How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Provide proof and evidence.

 

Right, because it is an unfalsifiable belief.

 

Wow.

 

You can't prove something does not exist.

 

Yep, that's how it works.

 

You can, but only if you have something that is mutually exclusive to it, and you prove that thing. Or in some cases, if there is a limited range of the criteria (feel free to substitute a better word, it's all I am coming up with ATM), such as proving that the ace of spades is not in a given deck, you can present the whole deck laid out to show that it is not there.

 

By not seeing any proof that they do and far more importantly, finding rationale provable reasons that explain what the godhead is used to explain now.
This has been happening throughout history and continues today. Gods are less and less important as mankind uses his mind and free will to find the truth. Gods are fading into the background of truth and becoming as mist in a new dawn of human development.
This BTW is the essence of secular humanism.

 

Yes you can (so long as the set is closed).

If there are 10 red marbles, 8 blue marbles, and 2 yellow marbles inside of a bag, then I can prove the non-existence of green marbles inside the bag.

How? I simply pull out all 20 marbles and show that none of them are green. Simple as that.


Of course, with regard to gods (an open set, rather than a closed set), there would be infinity marbles inside of the bag (IOW, it is not possible to pull out every single marble). Thus, the existence of (or non-existence of) gods is unfalsifiable. It is forever a circular argument. It is forever a religious belief.

 

Nope, it's not.

 

An argument of ignorance is a fallacy, dude, not a proof. --- "god exists" is an unfalsifiable theory, dude... You can't prove it to be true or false. It remains a circular argument... it remains a religious belief.

 

Bingo.

I like to use the example of colored marbles in a bag. If there are 10 marbles inside of a bag (4 red, 3 blue, 3 yellow), one can prove the non-existence of green colored marbles inside of the bag by pulling out all 10 marbles and showing that none of them are green.

But what happens in the case of the existence of gods is that it would be like having a bag with infinity colored marbles inside of it. If one can't pull out every single marble, then there's always a chance that at least one of those marbles could be green. --- It is impossible to search the whole universe simultaneously. It is impossible to notice/detect everything within the universe. Thus, it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of gods. Those arguments remain circular arguments. Those arguments remain unfalsifiable. Those arguments remain religious beliefs.

 

I didnt say ignorance is a fallacy. Nor did I say it was a proof. I am not so stupid as to say ignorance is anything but a lack of knowledge and therefore disqualifies you from having any opinion OR information.
A religious belief is anything but a circular argument. Those who believe always fall back in nor having to have proof. That isn't an argument. That is what I said last week . To argue faith via proof is impossible . They don't belong to the same kind of "knowledge".
And in no way am I "a dude". I never was and still don't identify as one. Whatever it is.

 

Dude and even guys has become so generic in our culture that women are calling other woman dude, and addressing groups of women as you guys.

 

I have never been called a dude, and have no wish to start now.
It does not occur in my vocabulary and refers to nothing I am aware of.

 

No its not.

 

Still is.

 

You attempted using an argument of ignorance as a proof.

It is a circular argument (or an "argument of faith").

???

Right. Neither religion nor science make use of proofs. Religion makes use of supporting evidence (since the theories are unfalsifiable) and science makes use of conflicting evidence (since the theories are falsifiable).

 

I did not use ignorance as proof of anything.
I used it as justification for not knowing.how can ignorance be proof when you have admitted to you don't know what the truth is??
Teligion , as I keep trying to tell you, does not rely on proof for belief. It puts itself above proof and asks you to believe, irrespective of proof.
Science sometimes uses conflicting evidence until it is almost positive that it has an infallible truth...ie the earth goes round the sun. What it does NOT do is declare a belief as a truth when the proof is not there. As do believers.
You can't ask both to declare what is true by the same means. They don't agree that truth must be provable.
Example. The Turin Shroud. (another thread).
600 years ago science said it was a fake. It has been identified as a fake more than ojnce since. Evidence and modern science says it is a fake. The proof is there.
But no amount of proof is going to convince a believer. Proof to them doesn't matter.
The whole concept that you can compare one to the other using proof as the weights on the scales of probability is not possible. Reality for both does not depend on the same criteria.
Of course theories are falsifiable. Doing so is the central process of science. Whether those who believe are prepared to accept the fallibility of their evidence is what sets the believer apart from the agnostic or the atheist.

 

Yes, you did. Go back a few responses to the part of one of your quotes that I bolded. That's where you suggested appealing to ignorance as a proof.

See above.

This is correct. Religion does not make use of proofs. Neither does science.

This is incorrect. It simply does not make use of proofs, since proofs only exist in closed functional systems (and religion and science are both open functional systems). If you want proofs, then look to mathematics and logic.

Wrong. It ALWAYS uses conflicting evidence.

Nope. See above. It is conflicting evidence that falsifies theories... No conflicting evidence means that the theory survives.

There is no proof with regard to either religion or science. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems such as mathematics and logic. The reason for believing a theory of science is that it has survived many internal and external tests against its null hypothesis (iow, there has been no conflicting evidence). A theory of religion, on the other hand, does not have a testable null hypothesis. Therefore, it can only be accepted on a faith basis (IOW, via circular reasoning).

Some people reject science.

This you have mostly correct. However, not all theories are falsifiable. -- Maybe you're not asserting that though.

 

How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

If we remove all the subjectivity things clear up more easily. Homosexuality does not inhibit a person's ability to reproduce. Many gays have had children which, of course, is the purpose of sex in the first place. My straight wife and my straight self have engaged in sex but never produced children. We are further from the basic purpose of sex than gays who have reproduced. Many gays are bisexual and engage in sex both ways.

So it isn't a perversion in that sense. That you don't like the way they engage in sex is purely subjective. They like the way they engage in it and some of them don't like the way you engage in it. Many engage in both homosexual and heterosexual activity. So it isn't really a perversion in that sense either.

I have had two gay friends in my lifetime and two gay employees (maybe more but only two were up front about it. All of them were intelligent, successful and happy. We talked about everything under sun except for sex. I visited a gay bar with one of them out of curiosity. I found the place to be clean, under control and tolerant. My friend introduced me as a straight guy to some of his friends and all were respectful. It is a different lifestyle than yours and mine but not perverse or dangerous to society. Be tolerant. It won't cost you anything.

 

Of course science uses proofs. They are the centre of what science is.science is a closed functional system. Either something is, or it is not.
I just said religion exists on a faith based basis. That is not circular reasoning. It rejects reason. It cannot be included in justification by reason. That is why they cannot be assessed by the same criteria.

 

Nope. Science is an open functional system... There are no proofs in science.

Nope. Falsifiable theories are at the center of what science is. (specifically, models that predict nature)

Nope, it is open.

Yes, it is. It is the very definition of circular reasoning.

WRONG. Using circular reasoning (or "faith based" reasoning) is not rejecting reason.

Religion makes use of reason.

The difference between religion and science is the falsifiability of the theories.

Unfalsifiable theories ---> Religion
Falsifiable theories ---> Science

 

Unfalsifiable theories equals religion?
It is completely false until you can prove it.
Science is very careful not to claim its findings are 100% true.
As I said, the potential for variables is almost infinite.
The rest of your post is your opinion. Not fact. Any faith based reasoning is as far from reasonable as it can be. Faith and reason are an antithesis.

 

Your analogy had no relevance to this particular set .. You can't prove a negative is thus valid - for the purposes of this conversation .. and you mention this at the end .. so good.

If however God does exist -- we are not trying to prove a negative -- Evidence should and does exist !? (do take a moment to learn chess notation)

 

An unfalsifiable theory ("initial circular argument" or "argument of faith") is at the basis of each and every religion in existence.

Argument of Ignorance Fallacy.

.... because science is not a closed functional system (and doesn't make use of proofs).

Incorrect, as I have already described.