Wal-Mart 'dyke' book

[Joey2ness]

Also, no where here does it say that lesbians are at a higher risk for STDs. It does not say they're having unprotected sex.

The women were actually bisexual in the study because 93% had male sex partners but were self-described lesbians. Alot of self-described lesbians could actually be bisexual but who knows.

Much of the info is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians. In the study 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.

"Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. (2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs)

As you know this study is mostly likely about women who are self-described lesbians but are actually bisexual and not know it.

[Logan13]

The women were actually bisexual in the study because 93% had male sex partners but were self-described lesbians. Alot of self-described lesbians could actually be bisexual but who knows.

Much of the info is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians. In the study 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.

"Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. (2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs)

As you know this study is mostly likely about women who are self-described lesbians but are actually bisexual and not know it.

You may want to include the fact that 2+2=4 as well, since some in here would not be able to decipher that either. The facts were in your previous post, some just do not want to see it because it gives your stance credibility....

[Tock]

You may want to include the fact that 2+2=4 as well, since some in here would not be able to decipher that either. The facts were in your previous post, some just do not want to see it because it gives your stance credibility....

So . . . the upshot of all this is, lesbians who confine their sexual habits to other women are healthy, and bisexual women who have sex with lots of men are not.

It kinda says something positive for the homosexual lifestyle, yes?

So what else it new?

[Teabagger]

Tock, Tock, Tock... You are way too rigid in your thinking. You must practice what you preach.

[Carlos_E]

The women were actually bisexual in the study because 93% had male sex partners but were self-described lesbians. Alot of self-described lesbians could actually be bisexual but who knows.

Much of the info is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians. In the study 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.

"Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. (2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs)

As you know this study is mostly likely about women who are self-described lesbians but are actually bisexual and not know it.

"2X the number of male sex partners = higher risk for STDs"

The study does not say this. You're making this assumption. It does not say that they're having unprotected sex or high risk sexual behavior with men.

[Carlos_E]

So . . . the upshot of all this is, lesbians who confine their sexual habits to other women are healthy, and bisexual women who have sex with lots of men are not.

It kinda says something positive for the homosexual lifestyle, yes?

So what else it new?

He's assuming that all heterosexual sex is unprotected.

[Mike Dura]

Let's not be naive. The source does make a big difference. If a source has an agenda (ulterior motives) to get a specific answer, the "facts" do become questionable and doubtful. Newsflash! People lie! Also, in understanding any "fact" or theory supported by them, a given result has to be replicated in more than one study before one can have more confidence in drawing a conclusion. Therefore, if understood properly, one always takes a tentative attitude towards the results of a study.

The best sources are those that are peer-reviewed in a major academic journal not some Christian journal (or some liberal journal for that matter). It's important for an educated person to be a critical consumer of information and this requires the right attitude and the right knowledge (understanding statistics and experimental design and where the funding of the study comes from). It's also about having a critical attitude and a desire to put your biases aside.

You asked for a source, you got one. It does make factual sense, regardless of the source..........Do you still think that Joey2ness made it up?

[Mike Dura]

I agree. Logan is probably a nice guy but the conclusions he draws and the oversimplifications he makes seems a little out of touch to me.

Where did I insinuate that he made this up?

Sheesh . . .

Your thought processes are not unlike a 10 foot wide truck speeding along a 9 foot wide mountainside road . . . it goes over the edge . . .[/QUOTE]

[Mike Dura]

Yet another example of thought processes going over the edge. You roll yourself into your own world while the dialogue goes on dispite you.

My thought process is like a 10 foot wide "logic" truck, I roll over everything in my path...........

[Logan13]

Yet another example of thought processes going over the edge. You roll yourself into your own world while the dialogue goes on dispite you.

no matter how hard you try, you can not win...............

[Logan13]

Let's not be naive. The source does make a big difference. If a source has an agenda (ulterior motives) to get a specific answer, the "facts" do become questionable and doubtful. Newsflash! People lie! Also, in understanding any "fact" or theory supported by them, a given result has to be replicated in more than one study before one can have more confidence in drawing a conclusion. Therefore, if understood properly, one always takes a tentative attitude towards the results of a study.

The best sources are those that are peer-reviewed in a major academic journal not some Christian journal (or some liberal journal for that matter). It's important for an educated person to be a critical consumer of information and this requires the right attitude and the right knowledge (understanding statistics and experimental design and where the funding of the study comes from). It's also about having a critical attitude and a desire to put your biases aside.

so if this source wrote a piece and remarked that e=mc^2, you would not believe it because of the source? That is just stupid, read into the facts regardless of the source. By not doing this you just reveal that your agenda
means more than the facts.

[Shang III]

Well I just wasted some time reading all this, and I feel guilty about having burned my GD given time with this, BOTH sides have drawn enough blood over this issue. books should be written and read by those who CHOSE to read those books, not part of a curriculum where they are forced to. but the same books should be available to individuals who are intrested in varrious subjects. I dont want man-organized church telling me what to watch or read, I'll let my conscien decide if it offends my beleifs and my GD, bye I'm going to the gym, play nice children!

[Phreak101]

Well I just wasted some time reading all this, and I feel guilty about having burned my GD given time with this, BOTH sides have drawn enough blood over this issue. books should be written and read by those who CHOSE to read those books, not part of a curriculum where they are forced to. but the same books should be available to individuals who are intrested in varrious subjects. I dont want man-organized church telling me what to watch or read, I'll let my conscien decide if it offends my beleifs and my GD, bye I'm going to the gym, play nice children!

Thank you oh wise poster, please grace us with your genius again when we are unable as a group to solve everyone's problems!

[Carlos_E]

Thank you oh wise poster, please grace us with your genius again when we are unable as a group to solve everyone's problems!

Indeed!

[Teabagger]

Well I just wasted some time reading all this, and I feel guilty about having burned my GD given time with this, BOTH sides have drawn enough blood over this issue. books should be written and read by those who CHOSE to read those books, not part of a curriculum where they are forced to. but the same books should be available to individuals who are intrested in varrious subjects. I dont want man-organized church telling me what to watch or read, I'll let my conscien decide if it offends my beleifs and my GD, bye I'm going to the gym, play nice children!

Who the HELL do you think your are..............? ME?

[Shang III]

Thank you oh wise poster, please grace us with your genius again when we are unable as a group to solve everyone's problems!

no prob, when ever you need help, just let me know

[Shang III]

Who the HELL do you think your are..............? ME?

I would never entertain the thought of being anywhere near your level of thought, sorry if you misunderstood my rant

[alphaman]

Not really.
There is ZERO archeological verification for the Exodus story. None, Nada, Zip, Nothing, -----, 0000000.

Disagree? Find me something.
You'd think that something as significant as the total destruction of Egypt's army would have been noticed by someone back then. It certainly would have been noticed by neighboring empires, who would have certainly swooped down on Egypt for an easy picking.

There are tons of websites that are dedicated to informing people of archeological verification of the scriptures. Google it if you don't beleive me.

Not by anyone with a lick of sense.

If Moses had written Genesis 36:31: And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel., and if Moses dropped out of sight after just before the Hebrews went into the promised land, then how could he have known about "kings that reigned over the children of Israel?"

Nope, whoever wrote the book of Genesis was around after the time of Solomon, the 2nd king of Israel. Was Moses around then? I don't think so.

Read the verse again. It's saying that they ruled before there was an Israelite king. These were not Israelites -- Esau was Jacob's brother. Jacob's descendants are the children of Israel because Jacob is Israel.

Because this sort of thing only happens in fiction!!!

Duh!!

I'm sure the idea comforts you, but beware of what you say. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but one day you will be judged like the rest of us.

I don't know squat about evolution, but, I have heard Richard Dawkins (an expert on evolution) say http://www.planetvids.com/html/Richa...d-Haggard.html that scientists don't assert that organisms popped into existance by chance. Maybe you know of one or two, but from what I understand, the majority of scientists don't make that claim. Evolutionary processes have been verified in labs with animals that reproduce quickly. And pretty much, the only folks who doubt evolutionary theory are fundamentalists who fear that it contradicts their faith.

So if they didn't pop into existence by chance, then how do you think it happened?

No, I pursue this because it's kinda fun for me. And I don't really have much else to do . . .
And it is kinda fun to pop the pumped-up blatherings of fundamentalist bullies who try to frighten people into conversion by scaring them with fictions of eternal damnation . . .

Ya, it's all just fiction . . .

Do you know what the unforgiveable sin is?

[alphaman]

That is a missunderstanding of how evolution(in the broad sense of the word as in everything since the big bang) works.
Its not by pure chanse like throwing dice. We have a set of natural laws that drives the universe towards complexity. Its inevitable that complex structures evolve.

Now who/what made the laws the way they are is a much more important question in my mind and one christians could focuse on without losing face. Attacking evolution is as futile as attacking any other scientific theory. There is not much point in trying to tear down a theory that gets verified each and every day and whos basic principles are completely proven.

No one wants to attack the theory. The problem is that it's taught to our children in school as a fact -- just as you are presenting it here.

Can you show me how the basic principles of macro-evolution are completely proven?

[alphaman]

Originally Posted by Tock
Ya, that's what the official, orthodox line is.

But if you look at the grisly details, the actual history of how the Bible got written and who decided what books were good and which were bogus, and why, well, you'll discover that the official line about authentic authorship isn't all what it's cracked up to be.

This is total crap. Prove it.

The vast majority of theologians who study the antiquity of Bible writings don't beleive that the Bible is "God-Breathed." They either take it as a body of ethnic writings, rich in metaphors, and not much more. These are the experts. Of course, you'll find some fundamentalist theologians who will swear that this book is "God-Breathed," but they're in the minority. And a small minority it is.

Show me anything that says what is above.

I'll tell you what -- you quoted Timothy 3:16, claiming that all scripture is "God-Breathed." You made this declaration about YOUR book, you prove your point first.

I didn't make this declaration, Paul did -- through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[Tock]

Tock:
I'll tell you what -- you quoted Timothy 3:16, claiming that all scripture is "God-Breathed." You made this declaration about YOUR book, you prove your point first.

I didn't make this declaration, Paul did -- through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Ya, Paul wrote it, but you're saying that you agree with that statement.

Do you beleive that Timothy 3:16 is "God-Breathed" scripture? If yes, then what verification do you have that it is?

It seems to me that any fool can declare their writing to be "inspired by God." Lunatic hospitals are full of people who do this. And anyone who unquestioningly beleive people who say, "What I write is given by inspiration of God" is a bit off their rocker, too, IMHO.

[Tock]

Do you know what the unforgiveable sin is?

Sure I do. I'm a recovering fundamentalist.

Wanna see me commit "The Unforgivable Sin" right here in front of everybody?
Ok . . . you might want to hold on to your wig and car keys . . .

Matthew 12:31-32
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Luke 12:10
But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.


The Holy Ghost of the Christian Bible is a fraud!

How's that?

[Tock]

Tock:
The Bible writes of talking animals . . . Does that make sense to you?

So if there's a God, then why is it so hard to believe that he could make animals talk, or the story of Noah's ark.

Tock:
Because this sort of thing only happens in fiction!!!
Duh!!!

I'm sure the idea comforts you, but beware of what you say. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but one day you will be judged like the rest of us.

And once again, you respond to a challenge to your faith with a warning not to offend some sort of judge.

It is safe to say that the only place that anyone has ever encounterd talking animals has been in fiction. Period.
Now, if every now and then an animal could be made to speak coherent sentences with humans, well, I'd say that while unlikely, it would have been at least possible for a talking snake to persuade Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, and I would agree that a donkey may have warned his owner of danger. But since neither creature poesesses the physiological means to produce speech, I will say that it could not have happened.
I will also say that humans have demonstrated time and time again an eagerness to create ficticious tales of talking animals, and I will say that the accounts of talking creatures in the Bible are no more than additional examples of this type of fiction.


It seems to me that you live in needless fear of inciting the vengence of a wrathful god. Well, the Good News from Tock is that you too can accept a new life of freedom, joy, peace, and happiness that comes from rejecting the foolishness of Christian Fundamentalism, and embrace and utilize the common sense that you were born with, and assert your right to think for yourself.

Ya, that's a lot better than your pitiful message of "You better not offend the Final Judge if you know what's good for you!" Ya, pisss on that BS . . .

Face it, Alphaman -- yours is a religion based on fear. You can choose to either continue living with this tyrant, or reject it as the phantom that it really is, and live a life of freedom. The choice is yours . . . needlessly trembling through the only life you will ever know, or embracing a life of freedom and Reason.

The choice is yours . . .

[Tock]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tock
There is ZERO archeological verification for the Exodus story. None, Nada, Zip, Nothing, -----, 0000000.

Disagree? Find me something.
You'd think that something as significant as the total destruction of Egypt's army would have been noticed by someone back then. It certainly would have been noticed by neighboring empires, who would have certainly swooped down on Egypt for an easy picking.

There are tons of websites that are dedicated to informing people of archeological verification of the scriptures. Google it if you don't beleive me.

Name one website, and make a specific reference to something that cites archeological verification for the Exodus story. If there are "tons of websites" as you say, that task should be simple.

Truth is, that task will be impossible, as there is no archeological verification for the Exodus story. None, Nada, Zip, Nothing, -----, 0000000.

[Tock]

Originally Posted by Tock
But if you look at the grisly details, the actual history of how the Bible got written and who decided what books were good and which were bogus, and why, well, you'll discover that the official line about authentic authorship isn't all what it's cracked up to be.

This is total crap. Prove it.

It's your Bible, you are the one who says it is the Word of God.
You prove your point first. I have better things to do than to write out the history of the Christian Bible . . .

[Shang III]

could this be the final round?

[Logan13]

It's your Bible, you are the one who says it is the Word of God.
You prove your point first. I have better things to do than to write out the history of the Christian Bible . . .

Right, you would prefer to re-write the Christian history in order to change it to Adam and Steve.......
You are obviously the one offended by Christians. You are not going to be allowed to just pick at everyone else's assertions, you must come up with your own. Alpha does not seem to be one playing the role of outcast, so why does he have to prove anything?

[alphaman]

could this be the final round?

I see that you've been here for a year, but you must be new to this side if AR -- huh?

[alphaman]

Tock:

I'm going out of town for Thanksgiving. I'll respond when I get back. The crappy thing is that I'm pretty sure I've addressed the majority of these very issues with you before, but if you forgot I'll tell you again on Sunday/Monday.


BTW -- I'm glad you know where to look in the Bible to find the verses on the unforgiveable sin, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than simply stating, "The Holy Spirit is a fictional character."

Do you know what those verses actually mean?

[Mike Dura]

I don't think you're not grasping what I said in that post. Understanding the value of anything written up as "scientific" or "factual" requires a technical understanding of experimental methodology, statistics and a critical attitude in general.

Sure politicians and lobbyists can support claims based on some research they find but that research has to be scrutinized and understood in the context of the larger body of studies. Any judgement about a given study has to be suspended in lieu of replication and meta-analysis.

Taking the example of e=mc^2, first of all, such a profound finding would not be submitted for publication in a marginal journal. It would be published in a well known, peer reviewed journal and there would be a subsequent rush to support it with what's called "convergent evidence (diverse ways of supporting that formula)" and replications (studies that repeat the finding). Technically, a theory is never considered true or false. There is just evidence to support it or fail to support it. That's the mentality of the scientific method.

so if this source wrote a piece and remarked that e=mc^2, you would not believe it because of the source? That is just stupid, read into the facts regardless of the source. By not doing this you just reveal that your agenda
means more than the facts.

[Mike Dura]

Damn you're good!

no matter how hard you try, you can not win...............

[Mike Dura]

I don't think that anyone is playing the role of outcast - that's just you're way of couching it.

I do think that Christians (like "Alpha") have something to prove. They want to prove that their worldview is literally and absolutely true and not just a worldview. That's why "Alpha" made a statement about science backing up the bible. I raised the question, who needs evidence when you've got faith?

My feeling is, the literal reading of the bible is a tenuous belief and that's why Christians are always "talking" their beliefs, trying to prosyletize others, or supporting their beliefs with "evidence" and testimonials and sometimes even "speaking in tongues."

You bring up "the outcast." Jesus was considered an outcast. The slaves who followed him were considered outcasts too.

It was once believed that the world was flat. It was the outcast who thought differently. Great cultural change start with a single man who has to go against convention and resistence but once people catch on culture changes and we call this progress. True power starts with the individual (e.g., the "outcast") not the herd or the masses. We need more outcasts and less Logans.

Right, you would prefer to re-write the Christian history in order to change it to Adam and Steve.......
You are obviously the one offended by Christians. You are not going to be allowed to just pick at everyone else's assertions, you must come up with your own. Alpha does not seem to be one playing the role of outcast, so why does he have to prove anything?

[Kärnfysikern]

No one wants to attack the theory. The problem is that it's taught to our children in school as a fact -- just as you are presenting it here.

Can you show me how the basic principles of macro-evolution are completely proven?

I cant but talkorigins(A webpage I have posted lots of times but that no creationist so far has tried to debunk ) can and just about any evolutionary biologist. They even have examples of speciation. So macroevolution has been observed, not only microevolution.

That evolution happen is a fact, the finer details about the mechanism is what is debated.

It should be taught like fact just like all other scientific theories

that nature tends towards complexity is totaly undeniable. The laws of thermodynamics ensure that. Its a comon missconception that increase in entropy means increase in disorder in the way we think of disorder.

[Phreak101]

Tock:

I'm going out of town for Thanksgiving. I'll respond when I get back. The crappy thing is that I'm pretty sure I've addressed the majority of these very issues with you before, but if you forgot I'll tell you again on Sunday/Monday.


BTW -- I'm glad you know where to look in the Bible to find the verses on the unforgiveable sin, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than simply stating, "The Holy Spirit is a fictional character."

Do you know what those verses actually mean?

Alpha, you REALLY need to read the bestselling book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. It is a very well thought out and researched book about "God" as we know Him from the three major religions. Some of the history of it all is very eye-opening, especially from the standpoint of scripture...

I hope you'll check it out, you won't regret it.

[Mike Dura]

Are you kidding? Christians deny it all the time! And many deny complexity in any regard. Those are the confident ones who believe that everything is clear and black and white and it is just the erudites who "complicate" things. Those damn long-headed folk with their double talk trying to be smart! Ask Logan. He'll tell you all about it.

that nature tends towards complexity is totaly undeniable.

[Shang III]

I see that you've been here for a year, but you must be new to this side if AR -- huh?

yeah your right, but thats why I love this site, I learn alot about so many different things and opinions and points of view, its great!

[Tock]

Tock:
I'm glad you know where to look in the Bible to find the verses on the unforgiveable sin, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than simply stating, "The Holy Spirit is a fictional character."

Well then, how would you like me to commit the unforgivable sin?

Do you know what those verses actually mean?

Everyone seems to have their own take on religious writings . . . what do these verses mean to you?