Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: robomagon

But the religious/spiritual stance of agnosticism specifically precludes the belief that god or gods don't exist. Regardless of how strong that belief is or whether it's claimed as a fact or opinion.

It does not. I've already told you the differences between a gnostic and agnostic atheist.

Yes, you have explained to me your definitions of those phrases. But the way you describe "agnostic atheists" has nothing at all to do with actual belief in agnosticism. So I'm not sure why you want to use such a confusing definition when "moderate" would work just as well.

Is forcing your child to go to church genocide against atheists?

Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: robomagon

But the child wouldn't be prevented from being born...

It's still preventing a group of people from existing.

But there's no -cide (killing) happening. Is circumcision at birth genocide against uncircumcised males?

Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: robomagon

Right. So an atheist who believes that god(s) don't exist, but doesn't claim it as a proven fact.
So an "agnostic atheist" really has nothing at all to do with agnosticism as a belief, it's just using agnostic as a non-religion related adjective to describe a non-fanatical atheist.

Like I said: It would really be a lot less confusing to use "extreme" and "moderate" instead of "gnostic" and "agnostic" so as not to confuse with the actual religious/spiritual stance of agnosticism.

That IS the religious/spiritual stance of agnosticism.

But the religious/spiritual stance of agnosticism specifically precludes the belief that god or gods don't exist. Regardless of how strong that belief is or whether it's claimed as a fact or opinion.

Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: robomagon

Technically speaking, that wouldn't be "genocide". No killing would be involved, they would just have some sort of genetic modification during pregnancy to not be gay. It would be like making sure your child was naturally blond, or tall, or thin. You wouldn't describe that as genocide, would you?

I would.

Preventing a group of people from being born is considered genocide. When Jewish people were prevented from being born it was considered genocide.

But the child wouldn't be prevented from being born...

Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: an lol mellow|merry christmasp

noo it not like genocide. like if u have buttons - gay, straight, for your kid, you choose straight.

cause like, gays like, hav urge to do wrong thing with their thingys ;p

it like prevent bipolar or somthing, cause it not really best thing.

Removing gay people would be genocide.

Are you seriously saying gay people are pedophiles? What the fuck?

Gay people are not bipolar...

Technically speaking, that wouldn't be "genocide". No killing would be involved, they would just have some sort of genetic modification during pregnancy to not be gay. It would be like making sure your child was naturally blond, or tall, or thin. You wouldn't describe that as genocide, would you?

Автор сообщения: ❄~Kryzmazz Eve~❄

Because his penis needs some love.

You just enjoy having an excuse to say penis, don't you?

Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: robomagon

Agnostic

An agnostic atheist is an atheist who does not claim to "know" that a god does not exist.

Right. So an atheist who believes that god(s) don't exist, but doesn't claim it as a proven fact.
So an "agnostic atheist" really has nothing at all to do with agnosticism as a belief, it's just using agnostic as a non-religion related adjective to describe a non-fanatical atheist.

Like I said: It would really be a lot less confusing to use "extreme" and "moderate" instead of "gnostic" and "agnostic" so as not to confuse with the actual religious/spiritual stance of agnosticism.

Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: an lol mellow|merry christmasp

oh ya i red this before
http://www.advocate.com/health/2015/10/09/study-dna-identical-twins-can-reveal-whos-gay

it say that gene changes after kid is born affect sexual orientation.


it say this
"At an American Society of Human Genetics meeting in Baltimore, Ngun stated that he studied epigenetic changes called methylation in 47 pairs of male twins. Identical twins have the same underlying DNA, but the epigenetic changes can make big differences in what happens to them later in life.

In 37 of the twin pairs, one brother was homosexual and the other wasn't. In 10 pairs, both brothers were gay."

That's still a 20% chance. I think that's about double the chance.

Homosexuals do not make up 10% of the population. Not even close.

Автор сообщения: Unicarn

Автор сообщения: an lol mellow|merry christmasp

but i look it up once, and it was like no difference they did a test.
but even if is, then like, it should be all. evrything a twin born with is in other twin, except gay?

I looked it up and the twin had about a 50% or so chance of also being gay.

They're not twins, but both of the Wachowskis are trans now.