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I told her about the limit not because I think it's the same, JJ  Only to ask why do we put a line exactly there... and how people can feel about it. The girl was convinced it's her problem only. I tried to explain to her that her partner has the right to feel... you know, unwanted. Thus it's not "just her" problem. She enforces a rule, after all - those things never work well, because if there is no room for compromise, there's no room for mutual acceptation.
I disagree. That's how she is. If her boyfriend doesn't like it, why is he with her?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:04 PM |
|
|
@Death
That would mean FIRST there was that ball of everything - THEN dark matter/energy somehow streaked in from somewhere ELSE into something that wasn't there?
@ Doomforge
I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with a girl drawing a line - for whatever reason - where she wants. If she doesn't want to lose her virginity "just so": it's HER virginity and it's her right to keep it as long as she wants.
Of course, she may not find someone who wants to marry her for the privilege to take it; that's her problem.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That would mean FIRST there was that ball of everything - THEN dark matter/energy somehow streaked in from somewhere ELSE into something that wasn't there?
Yes of course both scenarios need a cause for it to happen, I'm only saying that the thing that THEN happened may not be a, let's say, small amount of matter to make it unstable and into an explosion. It could have been dark matter directly "inserted" or something.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:26 PM |
|
|
Who created God? Where did the dinosaurs come from? 
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:28 PM |
|
|
|
Yeah, well, I do not believe in that black hole and a bang anyway. Think ANTI-matter. Where was that - must have been there. Two bangs? Nonsense. It just doesn't make any sense at all.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:30 PM |
|
|
Big Bang created both matter and anti-matter 
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, well, I do not believe in that black hole and a bang anyway. Think ANTI-matter. Where was that - must have been there. Two bangs? Nonsense. It just doesn't make any sense at all.
Wasn't it more like no matter, pure energy on a very low scale of room and then matter + anti matter came forward, so there should be 50/50 in matter and anti matter in the universe.
Or maybe I'm confusing it with something. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I disagree. That's how she is. If her boyfriend doesn't like it, why is he with her?
You see, if you meet a great person, and there is one thing you absolutely hate in him/her, and he/she completely doesn't want to change... should you dump him/her because of it, disregarding a big pack of great things about him/her? Seems lame, actually.
But, what then? Accept it? It still stings, you know. That's why people "invented" compromise: A chance for two people to "fit" perfectly is not existent. Thus, if we want to enjoy relationships, we should work around those incompatibilities. I think.
That way, we can bring what we don't like in each other to acceptable level without any of the sides "giving in" and becoming what the other side wants it to be totally - while still enjoying what we like in our relationship.
Sex is easy to discard for you, my friend, cause you are asexual - but trust me, it's different when you actually have high libido and have to suffer resisting the urges indefinitely. It IS a torture, and you can call people suffering because of it primitive, unable to control themselves or addicted, but that's just how it works. I went all the way down from sex-machine to near-asexual stadium I'm in now and I must say, I know how it works for both kinds of people: those who care and those who don't.
But, do you?
JJ:
It's not about "here and now". It's "not until the marriage" dilemma.
It's problematic because:
a) the paper doesn't change a damn thing in FEELINGS, which are the base of intimacy
b) Lack of compatibility may show up AFTER marriage, when it's too late to change things, unless you want to have a divorce because of lack of sexual compatibility (lame. So you have to get pathethic sex for the rest of your life or cheat. Horrible choice, I must say - for one that cares about sex much)
c) shows absolute disregard for compromises. It just doesn't seem good - as I mentioned in my reply to TheDeath, people (imho ofc) SHOULD compromise a lot - otherwise they just stick to their egos or retreat to their "nobody understands me" teen drama shell, while a solid solution involving the good of BOTH sides is usually easy to get.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:37 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:42, 12 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
so there should be 50/50 in matter and anti matter in the universe.
But most observations say there isn't. Of course it's really hard to see whether a galaxy is made of matter or anti-matter since if they don't collide, they exhibit the very same properties.
@Doomforge: "lame"? How is it lame that you have your own principles? If you really don't want it, and she wants to keep them (principles), why are you with her? If this is a thing she cares for, then I think the boyfriend found the wrong person.
For example, if I met a drunk girl, I could convince her to stop drinking, but if it doesn't work, I'm not gonna call her "lame", it's her life. (well actually I would call it something else b/c alcohol & drugs alters your brain, but other things don't)
Compromises are good but there's some things that you just have to accept, because it may be strongly for that other person. Imagine a thief even telling her girl to help him steal. Is that a "compromise" she has to make? Where do you draw the line?
It's her principles and she feels strongly about it. She's not egoistical at all, since it's her life, she didn't MANIPULATE you or anything, it's you who does it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:51 PM |
|
|
Hey, I'm not interested in her.
But keep in mind that it isn't something that people discuss on their first meeting.
Sometimes, it just pops out when people are already in deep fascination.
Besides, don't forget that it doesn't hurt you, destroy your body or health, make other people suffer... so all drug, drinking or stealing examples are completely unrelated. It's like when somebody asks you to cut the hair on your butt. Will you defend it "because it's your principle"? Go ahead... You're of course allowed to do so. But why? Why to fight for every single "principle" like that? I thought principles refer to morality. How is sex between people who love each other (or are fascinated by each other, whatever) any harmful?
It is not. No more BAD examples please.
Hey, you're biased, mate, by the way. We all know what do you think about sex. You WILL defend all ways of asexuality because that's the way you think )
But, leave the bias and give me an answer based on the, well, hair on the butt instead of sex. Is this "compromise" acceptable or should you dump the person because he refuses to cut the hair on his butt?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:55 PM |
|
|
You tell me I'm biased when you can't accept that she doesn't think like you do?
How am I supposed to answer questions of principles without "being biased"? (since you asked me)
You don't consider cutting your butt hair a big deal, someone might consider it important or "silly". Who's biased here? Unless you say everyone is biased...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 10:29 PM |
|
|
It's extremely obvious you are biased since it's long time since you started posting how useless, redundant and disgusting sex is.
How am I supposed to believe you are going to be objective in your reply knowing that, lol.
That's why I suggest something neutral. But we're straying off-topic here, let's wait for Elodin, since it's the religious approach towards premarital sex I want to discuss - and towards sex in general.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's extremely obvious you are biased since it's long time since you started posting how useless, redundant and disgusting sex is.
How am I supposed to believe you are going to be objective in your reply knowing that, lol.
I could ask you the same thing. If I am biased, what's the unbiased position? (and why)
And even with that I don't see what it has to do with her and her principles. People aren't defined by being objective, otherwise we would all be the same, holding "neutral" viewpoints (if they even exist).
What bugs me here is that you call her selfish for being herself. That's a pretty bad thing to say. I think it's more like you being selfish for wanting her to change for you. Plus maybe she is not interested in someone who wants to change her, for instance. Is she selfish? Far-fetched to say that IMO.
And I think I'm not biased at all, because I gave plenty of reasons for all I said (in other threads). Proper argumentative reasons instead of "feels good man".
Those without arguments and biased would be religious people, for instance -- how would you call them, if I am biased?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 10:39 PM |
|
|
I will answer tomorrow in my dilemma thread, k?
Let's leave this thread for discussions about religion.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2009 12:22 PM |
|
|
Doom, it's not about reason. I agree that it makes a lot of sense to check sexual compatibility BEFORE engaging in a marriage that is supposed to last a lifetime.
But since when was religion about reason? And since we are at it, since when are acting people exclusively reasonable? Acting on emotions isn't that reasonable either.
Persuading a religious person to do something which is against her religion will likely lead to her having a bad conscience and feeling guilt. Think about the responsibility you take. If you persuade her that going as a virgin into marriage is foolish and she then does something that will go badly, you are responsible. Think about that. You can't just go ahead, "destroy" part of the beliefs of a person and then wash it off, if things take a bad turn.
So be careful. Telling her what she does would be egoistic, will fight fire with fire, guilt with guilt. That can't be right
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 13, 2009 12:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So be careful. Telling her what she does would be egoistic, will fight fire with fire, guilt with guilt. That can't be right
Not that I dont agree, because I do, but couldn't the last part I quote not also be interpetated as you should never talk in a language the opposite part is using, if you disagree with this langauge in the first place, but wouldn't that do more damage than good?
What I'm saying is, if you use the rules constructed by what you oppose to show a reason to oppose that of which you oppose, then you're talking a language that those who follow what you oppose actually can understand.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2009 01:08 PM |
|
|
Depends on the language. If the language is based on facts and reason, all is well.
If the language is based on, let's call it for simplicity's sake "brain-washing" (and Elodin, don't bother - I mean this in a very general sense), it gets more difficult.
Again, very generally spoken, things you learn as a child on the foundation of, let's call the authority of an über-father, that get anchored with the threat of a very grave penalty, cannot be removed so easily. If you - instead removing them - try to counteract them with something working on the same level, one will tear the person to one side, the other side into the opposite direction, and that may result in serious damage to the person.
In this case there is another point to consider, though.
I don't think that it is WRONG if someone believes in the one true love that will reveal itself, where everything will be alright and they will both feel it without the necessity to check. This is a belief that no one hurts - after all such a person will have to find someone first a) that raises such a feeling in her and b) is willing to marry her just like that.
I don't think there's anything worse than those religiously raised girls who DO half-heartedly act against what has been hammered into them, for example because they DO feel bad about showing the nice guy away so often, and end up being pregnant, left, unhappy and so on.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 14, 2009 06:22 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 06:25, 14 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Certainly Davies did not use the word "thermodynamics" but that was clearly the basis of his argument and I have quoted others who did use the "magic word" thermodynamics.
Not so clearly, in fact.
...still waiting...
...waiting...
I repeat, you seem to have a reading problem or a lying problem. Show me where I said the Big Bang theory is flawed. Since you continue to say you are "waiting" for me to back up a cliam I did not make I surmise it is a lying problem.
And any student who has taken a high school science course can see Davies was using thermodynamics to back up his claim. Others I quoted did use the magic "thermodynamics" word. I take it you have nothing else to put forward in the discussion.
@mvassilev
Rather than just posting a link perhaps you could sumarize what in the study says the universe will stop its expansion, collaps3 into a little ball of energy and result in another Big Bang.
Quote:
well, anyway - Since Elodin is die-hard Christian (Catholic?), I'd like to hear WHY exactly sex before marriage is such a big deal for die-hard catholics.
Premaritial sex is sin and is unwise. No, I'm not Catholic. Both the Old and New Testament forbid sex before marriage.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 14, 2009 07:36 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 07:41, 14 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
And any student who has taken a high school science course can see Davies was using thermodynamics to back up his claim. Others I quoted did use the magic "thermodynamics" word. I take it you have nothing else to put forward in the discussion.
Nope, not until you provide me with a legit cosmologist who actually says something about thermodynamics "proving" god.
Let's review your original statement. It was:
Quote:
Oh, there are a lot of scientist who do believe in God and who do point to the laws of thermodynamics.
I asked for a cosmologist or astrophysicist who points to the laws of thermodynamics to support the notion that god, and not some natural mechanism, was responsible for the "beginning" of the known universe (whatever "beginning" means).
Let's now review the ones you provided, shall we?
Paul Davies (astrophysicist)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe" astrophysicist Paul Davies; Superforce (1984)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davies is, actually, a legit astrophysicist. And it is clear from this statement (presuming he made it) that he believes in God and that God is responsible for the creation of the universe and its laws. No dispute there. His belief stems from what he says is the "simplicity and elegance and beauty" of the equations of physics. Fine. Not a reason I, personally, would leap to a supernatural conclusion, but whatever. Still, he doesn't say anything specific about thermodynamics: he refers to all equations of physics, which would of course include thermodynamical ones, as being beautiful and elegant. But he certainly doesn't say anything about the specific content of the equations, such as, for instance, entropy. Nor does he say anything about "something coming from nothing", your own favorite catchphrase. His point, which is pretty clear, is that he finds the equations of physics so beautiful, that he feels only God could have created them. It's an aesthetic judgement, not a scientific one. Can't argue with it, but it's not what I was asking for. [THe second Davies quote is much the same.]
Next.
Quote:
Lord Kelvin
1824-1907 (William Thomson) British physicist; helped lay the foundations of thermodynamics.First and second laws of thermodynamics. Absolute temp scale. Trans-Atlantic cable.)
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism."
Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.
Anything Lord Kelvin thought is hardly relevant. Our understanding of physics, and thermodynamics in particular, has increased a billionfold since he died. QUantum theory and relativity weren't even born yet.
Even so, all his quote says is that the more we know of science, the more he is convinced that God exists. Where's the thermodynamics? Hmmm...
Next.
Quote:
Sir Fred Hoyle (Astrophysicist) (
Fred Hoyle is famous for rejecting the Big Bang theory (in fact, he coined the phrase "Big Bang", using it in sort of a derisive fashion; ironic that the name stuck). That's not a reason to condemn a man, if the rejection is done on scientific grounds. The quote is a bunch of gibberish in any case and I don't agree with a word of it, but that's beside the point. It has nothing to do with thermodynamics at all.
Next.
Quote:
George Smoot (COBE Project Leader, astrophysisist):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding recent COBE findings: “‘What we found is evidence for the birth of the universe.’ He added, ‘It’s like looking at God’”9 and, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another quote that doesn't mention anything about thermodynamics.
All I really see here is evidence that there are some physicists who are also religious. I've not disputed that. I want to see an astrophysicist who thinks that the laws of thermodynamics specifically leads to the indisputable conclusion that God exists and He created the universe, and that that conclusion is made on scientific (and not, say, aesthetic) grounds. That is, a "gee the laws of thermodynamics sure are pretty, therefore only god could have created them" isn't really that compelling.
Well, I didn't see anything in those about thermodynamics the first time around, and I said as much, after which you posted a few more quotes. This time, two of them were from mechanical engineers and one whom you claimed was a physicst but actually turned out to be a priest and expert in business ethics. The misrepresentation of Dr. Spitzer as a physicist was just straight up intellectual dishonesty - doesn't matter whether you made the original claim or not. You post something, you take responsibility for its authenticity. I can't help it if you are too damn lazy to check the accuracy of your own sources, and really, that should tell you something about the kind of websites at which you are getting your information. Lucky for me that I check into the validity of what other people post. As for the mechanical engineers - I have nothing against mechanical engineers, but I specifically asked for a cosmologist or astrophysicist. Mechanical engineers may be experts in Newtonian (classical) thermodynamics, but that's not really relevant to a cosmological system. I can tell you that the laws of thermodynamics are quite a bit more complex at the quantum level than in classical systems (but I'm sure you know that, being an expert in thermodynamics, right?), and so they are at the relativistic level as well. So no, while a mechanical engineer may be able to enlighten usu on how the second law applies to a heat pump, I'm not really that interested in their opinion on the second law's application to a quantum singularity.
So.
...still waiting...
(And I guess I will be for a long time. Wake me when you come up with something convincing.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted November 14, 2009 08:48 AM |
|
|
Ok, guys, it might seem that I drive the conversation elsewhere, but I honestly do *not* understand why there are specifically so many christian schools and especially christian colleges around in US. I do not have the slightest reasonable explanation.
What is more striking, is that in the advertisements they say something along the lines: come to us and we will teach you the subjects you want to learn the christian way. Am I the only one who is thinking what is wrong with these people ? I mean seriously, let's say you want to teach cs, philosophy, physics, literature, you name it, to somebody. How ... *on earth*  has this anything to do with religion ? These guys should be locked up and medicated. And what is more striking is that clearly all these christian (or "christian", whatever ...) institutions actually have customers; the proof is that they survive and actually seem to be doing quite well financially.
Finally, if you feel like answering Elodin, have you had pre-marital sex, assuming that you are married ? If you are not, have you sinned this way ? I certainly have, and I don't regret it. Well ... may be for some of the times, but for entirely different reasons ...
____________
The empty set
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
