I'd agree except DNA is NOT perfect and is anything but. There are plenty of imperfections and junk DNA in the genome of every species.
Evidence of this is useless appendages in all species, including humans.
Lastly, what you say suggests you believe humans are of a perfect design and if we are designed then we are FAR from perfect. In fact, if we had to assume we were designed, then our design isn't very good.
Ali's observation was comparable to the "watchmaker" argument, it's self defeating. It's sounds sensible sure, it even makes sense, but once you start putting more thought into it then the whole thing falls apart.
If you argue that something cannot come from nothing and everything must have a designer, then you back yourself into an intellectual corner. If I were to accept that all things came from a designer then I would ask you, what designed God? Your response would likely be that God is and always was, thus in that regard you are suggesting (in contrary to your premise) God is something that came from nothing, however you could argue God is not a "something" he just is... That would imply that God was not created, God was not spawned from nothing, nor is God a thing one could categorized as anything whatsoever which is basically the long winded definition of nonexistence.
To paraphrase, based on your premise, God is either a designed designer, God came from nothing or is nothing that created everything. This is why the phrase, "something cannot come from nothing and everything must have a designer" is a self defeating argument.
Really? Muhammad Ali didn't go into boxing because of his "intellectual intelligence," he was a boxer for a reason and that reason literally had almost nothing to do with his intellect.
I'm asking you to let bygones be bygones, I debate religion almost daily and have no desire to do so on a dating site. It's ridiculous. I respect everyone's opinion on this thread, even the ones I disagree with.
So if the person you met happened to be an Atheist and was a good person, perhaps the best person you had met up to that point, would you deny him solely because he didn't share your belief?
Without getting into another annoying religious debate (I have enough of those) but I must say, most Atheists are secular, this means they do not care about what you believe nor are they willing to fight to change it.
In fact, most Atheists would rather not talk about it but then have to endure the raving rants of religious nuts telling them how evil they are.
Hmm... I never actually considered those combinations.
I do have a friend that's Jewish and hes married to a Muslim. I thought that was pretty shocking but perhaps I was thinking too mainstream.. Fair points.
That's a fair point, I dunno about the last part but to be fair I'm a pretty reclusive person so I'm kinda oblivious to the results of most relationships in regards to how they begin and in for others beyond myself.
You make a decent compromise of a point. I'll keep that in mind.
Nothing really.. That's kinda my point. In my view, one SHOULD respect another person's beliefs and at the end of the day, those beliefs (in this case religious ones) should never be what comes between them. But that's just my opinion.
How important is religion (men & women) when considering someone for a potential life partner? Does it play a pivotal role in what you decide or are you more secular when it comes to finding love? Does it matter? Thoughts?
Perhaps I was being vague.. When I said no me in family and no independence, I was referring to the attitudes some new parents have when they have kids. Met men and woman who pawn their kids off on others because they wanna feel "independent" or others that care more for their own happiness than their own children.
Why? I literally just agreed with you.. The only thing I said to the contrary was that I didn't mean or intend to mean preaching in the same way you perceive it. I apologize if my words come off as rude or aggressive, that is by no means my intention either.
I was speaking generally. Why on earth would I be openly advocating manipulation and being controlling? That literally would compromise my entire point.
My point of the moral compass thing was that breaking up with someone over something like giving advice or advocating an ideal would be morally wrong.
You are absolutely correct, if the relationship is fine, as in no cheating or lying or whatever then there is no reason to preach by any stretch of the word whatsoever. In my view, preaching (though I stress I was not the one who originally said that here) can be as simple as making an objectively better suggestion or informing someone that what they did was wrong in some way or something along those lines. I am NOT advocating yelling, badgering, manipulating or otherwise attempting to use speech to control another.
Again, it was not I that used that word originally. Read first reply.
Also, I'm sorry but everyone preaches to someone, all the time, everyday. One could argue that simply stating your opinion is preaching. Furthermore, I'm sorry to say, but if you are in a relationship and you happen to cheat then you deserve to be preached to and vice versa.
Also, my age isn't exactly relevant, age does not indicate any particular measure of knowledge. Thus I could be 27 (which I am) and in theory have more knowledge than the majority of my age group and up.
Your open inability to accept the words of your significant other and even end a relationship with them over them speaking to you in the form of expressing an opinion or relaying advice (which is what preaching is) seriously puts your moral compass into question.
What? I'm a little confused on the whole "parent child relationship" point you're trying to make. Furthermore, aside from sleeping in the same bed as your parents, what's wrong with being close to your family?
SchylerSilvey Forum Posts (29)
Wouldya do it?
Very interesting array of replies! Much more variety than I was expecting.