zapatos

You need to stop taking things so personally. I am not attacking you; I am attacking your ideas and approach. You are immature, by definition. You are inexperienced. You are unwilling to consider evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. These are not attacks, they are traits you exhibit and behaviors I've observed. You may be a wonderful person, but that doesn't equate to being a person who suddenly has an understanding of logic and physics. Of course we are trying to prove we are right. That is what we do here. Nearly every thread consists of people who are debating and trying to show in what way their idea is right and the other person's idea is wrong. Everyone who is now disagreeing with you has at one time or another disagreed with each other. There is no better way to ascertain the 'truth' than to have people vigorously challenge your views and ideas. What remains intact after such a debate is closer to the truth than what existed before the debate. You are not being attacked here. You are being treated in the same manner as we treat each other.

Do sexual orientation and transgender lie on the same spectrum, or are sexual identity and gender identity two separate things? For example, is there one large spectrum that has on one end heterosexuals, then homosexuals further down the spectrum with a range in between the two, then transgender at the other end? Or is there a spectrum covering sexual orientation (from heterosexual to homosexual), where anyone on that spectrum could also fall anywhere on a gender identity spectrum? I've always thought of these as being two different things, but wondered if perhaps a homosexual who shows very masculine/feminine traits normally associated with the other gender, might be a "step away" (pardon my lack of proper phrasing) from being transgender.

Part of the problem is that you are completely out of your league here and you are unable to recognize that fact. You don't yet have the knowledge or experience in debate, logic, science, or religion to have a meaningful discussion here, and you display petulant behavior when challenged. You are a backyard footballer arguing dribbling technique with Lionel Messi. While I would normally suggest it is you who is arrogant, in this case I attribute your behavior to immaturity and inexperience. While there is nothing wrong with that (we all start there), you might want to consider a different approach while you get up to speed.

How do you digitally create a nervous system?

No, I think Science Forum accurately describes the approach taken here, although Rational or Logical might be reasonable substitutions.

What are "the laws"? Does that mean every word in the OT?

Make up your mind.

How do you know this?

We are not telling you that you don't have an open mind just because you oppose us, we are telling you that you don't have an open mind because you are demonstrating you don't have an open mind. In fact, you already guaranteed us that you won't change your mind. res ipsa loquitur

What's the point? You've already said your mind is made up and you'll never change. (Pretty cynical for a 16 year old, IMO.) This is a science forum populated with people who question everything in the hope of better understanding the world, and are willing to change their minds in the face of sufficient evidence. In the short time you've been here you've already refused to provide evidence or consider the point of view of others. For these types of discussions you'd be much better off on a forum where people all believe the same thing already and you can pat each other on the back for being so astute.

So much for keeping an open mind...

Well, to the idea of a God, anyway. And that's the rub of course. There is absolutely no evidence that what you say is true. You don't know it, you can't prove it, you've never talked to him. All you have to go by is hearsay and your ability to mentally play fast and loose with the facts so that you can see what you want as long as you squint your eyes. And please don't take this as a personal attack on you. I was once exactly where you are, as are many people on this site, Moontanman being much deeper in religion than most of us. My guess is when you were young you believed it all. When you got a little older you started to think that maybe some of the stories were a bit strange and probably not meant to be taken literally. If you keep an open mind, study science, psychology, sociology, anthropology and other topics, my guess is that even more of what you believe now will be doubted in the future. You may not get to the point to where you don't believe in God, but you will likely change over time.

The existence of your "god" and Moontanman's "unicorn" seem equally probable. The major difference between your comment and his is that Moontanman doesn't actually believe what he said, while you do. Moontanman seems to have the more mature belief system here. Your comment proves nothing either.

I find those who are anti-theist tend to be a bit too hard on those who believe. It takes time to gather all the data, develop critical thinking skills, and debate the topic enough until you get to the point where you can draw confident conclusions. I find that most people who were brought up religious then became atheist, did so in stages, where they began to doubt, found conflicts and obvious falsehoods, till they got to the place where they simply rejected theism. And not everyone takes all of the steps to become well educated on the topic for whatever reasons. But, I'll agree that those who are knowledgeable and critical thinkers must be missing something or have some ulterior motive to not doubt.

I stated exactly the opposite. You seem to be looking for a confrontation...

No, you didn't. You paraphrased him, and did it incorrectly. Huh? Whatever you want it to be. No one is forcing you to hold one belief over another.

I think we've uncovered a big gap in your knowledge.

To imply that Strange said that scientific evidence for the Higgs Boson is no better than "goddidit" suggests to me that you have not been actually reading Strange's posts. Ah! I think we are on to something. The Big Bang is not a theory that addresses how the universe began. It is a theory that addresses how the universe evolved.

Yes, I was just wondering why you were telling me that. You seem to be making a point with me but I don't know what it is.

Um, okay...

No, but I seriously think that because it cannot be proven, you cannot make any scientific claims about it.

You seem to be confusing "scientific manner" with simply referring to science based topics in your argument. Just because you mention Evolution does not mean you are following a scientific methodology. In addition, you keep making assumptions and using them as proof for your argument. For example, "As such our species cannot be different to other animals w.r.t. having immortal souls or the ability to "sin" unless there was some sort of divine creation/intervention. Only we know our species was not created, we evolved." You do NOT know there was no divine intervention. You cannot prove it. You are providing no evidence. And therefore, while you are mentioning 'science' in your argument, you are not able to draw any scientific conclusions from your argument.

Perhaps I misunderstood your first paragraph. In what way do you feel you are following a scientific approach? I am unsure how to address in a scientific way anything that cannot be measured.

You may be trying to think of it in a logical manner, but it is not scientific.

Please tell me the name of the Theory that describes how the universe began. No, I am aware there is a difference between Evolution and the origin of the universe. Unfortunately you failed to quote my entire sentence. Here it is: "In my experience, religious people are not what I would call anti-science." What's with the hostile attitude? Can we do this without the petty insults? Those are really two different things. I'm against GMOs, but that doesn't mean I'm against science. Again? Please be civil. You seem to be begging the question. A desire for one thing does not necessarily equate to an active stance against another. I strive to stay off social media, but I am not anti-internet, or even anti-social media. It's just not for me. I think my generalization is a lot closer to the mark than your generalization that religious people DO attack science and scientists.