Look Son

Look Son Meme | LOOK SON A MENTALLY ILL MAN CLAIMING TO BE A WOMAN | image tagged in memes,look son | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
16,336 views, 205 upvotes, Made by AdamRaiman 5 months ago memeslook son
Look Son memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
19 ups, 2 replies
Meanwhile, Americans are growing poor due to the terrible infrastructure and obesity is on the rise, but let's focus on the most pressing issue of all! The oh so terrible existence of trannies!! Ohh nooo!!!
reply
8 ups, 4 replies
they are both problems, and both are partially caused by feminists/ SJW's who push fat acceptance and pro trans. So attacking one of the two is effecting the cause of both
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
How does attacking transgender people help infrastructure?
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
Because fat transgender people put extra strain on our bridges and roadways!! >:( (angry face!!!!!!!!!)
reply
6 ups
ooooOOOOoooooh. Now it makes sennse.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Hunger Games/Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) "heh heh heh" | PLUS FAT TRANNIES HAVE BIGGER BOOBS SO THEY'RE EVEN MORE TEMPTING! | image tagged in hunger games/caesar flickerman stanley tucci heh heh heh | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up, 1 reply
*NOTICES FLAB* WHAT'S THIS | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
i.imgflip.com/2bn9ee.jpg (click to show)
reply
0 ups
reply
5 ups
Obesity is on the rise because of low wages and lack of nutritious food and cuts to health education.

Also the corporate welfare of the corn industry.
reply
1 up
WTF is that???
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Liberals always try to change the subject,as soon as they enter an argument.
reply
1 up
That's why I consider myself as a moderate left more than I consider myself a liberal.
reply
12 ups, 6 replies
If a woman refuses to accept a man's masculinity and is praised for doing so, why should the rest of us accept someone's claim to be peanut butter?

A fifty-something year old man claims he's a 6 year old girl and therefore has every right to use a woman's restroom in public.

According to to some people, we should not question this man's identity because it would be bigoted on our part.

There are people who believe themselves to be different species of animal such as a lizard and a wild cat. Should we accept these people as not mentally disturbed? Am I a bigot who clearly has no respect for these people and their delusions?

Where do we stop accepting those who believe these absurd things to be true? Men sleeping with other men and women sleeping with other women, men and women changing their sex because they do not believe themselves to be the sex they were born as, grown men acting like 6 year old girls and grown adult sleeping with inanimate objects because they have feelings for that object . . .
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
it's so funny watching morons screech about how offended they are by something that doesn't affect them in the least.
and yes, the fact that you refer to them as "delusions" makes you a bigot. because nobody with any actual training in mental health calls them delusions; only right-wing bigots do.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It depends on what exactly I stated in my comment you're referring to. I have been affected by most of what I posted.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why and how do these things affect you? A woman gets a boob job so she can self-identify as a woman with big boobs. A guy dyes his hair purple. People wear contacts to get blue eyes. Someone changes their name because they don't like the one they were born with. People move to other countries and self-identify as being from there. People get piercings, again, not born with gold rings in their ears. People get tattoos. Couples who were denied children by God himself get in vitro or use a surrogate, or adopt. People get divorced, covet their neighbors' wives, steal, take the Lord's name in vain, dishonor their parents... Good grief, Trump bears false witness against his neighbors on the daily. But this, this affects you.

There was a time when women who didn't take any sh*t from men were institutionalized for being mentally ill because they were outspoken. People with dark skin were savage, heathenous spawns of Satan. Suicide was a sin (but not anymore according to the Pope). I'm so sick of this puritanical bullsh*t.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Nothing you stated has anything to do with what I posted.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
My response had everything to do with what you said. Except for this nonsense: "If a woman refuses to accept a man's masculinity and is praised for doing so, why should the rest of us accept someone's claim to be peanut butter?" Because that's just straight up jibberish. @@
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"Straight up jibberish?"

Is it? There are people who believe they're cats and lizards. You think there isn't someone out there who believes they're a jar of peanut butter?
reply
0 ups
Good grief I hope you're not losing sleep over it...
reply
3 ups
I empathize with your frustration, but as people of truth we must also accept the fact that most of the people who oppose these obvious facts will not be convinced by mere restatement. I, too, struggle with my tact, but is something that we all need to work on if we are to be effective in bringing people back to real truth
reply
3 ups
Well said, good sir
reply
1 up
Gay is ok, but I’m not gay. The point is not that it’s wrong, but that they love each other. But you’re right about the other things
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
"A fifty-something year old man claims he's a 6 year old girl and therefore has every right to use a woman's restroom in public."

When and where did this happen?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
https://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-the-52-year-old-father-who-identifies-a-6-year-old-girl/

There are many other articles relating to this story, but I chose this at random.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
JESUS CHRIST...THIS IS WHY WE ARE GOING DOWN THE SHITTER.
IDIOTS LIKE YOU BELIEVE THIS CRAP BLINDLY.

READ THE DISCLAIMER
https://www.mediaite.com/disclaimer/

DISCLAIMER

Mediaite publishes news, information, gossip, rumors, conjecture, opinions, analysis and commentary. Mediaite includes original, created, fictional, reported and edited content as well as unmoderated reader posts and/or comments containing the personal opinions of readers on a wide range of topics. The information set forth herein may not necessarily be accurate or current.
Mediaite does not routinely moderate, screen, or edit content contributed by readers and is not responsible for the opinions or statements of contributors.

Mediaite and any information set forth thereupon is provided without warranty of any kind, including any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for use for a particular purpose, accuracy, or non-infringement. Mediaite does not guarantee that the site will operate in an uninterrupted or error-free manner or that it is free of viruses or other harmful content. Use of information obtained from or through Mediaite is at your own risk.

Mediaite is not in any way liable for any loss or damages you may suffer or incur, including, but not limited to, claims for defamation, errors, loss of data, loss of money, detrimental reliance or interruption in availability of data arising out of the use or inability to use Mediaite or any links thereupon, your placement of content on Mediaite, or your reliance upon information obtained on from or through Mediaite or through links contained thereupon.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
As I already stated, this is not the only article on the story. This is actually a true story that happened to be picked up an a website that does not always post stories that were double checked.

Do you need some other links or would I just be wasting my time?
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
If you had posted a link to a reputable source in the first place, you wouldn't have wasted everyone else's time.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
This site isn't allowing me to post links to other sites, but if you know how to google something, plenty of sites talk about it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Your "proof" has been discredited and you have lost credibility. I you expect to regain credibility, it is YOUR job to provide proof, not ours. There may be dozens of stories, but they could all be from Onion like sorces. It is your job, as the one making this claim, to prove it.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
As I have already stated above, I tried posting the links to the stories on the comment thread and they wouldn't post. The first link posted with no problem, but the next two links I tried posting did not. I don't really care if you believe the story or not, as that wasn't the focal point of my original comment. You just decided to take one small point from an entire comment and run with the idea, "I'm gonna git him now. That story sounds fake as hell..."

If you truly wanted to see if the story was legit, you could have searched "52 year old man dresses like 6 year old girl" and plenty of websites pop up.
reply
2 ups, 4 replies
You're full of shit. Take the www off or the DOT COM or whatever you have to do to list your so called "proof"

Until then you are lying sack of human garbage trolling for the sake of trolling.

LOSER.
3 ups
Okay, first off, I'm not Christ. I'm a human being that reacts to people how they act toward others. You came at this guy for nothing at all. All he said was the links weren't posting and you went off on him.

Second, it doesn't look like he was saying much about this story until he was confronted about it being fake. It's actually a true story.

Third, I'm not saying he's a threat to anyone. I'm not saying he's harming anyone. However, I believe he's a selfish ass who think more of himself than his family, especially his 7 children. He ruined his family because he wants to fulfill some weird fantasy that he has being a little girl. That's a bit mental. I don't care if he is a functional member of society.

Finally, if he didn't have children or a wife, I wouldn't give a shit about his stupid fantasies.
3 ups
Dude, you're a pathetic little man. Get off the site and quit trolling with your pathetic alt account, numbnuts. Nobody want to hear your stupid rants.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/news/world/transgender-woman-leaves-wife-7-kids-live-girl-article-1.2463795%3foutputType=amp

Here you go, idiot.
1 up
1 up
Spurs...that's not very Christlike of you.

I found another article...http://www.rebelcircus.com/blog/man-abandons-family-to-become-6-year-old-girl-gets-adopted-and-plays-with-kids/6/

S/he was brought up devout Catholic. That explains some of it.

Also- nowhere did I read s/he is using women's bathrooms but even if they did I feel like they wouldn't be much of a threat.

Read their story.

I am more apt to think we need to be wary of the "godly" men of the world:
https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/nation-now/priest-accused-in-124-guam-sex-abuse-cases-ages-quietly-alone/465-21fcd73d-a792-4dde-b669-9af4460a818e

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91695&page=1

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/08/catholic-church-priests-raped-children-philadelphia-725894.html

https://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/08/09/attorney-former-priest-photographed-50-altar-boys-and-their-private-parts/88439760/

Seems you always hear things about pedophiles being "normal" straight men or priests but never about a tranny raping anyone.

Odd....right?
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"Where do we stop accepting those who believe these absurd things to be true? Men sleeping with other men and women sleeping with other women..."

Homosexual activity is not true or false. It is a thing that exists. I'm not sure why you're trying to say a physical activity is false. That makes no sense.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
The act of homosexuality is true in its physical form. I'm not denying this. The idea that it's beneficial to those involved is absurd.

We always hear "love is love" and yet we never hear the issue of procreation and how it affects children that may be involved in the relationship of their parents.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
So...gay people don't procreate...therefore...the children they don't produce don't have good relationships with their parents? You lost me.

If you oppose homosexuality because gay people don't procreate, are you upset with straight people who can't or won't bear children?
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
That isn't what I was saying at all.

I wasn't necessarily opposing homosexuality. I was bringing up an issue that is very rarely brought up in conversations like this. I was also asking the question that if we are to support one activity that is not as common as what is considered the norm, where does the norm become less normal, then becomes a little weird, then becomes sick and disturbing?

If there is a line to be drawn figuratively speaking, then at what point does the less than normal become weird and disturbing?

I don't believe homosexuality to be weird and disgusting, but I wanted to talk about how the children involved would be effected by having homosexual parents since it isn't exactly natural.
reply
1 up
There has actually been a fair amount of research done that shows children of gay/lesbian parents have no more issues (in terms of self image, confidence, social skills, intelligence, etc.) than children of straight parents. The biggest difference is that typically don't have hangups about same sex relationships.
reply
1 up
Thank you for clarifying.

It all depends on the society, to an extent. What society considers normal tends to change over time. And what one society considers normal, another society existing at the same time would consider abnormal.

As for children, I really don't believe that children raised by same-sex parents are any worse-off than children raised by a heterosexual couple. Some people would argue that children need both a male and female role model, and that's fine, but being raised by two men or two women doesn't mean the child won't have any influential people in their life to fill that role.
reply
1 up
Or upset with the straight people giving birth to all the gay people?
reply
12 ups, 5 replies
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
That's even worse. Don't call yourself a woman if you're keeping the twig and giggle berries.
reply
7 ups
Case in point.
reply
8 ups
reply
4 ups
i.imgflip.com/2bp5ev.jpg (click to show) Wow, looking bad Bruce
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
12 ups, 3 replies
reply
8 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Heh Heh
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You should go to a Pride Parade and see how the newly "accepted" sexuality and lifestyle folk recoil.
reply
2 ups
*polygamy
reply
1 up
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
That doesn't sound too bad at all. Conway got laid a lot.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
13 ups
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
That is true if I claim to be a black man nobody would take me seriously because I am clearly white but no if you think your woman then you should get to go in the military and in the women's bathroom and the state should pay for the helthcare it's amazing what "progress" is
reply
8 ups, 3 replies
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
[image deleted]But what if they can't get it inside?
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
reply
3 ups
Well she just might be black because she is up charges for wrongfully using Welfare. hahaha, just a joke .... but it is true.
reply
1 up
[image deleted]
reply
3 ups
Ah, please. People look led to ignore this argument for...reasons. Because claiming to be trans-ethnic is racial appropriation, but claiming to be transgender is good.

I dearly love listening to fruitcake logic.
reply
5 ups
reply
7 ups
people are born transgender; being a transphobic right-wing moron is learned.
sorry other people living their lives happily triggers you so badly, snowflake.
reply
4 ups
I Saw that in vegas cops were questioning the guy about his sexuality and gave him a ticket because he was swimming at the Bellagio Fountains.
reply
3 ups
i.imgflip.com/2bidpp.jpg (click to show)
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
;)
reply
5 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
:D
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Look,sun! dad...we are not supposed to look at the sun..it blinds ya with it's powerful rays.
reply
2 ups
Very funny man!
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Can people please at least cut down on saying ya, also what was funny about that.
reply
1 up
Was not supossed to be funny,and no im not cutting down on anything. Have a good day.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Who cares about who is f**king who or how they do it! People need to cut down on all the ya's and be considerate!!!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
????love you hun
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That cracked me up!
reply
1 up
Hehe <3
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
^Look everyone, a post by a homophobe bigot.^
reply
13 ups, 2 replies
How does this make the poster a homophobe and bigot? They are just posting examples that differ from your point of view while using no name calling and no vulgar language. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make the a “-phobe” or “-ist”.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
^^this is called normalization.

Like when the Nazis had a different point of view of Jews...at first it was basically this. Printings and posters of Jews being rats...etc.

It's sad we are in the middle of it and so many are oblivious.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
It's actually kind of sad that the left always compares anyone with differing views from them, as Nazis and Hitler.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
I always see you using this template. I don't even know who that guy is.
reply
3 ups
Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci ) from the Hunger Games, like Octavia said, tv announcer for the show in the movie.

Was looking for a pic for something else, and he accidentally turned up.
Totally captures the persona of the direction I was going, so I decided to just use various pics of him for templates.

The persona I adopted is not exactly as his (mine for the purpose of satire, him not - being practically unselfconscious of his own uber plastic phoniness), but his image captures it perfectly nevertheless.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
He's the announcer or someone from The Hunger Games. I think he's called Caesar.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Ah, now if only I knew why he pretty much only uses that template. lol!
reply
5 ups, 4 replies
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Yeah, so wonderfully snide, seemingly oblivious to his own phoniness, unabashedly smarmy to the point of cringe, a guilty pleasure just look at him, he totally amazes me, I laugh just picking which template to use...

Watched the movie on tv last week just for him. Had seen the first two. I think there's a third?
1 up
Thanks for the explanation :)

I think there's Hunger Games, HG Catching Fire, and HG Mockingjay parts 1 and 2. I haven't seen any of them.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Even after reading these comments that I obviously am perfectly able to understand I still beg to differ about any of it being condescending but that's just me and my dumbass.
0 ups
It's satire, but always in an excessively smug and cocky way. The pics of the character totally captures that, but also with an aspect of being unselfconsciously in denial of it as well.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Octavia_Melody 1 up
Thanks for the explanation :)

I think there's Hunger Games, HG Catching Fire, and HG Mockingjay parts 1 and 2. I haven't seen any of them."

Not my thing, I'd rather go to Arnie's The Running Man for my dose of dystopian cartoons. But out of curiosity...

Sorry for the delay.
Your comment was actually lowrated out of view. What is wrong with people?
1 up
"Sorry for the delay."

No worries :)

"Your comment was actually lowrated out of view. What is wrong with people?"

I noticed that, too. I have some trolls who follow me around and downvote anything and everything I say. Last week I made a meme comment about Terminator 2 on one of my memes, a completely innocuous comment, and it was downvoted into hidden status.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"I noticed that, too. I have some trolls who follow me around and downvote anything and everything I say. Last week I made a meme comment about Terminator 2 on one of my memes, a completely innocuous comment, and it was downvoted into hidden status."

That is so sad, like was mommy stingy with the Flinstones Gummi Vitamins when they were toddlers?

Granted, I get them too, but given what I do, it comes with the territory.
You're respectful to them even when their prolonged brain aneurysm is verging on a major cascading event.
0 ups
Haha :)

Thank you. I would say I'm respectful, up to a point.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Both sides do it.
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
I find it disgusting because it lessens the atrocities that were committed during Hitler's regime.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I agree. But you had said "the left always" does it. People on both sides do it.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
When I say leftists, I'm referring to the far left. The left's version of the "alt-right."
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You said "the left," not "leftists". I didn't know you meant people on the far left.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Whoops... I'm talking about far left. And by that I mean those who riot when a speaker they hate is speaking on a college campus. Those leftists.
2 ups
Gotcha :)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
There's a difference between equating a human being with a pest, and saying that someone is mentally ill. Nobody hates on doctors for giving a diagnosis and offering recommendations for help, why should there be outrage when someone says a person needs psychological help?
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Oh...yeah...the Nazis had doctors that agreed Jews (by their research) were inferior and basically garbage humans that were genetically inferior.

What's wrong with pointing out they were genetically inferior evil pests?

Please say you see how silly (and downright wrong) that sounds?
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
So - let’s call it cancer, not mental illness. And cancer is redefined to no longer be cancer until it causes you pain. For those who have cancer that does not hurt yet, we will celebrate it and help their cancer grow & spread. Call them brave. Sound cruel? So is encouraging mental health illness to grow until it screws up their lives and those around them, perhaps to the point of suicide, and then try to treat that which we previously encouraged. That’s messed up!
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
You're making an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because something was believed to be true for a long time doesn't mean it is actually true. Using your logic, we should still be giving gay people lobotomies and electroshock therapy.

And comparing transgenderism to cancer is just plain stupid. Transgenderism doesn't "grow" and it doesn't screw up everyone's lives.
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
I would argue that it does "screw up everyone's lives" but take the word "everyone" and replace it with "the individual's and their families."

It isn't an accident that the suicide rate among transgenders is hovering around 40-42%, while among everyone else it's about 2-5%. And I find it hard to believe that the high suicide rate is due to bullying. There are a lot of "normal" people who get bullied and the suicide rate is not even close to that of the transgender community.
reply
2 ups
I would certainly disagree that being transgender "screws up" the lives of the person in question and their family around them.

Why is the suicide rate so high for them? I don't know, but I don't believe in jumping to conclusions before the actual reason is discovered (if it ever is).
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
What the Nazis did was wrong because they devalued human life and prescribed genocide instead of help. Even if Jews were genetically inferior (and I don't think they are), that would not justify violence against them. In a similar vein, it would be wrong to advocate the mistreatment of people who suffer from transgender delusions.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Transgender people don't need your help
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
I agree. I do not have the psychological expertise to give transgender people the help they need. What they need is for therapists to teach them how to have a healthy understanding of self and scientific reality, instead of having an entire culture that tells them to get their genitals mutilated by a surgeon.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
so you don't have a degree in psychology, but you demand that psychologists treat transgenderism as a mental disease. funny how that works, huh? since the actual psychologists do the exact opposite.
see, really, you just want people to live the way you want them to, and if they don't, you spew a bunch of pseudoscience garbage you gleaned from 4chan.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
That is an appeal to authority argument. I did not have to be an expert psychologist to know that someone is holding to delusions. What I was referring to is that I most likely lack the skill to help people overcome their delusions.

As for the argument that I just want people to live a certain way, I fully admit that I do believe there is a right way to live, and that people who live that way will experience greater joy. I want people to live a certain way for their own good. However, you can rest assured that I do not intend to force anyone to live that way. My job is not to change people's minds, but to give them truth and hope they use it to change their own minds. As the old saying goes: "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
3 ups
@nothingmusic42
I do not base my claim on any of my own authority or credentials. Either what I say is true or it isn't, and my own expertise or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. I do not have to have any credentials to say that psychologists should help their patients align their thinking with truth.

@jamiefredrickson1
I did not claim to know what will make others happy, I claimed to know what would give them joy, which is very different. Additionally, I don't see what is so arrogant about it. If you think that someone would be happy by doing whatever they want, then aren't you also claiming to know what would make them happy? If I had claimed this knowledge as something I invented myself, then that would be arrogant. I do not claim that, but instead insist that there exists a path of life which has true joy unlike anything else, and I have simply had the good fortune to have learned this path from other wise people who have gone before me.
4 ups
no, it's not an appeal to authority, because you openly admitted you have no training in psychology, yet you insisted that psychologists treat people a way that you prescribe.
guess what? i have no training in psychology, but you are obviously suffering from delusions of grandeur, since you are clearly not qualified to tell people they are mentally ill. maybe you should seek some therapy? a therapist will help you move passed your delusions, and help you see that you are in no way qualified to diagnose people.
4 ups
Thats some arrogant shit..thinking you know what will make others happy..lolol
reply
1 up
At the end of the day it usually, wait actually is pretty much their choice but then the thing is I probably shouldn't get between some discussion or argument either way doesn't matter because everybody has different views.
Plus why are we doing this on a meme/whatever else that it is page anyway shouldn't you guys at least do this on Reddit or Facebook because it starting to turn out like the whole Rick and Morty fanbase thing where people were ranting about how "you a good bit more intellectual than average human which we know isn't at all true...
Oh wait now ranting.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
"I did not have to be an expert psychologist to know that someone is holding to delusions"

Do you believe you hold to any delusions?
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
Replying here to "that's good. Is transgenderism not being a "mental illness" one of those things?"

I am reasonably certain that anyone born with XY chromosomes and male genitalia is, in-fact, a male (and anyone born with XX chromosomes and female genitalia is, in-fact, a female). I think it is highly unlikely for this to be disproved, but I'm willing to address the matter as an open debate.
1 up
@Octivia_Melody

I do not deny the mental and emotional aspects of gender, but I do not see how they make gender separate from biological sex. Rather, I would say that they reaffirm the idea traditional gender roles and male/female complimentarianism. Many of these mental and emotional aspects are deeply intertwined with a person's biology and hormonal composition. The cases where such mental/emotional aspects deviate from a person's biological sex are rare exceptions (often occurring before puberty, I might add), which only reaffirm the general rule as being normative.

That said, the debate on gender vs. sex really comes down to semantics. Throughout history, "gender" has been synonymous with "sex", and mostly used to refer to a person or animal as being male or female, without accidentally referring to sexual activity. If you are to separate the two ideas, then new definitions are required.
1 up
Edit: I think there is a big possibility that transgenderism might not be a mental illness, but rather just a false self-perception based on affirmation of different momentary feelings. I am uncertain as to what the exact nature of transgenderism is, but either way, I fail to see any compelling reason to separate gender from biological sex
1 up
If you don't separate gender from biological sex, you're saying that mental and emotional aspects of it don't exist, that it essentially just boils down to what genitals the person has.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I'm open to the idea that I might be proven wrong about a great many things if sufficient evidence and reason is presented.
2 ups
That's good. Is transgenderism not being a "mental illness" one of those things?
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
So a post is only bigoted if it uses name calling or vulgar language?

"Black people and Mexicans should not be allowed to live in my neighborhood. If they come into my neighborhood I will make sure they end up in the hospital."

That sentence contained no name calling or vulgar language, so that means it's not bigoted, right?
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Not at all. That’s not my point. I’m just saying the poster said as a white person saying they identified as black would be viewed as nonsensical just as they feel like someone born with a p**is identifies as a woman, which to the poster, is just as nonsensical. It’s their opinion and it was followed up with them being called a bigot and homophobe. I think they make a fair point. If I tape my eyes slanted because I identify as Asian is that my right and would it be accepted by society? You are the one who changed the posters personal opinion into a theoretical hate crime and assault. Apples and oranges.
reply
1 up
I didn't change their opinion into a theoretical assault. I was responding to what you said about their comment not being bigoted simply because they didn't use any vulgar language. If you tape your eyes back to identify as Asian, yes, that would be silly. But that's not the same as being transgender.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
look everyone a triggered liberal on the internet. (smujismuj)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Look everyone!!! Christians who don't mind they are decedents from cave men who f**ked each other..Its easy to trigger right wingers as well..
reply
10 ups
It's okay that I correct your spelling and grammar. You know, 'cause I'm nothing but a religious bigot and all.
reply
1 up
Ukk!
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
Haha :)
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
Look Dad, American rights! Your not familiar with him so I'll introduce you.
reply
1 up
Judge a lot lest ye be judged?
reply
0 ups
Not to be offensive but since this is black and white it hard not to believe that this meme is true. in 1920 that was super accurate. Nice meme by the way!
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
When you start looking at major worldviews in their entirety, all of them are crazy in one way or the other. People either believe in infinite nothingness that somehow turned into something, or in an infinite universe, or in an infinite God. Personally, I think an infinite God makes a lot more sense than an infinite universe or an infinite nothing, even if I can't completely wrap my head around the idea (and for the record, the human mind can't fully comprehend an infinite universe or an infinite void, either)
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Well said. For some reason humans have “grown” to believe we’re the highest intelligence in the universe, and if we can’t understand something it can’t be real.

It consistently amazes me when people demand proof of God’s existence, ignoring the fact that while there is no way to prove God is real, there’s also no way to prove that he isn’t. And while disproving God requires evidence, faith does not require evidence (or it wouldn’t be faith).
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Actually, you are completely wrong about faith and proof. Abraham heard the voice of God, and was stated as having faith. Moses saw the backside of God's glory, and was said to have faith. While believing in the existence of God is one part of faith, the real substance of faith is the willingness to trust God and follow Him. Few things, if any, can be proven 100%, but God's existence can, in my opinion, be shown to at least be reasonable. Look up the Kalam Cosmological argument and the nature of time. Look at the fine-tuning of the universe (especially life). Study moral absolutes. While none of these things alone can entirely prove the God of the Bible, they are compelling cases that show the rationality of Christian faith.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Abraham most likely didn't even exist. There is no objective historical evidence that he did. But let's assume that he did for the sake of argument. He heard a voice in his head telling him to kill his child and almost did it. That right there tells me he is insane. If someone hears a voice in their head telling them to kill someone, they are mentally ill. And you know what? I have actually spoken with Christians face to face who have told me that if god told them to kill someone, they would actually do it, because you have to do what god tells you to do. Why didn't Abraham say "no, god would never tell me to do something like that. That must come from Satan!"

Also...

The Kalam Cosmological argument is nothing but special pleading to try and get around the infinite regress problem that the traditional cosmological argument contains.

If the universe is so fine-tuned for life, why is there so little of it? As far as we know, we are literally the only planet in the entiiiiiire universe with life on it. That doesn't sound like fine-tuning to me. It sounds like we are a fluke.

"Study moral absolutes."

Cool. Which ones?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Unless I am mistaken, Abraham heard God's voice audibly, not in his head. Additionally, Abraham had heard from God before that (like when he was told to leave his home and go the place God would show him), so perhaps Abraham was able to recognize God's voice.

The Kalam Cosmological argument shows that time cannot be infinite, and therefore that the universe, which is bound by time, cannot be infinite, thus suggesting that there must be some un-caused cause existing ontologically prior to time.

As for the universe being fine-tuned for life, I hold that it is indeed very well suited to sustain life, but not create it. God specifically chose to create life on earth, and left the rest of the universe to be a guide for times and seasons.

As for moral absolutes, I do not mean that there is any one moral principle that is accepted by all, but that morality, by nature, must be absolute if it is to mean anything. The vast majority of people, even ones who claim to disagree with absolute morality, act as if moral principles are universally binding upon everyone. The only way that such absolute morality can exist is if there is an absolute authority above all mankind. The only other logically-consistent explanation of morality is one that sees it as a means to an end, a tool to gain trust for one's own personal gratification.
reply
0 ups
Sorry for the late reply. I'm just catching up on my notifications now.

"Unless I am mistaken, Abraham heard God's voice audibly, not in his head."

That doesn't make him sound less crazy.

"Additionally, Abraham had heard from God before that."

How did he know it was actually God's voice? How do you know it was actually God's voice?

Time may or may not be infinite, but matter appears to be eternal, since it cannot be created or destroyed. Time, space and matter are all interconnected. So if matter is eternal, that makes the rest of the Kalam argument unnecessary.

"God specifically chose to create life on earth, and left the rest of the universe to be a guide for times and seasons."

So you're saying that god literally created the rest of the cosmos just for humans to use as signs and guides? Do you have any idea how astronomically (no pun intended) arrogant that sounds? You're taking anthropocentrism to its logically absurd conclusion.

"...morality, by nature, must be absolute if it is to mean anything."

If that's the case, then why did god give certain rules to the Israelites to "set them apart" from the surrounding nations? Shouldn't he have given all people everywhere the exact same rules?

"The only way that such absolute morality can exist is if there is an absolute authority above all mankind."

Says who? How did you reach that conclusion?

"The only other logically-consistent explanation of morality is one that sees it as a means to an end, a tool to gain trust for one's own personal gratification."

You're making a false dichotomy. Who says those are the only two choices?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
My friend, we are saved by faith in Christ, faith that what we have not seen is real. When I speak of God’s existence being impossible to prove, I refer only to the viewpoint of those who refuse to believe in something because they haven’t seen it; “seeing is believing” is the mantra adhered to by those who don’t like the idea of God being real. They haven’t seen him and think they’re far too intelligent to have missed him if he was, so perforce they must try to discredit those who believe otherwise. You can only prove God’s existence to someone who already believes in God. If someone does not, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I trust that you believe the Bible? Please read the book of Acts, and you will see time after time where the Apostle Paul brought many to Christ by reasoning with them. You are partially right, though. In the end, it is not our reasoning or proof that will save people, but the work of the Holy Spirit upon their heart. Nevertheless, we are instructed in 1 Peter 3:15 to be able to give logical answers about the hope we have in Christ Jesus. By giving evidence, we plant and water seeds, which God then grows in His own good timing.

The early church was successful thanks to its confidence, and its confidence was rooted in the evidence of the eye-witnesses who saw Christ resurrected. We may not see God in this life, but we can still see the evidence of Him.

You are right again about the people who refuse to believe in God unless they see Him. If they did see Him, they would drop dead, and then it would be too late for them. Some hearts are simply too stubborn to convince, and our only option is to pray for them, and then walk away, shaking the dust off of our feet.
reply
0 ups
Correct; I will add that my statement was intended to be rhetorical. Paul reasoned with those who were willing to consider the possibility of Christ being the promised Savior; the only reason his arguing was successful was because God opened the hearts of those who listened. Just like, the only reason I believe today is because God originally put it in my heart to do so. Christ, not man, is the author of our salvation.

Hence the statement above. God's reality can be easily proved to those who have been chosen by God to believe, because their salvation is already determined.

Without that, no human argument will ever accomplish the conversion of an unbeliever.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
" “seeing is believing” is the mantra adhered to by those who don’t like the idea of God being real."

No, it's the mantra of people who value skepticism and don't believe claims that have not been demonstrated or supported with evidence.

"You can only prove God’s existence to someone who already believes in God. If someone does not, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise."

This is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin. You can only prove God's existence to someone who already believes in him? If they already believe in him, why would you need to prove his existence to them? What it sounds like you're essentially saying is "just believe in god, and the evidence that he's real will come along later." This is completely backwards thinking. You don't believe a claim then wait for evidence later on that confirms the claim. You should be skeptical of its veracity until good evidence comes along to confirm it. Your way of thinking is completely upside down.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Octavia, Octavia...we cross paths for the third time in such a discussion. The last two times both ended with you avoiding responding to a question you could not possibly answer without destroying your own argument. This time, it seems, you've decided to follow a similar course by ignoring my last comment to you and focusing instead on picking apart another comment of mine.

"Seeing is believing". So, did you see George Washington? Or Atilla the Hun? Or Julius Caesar? How do you know any of them existed? Maybe they're just made-up figures of history, just like the Bible. You'll respond with "there are numerous accounts of these figures from multiple sources..." Yeah, there are. Which still doesn't change the fact that you yourself never saw them. Yet you choose to believe they were real.

It's not absurd; it's the simple truth which you prove even as you dispute it. Any argument I bring as evidence of God's reality, you simply disregard. Wouldn't matter if I brought personal experience into it, or told you that I've prayed to God and my prayers have been answered in a way that could ONLY have been God. No man or coincidence could have brought about what I asked for. And yet, even if I said that, even if every Christian ever said that, you'd remain unconvinced and be assured of your own intelligence, that you're smarter than every single one of us. And you'd still say "show me God, and I'll believe in him." Doesn't matter how many witnesses ever face you - you'll still call us deluded.

The point of my statement, since you missed it in your brilliance, was that it was a rhetorical statement. Do you understand rhetoric? Okay, now go ahead and respond that of course you do. Good. Nice job tripping over yourself to try to tear apart this statement because you thought it was a blunder. Next time, be a little more careful before you rip into a rhetorical statement.

If someone believes in God, I can prove to them God is real...but I don't have to do so because they already believe. If someone, like you, refuses to believe in God...well, not much I can do to convince you no matter what I say. The only one who can do that is God himself. I can't change your heart no matter how many words I speak - I'm not God. Again - rhetorical statement.

Anyway, now I'd appreciate if you'd go down and read the comment I actually addressed to you. The one about, ya know, your very unscientific attitude regarding Christianity.
reply
0 ups
" "Seeing is believing". So, did you see George Washington? Or Atilla the Hun? Or Julius Caesar? How do you know any of them existed? Maybe they're just made-up figures of history, just like the Bible."

No, I never saw any of them. So technically you're correct. They could all be made up.

"Any argument I bring as evidence of God's reality, you simply disregard."

Because you bring lousy arguments which I find wholly unconvincing or persuasive.

"Wouldn't matter if I brought personal experience into it,"

No, it wouldn't, because personal experience doesn't prove anything.

"or told you that I've prayed to God and my prayers have been answered in a way that could ONLY have been God."

How do you know it could "ONLY have been God"? And what about people whose prayers aren't answered? Can I use that as evidence that god doesn't exist?

"And yet, even if I said that, even if every Christian ever said that, you'd remain unconvinced"

You're right, because personal testimony doesn't prove anything.

"...that you're smarter than every single one of us."

I never said I was.

"Doesn't matter how many witnesses ever face you - you'll still call us deluded."

You're right, because personal testimony doesn't prove anything.

"If someone, like you, refuses to believe in God..."

You're confusing "refuses" with "isn't convinced". I don't refuse to believe in god. I'm open to the possibility. But every argument presented so far is a dud.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Just because you can't prove something isn't real doesn't mean it is, and it doesn't even mean it might be. You can't prove a universal negative. That's like saying "prove there isn't an invisible gnome somewhere in the universe right now".

You're right, faith doesn't require evidence. That's the problem. People believe they can take something on faith, as if that is somehow a reliable path to truth. There is literally no claim that you can't believe solely on faith.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
The evidence that supports Evolution is no stronger than that which supports Creation. At the end of the day, neither one of us was actually there, and either one may construe what we see in the world around us as evidence of what we desire to see. You say my faith is illogical, and I can’t be certain it happened as I believe - compadre, exactly as much belief is required to believe in Evolution as in Creation. Again, the proof can work both ways. So then it comes down to what we choose to believe.

I choose to believe that life is far too complex to have come about on its own. Life itself is a gradual decay until death - death does not gradually give way to life. The only life we may see beginning descends from a parent or parents; we have yet to observe a single organism come to life spontaneously, without being acted on by outside forces. There’s actually more evidence to support Creation than there is supporting Evolution; we can at least see life being perpetuated today in a way consistent with Creation. Whereas Evolution, which requires life to come into existence where no life has previously existed, remains an I observed hypothesis. So I ask: which requires more faith? Your belief, or mine?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Science is a combination of observation, study, testing and inference. Science makes educated guesses based on available data. Those guesses and conclusions are always open to revision if new evidence comes along to cast doubt on them. That's how science works. That's why it works.

"we have only the word of our history books that (George Washington) existed. The theory of Evolution has only the word of scientists that it’s true."

What the history books say is based on evidence. In the case of George Washington, we have actual documents written by him, paintings of him done by people who lived at the same time as him, and writings about him written by his contemporaries. Could all of this be fabricated and just a big hoax? Technically yes, but that likelihood is astronomically small. It's not just the word of historians that he existed.

Evolution is the same way. It's not "the word of scientists" that tell us evolution happens. It's the research, the testing, the observations, etc. We aren't just taking their word for it.

"Science changes every few years, when new things are discovered that overturn old ideas."

Yes, and that's a good thing.

"Evolution must assume science can accurately measure back as far as scientists claim it can."

All the data we have so far shows that we can trust those measurements. And if we find out that those measurements are wrong, then we continue to study and look into it to try and get more accurate results.

"And that the Big Bang occurred, but no one knows why."

Maybe someday we'll find out.

"And that life began where no life could possibly have existed beforehand."

This is another thing that scientists are studying to try and get more answers.

"Evolution is rife with (assumptions)."

Assumptions and inference are not the same thing. Making inferences about prehistoric life and events is not the same as making assumptions.

"God is not on a level comprehensible by Man."

Then that means *every single person* who ever claimed to hear from God was wrong, because he can't be comprehended by humans.

"If God is real...then he exists on a plane completely unfathomable to humans."

And yet Christians say that humans can have a close, intimate relationship with this being whose very nature and qualities are beyond our comprehension.

"...even if God were to again physically manifest in the universe."

If he doesn't physically manifest in our universe, why does it even matter if he exists?
reply
0 ups
Ah. Funny thing – there are both Christian and Evolutionist scientists. Both of whom arrive at conclusions supporting their respective beliefs. Yet you ignore and discard the observations, study, testing and inferences of Christian scientists who say that the results of their endeavors do not support Evolution, and points instead to having been deliberately designed and created. You choose, instead, only to accept the “science” of men who support Evolution.

Hmm. I could save them the trouble and tell them they’ll never witness life beginning from nothing. You said scientists have witnessed Evolution in action, and that Micro and Macroevolution are the same thing. Okay, we’ll pretend they are for a moment, just for fun. Which helps your case not at all, because Evolution still doesn’t explain how life began. And until Evolution can explain how life originally began, there’s nothing to evolve, now, is there?

Every ounce of data ever collected regarding life is that it perpetuates itself. It must come from something; life is an overlapping cycle. Birth, growth, reproduction, decay, death. Every living thing ever observed follows that cycle. And in order for Evolution to have anything to work with, that cycle must be ignored and we assume that life, inexplicably, just happened once and the rest is history. Quite a coincidence. There’s not one shred of scientific evidence supporting the notion that life ever, at any point, was able to spontaneously begin. Yet this idea is accepted without hesitation fact by those who wish to believe in Evolution.

The assumption that life began itself is, indeed, and assumption and not an inference or a theory. Observation? No scientist has ever observed life spontaneously begin. Study? No scientist has ever studied an organism that spontaneously became alive, because none has ever been observed. No scientist has ever managed to create life in a lab, even on a cellular level, without using another living organism. And from all of this non-evidence, they infer...life began itself, once upon a time. Scientific method? Not remotely.
reply
0 ups
As far as God’s incomprehensibility, that extends only to man’s ability to measure and understand him on a human scale. If God is the one who wrote the laws of reality, then God is not bound by those laws; if God’s power is limitless, then he may easily speak to men in a way men may understand. And he may have a personal relationship with humans for the same reason. Relationships with God do not depend on men’s ability to communicate with God; they depend on God’s ability to make himself understood by Men.

So your argument is going to be “since God isn’t here, why does he matter?” Hmm. If God created the Earth and everything in it, I’d say that alone matters a bit. And he’ll be back...which it says in the Bible. Might try reading it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Did you see Evolution? Did you see the universe begin? Neither did I. You want to prove me wrong? Very well; do it! Prove God does not exist. Provide the irrefutable proof that there is no God. Can you completely rule out the possibility? Absolutely, positively, without any chance of being wrong? If you can, do it!

But you haven’t.

Pressed for time, so I’ll respond in greater depth later. But by all means, display your proof that God is not real.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
"Did you see Evolution?"

Biologists have observed speciation in the laboratory and in nature. So yes, humans have seen evolution. Everytime you get a flu shot it proves evolution happens, because the organism has adapted to resist the previous year's treatment.

"Did you see the universe begin? Neither did I."

No, I did not. But you don't have to witness something happening to figure out what happened. Do detectives witness every single murder that happens? Or do they look at the evidence left behind after the fact and figure out what happened?

"You want to prove me wrong? Very well; do it! Prove God does not exist. Provide the irrefutable proof that there is no God."

I never said I can prove god does not exist. I never once said that, ever. Try honesty for once. You might actually like it. Also, no one can prove a universal negative. Can you prove there isn't a teapot floating between Earth and Mars? No? Then it must be possible, right?

"Can you completely rule out the possibility? Absolutely, positively, without any chance of being wrong?"

Nope. I can't. And I never once said that I could.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The sound of your silence is deafening.

As I recall, I asked you the same thing once before, and you couldn't/wouldn't/didn't answer me then, either. Why? Are your reasons that weak?

Well, yeah, they are. Because you must now either claim that you're not trying to disprove God's existence, in which case your arguments become pointless; but if you are trying to disprove the concept of God...you yourself admit that is an impossibility, so you cannot possibly argue this matter and have any hope of winning. Thus, your actions are completely illogical in either case.

As far as the teapot between Earth and Mars question, maybe there is one. Is it worth discussing? Considering the ramifications of what such a teapot would be likely to affect...no. The concept of a Creator, however, is on a completely different plane from that of an inanimate teapot floating in space. The teapot affects nothing if it is or isn't there; God, however, changes quite literally everything if he is or isn't there. Worth discussion? Judge for yourself.

But by all means, go on. There's another question I'd like to ask, if you ever respond with your motivations for arguing.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"Umm, you do realize Microevolution and Macroevolution are two very different things?"

They are as different as walking across your living room versus walking across a city. The mechanism is the same. Only time scale differs.

"Mutation if one species into another has never, ever been observed."

Yes, it has. That is what I referred to in my previous comment. It is called speciation. Different types of it occur: allopatric, sympatric, peripatric and parapatric.

Gregor Mendel lived a century and a half ago. What does he have to do with this conversation?

"for a man who claims to support science, you certainly have an unscientific attitude towards the notion of God."

Lulz

"Science demands that if something cannot be proven, it must be assumed to be improbable."

Can you show me a credible scientific source that says this?

Things should always be assumed to not exist until such evidence comes in to confirm or verify their existence.

Attempting to show that god likely does not exist is not the same as saying I can prove he doesn't.

"Why are you trying so hard to convince people of something you can’t even prove is true?"

Not being able to prove something conclusively doesn't mean I can't make a good argument for it.

"If you were truly as scientific as you’d like everyone to believe, you’d adopt the position that...(you cannot) fully rule out the possibility of God."

I've already stated that that is my position.

"The sound of your silence is deafening."

No, that's the sound of me falling behind on my notifications.

By your own logic, you're in the same boat I am. If you admit you cannot actually prove god exists, then your arguments are pointless. If you can prove he exists, why haven't you convinced me yet? If god actually exists, wouldn't you have a rock-solid, unassailable argument that brings every non-believer to their knees, begging you to tell them how to be made right with him and get to Heaven?

"(Consider) the ramifications of what such a teapot would be likely to affect...The teapot affects nothing if it is or isn't there; God, however, changes quite literally everything if he is or isn't there."

How do you know that? Maybe a god exists that doesn't affect or interact with our universe at all, like the god of deism.

"There's another question I'd like to ask"

Shoot
0 ups
“Microevolution: evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.”

“Macroevolution: major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.”

An example of microevolution might be, say, a new breed of cow being developed for beef production.

Macroevolution is the mutation of one or more species into a completely new species. No man has or will ever witness macroevolution taking place, because it requires a time period far longer than the longest lifespan of man.

Mendel was the father of modern genetics, conducting his experiments around the same time as Darwin was formulating his ideas. Had Darwin been aware of Mendel’s work at the time, the theory of Evolution likely would never have come to be.

Why do you expect to be able to pinpoint “God” and measure it in a test tube? Your concept of God is a weak, human God, who would be completely incapable of creating anything. You think humans should be able to see God if he exists, or find evidence of him in the world. And yet, if God is real, and he spoke matter itself into being, that is of a dimension completely incomprehensible to humans. Humans cannot create matter; the laws of the universe state that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. Well, if God is real, and has the power to create and destroy matter, then God is clearly not bound by the laws of the universe. Yet you want to bring God down to the level of humanity, and say we should see proof of him if he exists. Your notion of what God would look like is a forgettable alien of no importance, not a diety who has the power to create a universe at will and with a word.

I cannot prove to anyone that God exists, because I cannot change anyone’s heart. However God may use my words to convince others of Truth. My job is only to say what God gives me to say, and let Him use it as he will.

Science is how humans attempt to understand the universe we live in. Yet God, if he is real and has the power ascribed to him in the Bible, can never be measured by human means...unless he is a being who does not have Godly power, in which case he is not God. Yet you would use science to try to try to argue God’s nonexistence, because humans have fathomed all secrets of the universe?

We haven’t even figured out all of our own planet, and yet you think our science should be able to locate God?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Umm, you do realize Microevolution and Macroevolution are two very different things? Evolution within a species is very real. Mutation if one species into another has never, ever been observed.

Look up Gregor Mendel. Did some interesting work regarding mutations and genetics.

Also, for a man who claims to support science, you certainly have an unscientific attitude towards the notion of God. Science demands that if something cannot be proven, it must be assumed to be improbable. But if something cannot be disproven, it cannot be presumed to be nonexistent.

You claim to not be trying to disprove God’s existence, yet you act in a way very much otherwise. You engage in conversations that seem very much intended to debunk the concept of God...yet you know full well it’s something you can never prove! Why are you trying so hard to convince people of something you can’t even prove is true? If you were truly as scientific as you’d like everyone to believe, you’d adopt the position that, while you have not yet observed proof of God’s existence, neither can you fully rule out the possibility of God. Yet instead you arrogantly state “God is fake”. So tell me now where your scientific approach is.
reply
0 ups
Microevolution and macroevolution are mainly terms used by creationists to try and accept some degree of evolution while rejecting the rest of it. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Evolution is evolution is evolution. Just like walking is walking is walking, regardless of the distance or length of time you walk.

One species changing into another has been observed, as a quick google search will confirm (supported with actual scientific research and data, not just baseless assertions).

"No man has or will ever witness macroevolution taking place, because it requires a time period far longer than the longest lifespan of man."

Humans have already observed it. It does not require a time span longer than humans are alive. Some species reproduce in days, making it very easy to study them over many, many generations of that organism.

Mendel lived a century and a half ago, like Darwin. Advances in both genetics and biology have added to, and sometimes superseded, what both of them discovered and wrote about. Neither one of them is the final authority on their given field of study. No scientist ever is.

If the god described in the Bible exists, then some evidence of his existence should be available.

"Your concept of God...would be completely incapable of creating anything."

I haven't seen anything that I can verify was created by any god at all.

"You think humans should be able to see God if he exists, or find evidence of him in the world."

If he exists and manifests in this world as the Bible says, then yes. If he can be detected, why can't everyone detect him? If he can't be detected, why would I come to the conclusion that he exists?

"Yet you want to bring God down to the level of humanity, and say we should see proof of him if he exists."

That's what the Bible says, not me. The Bible says there is evidence of god all around us. If that's true, then why isn't everyone a believer in that specific god?

At least you aren't as bad as DarthFunk, who has gone full Calvinist.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
(Part 2)

"I cannot prove to anyone that God exists, because I cannot change anyone’s heart."

It's about changing their mind, not changing their heart. The mind cares about evidence and facts. The heart only cares about feelings and emotions.

"However God may use my words to convince others of Truth. My job is only to say what God gives me to say, and let Him use it as he will."

Why can't he use his own words? Wouldn't those be much more powerful and convincing than anything another human would say? If they're his words spoken through you, how do I verify that that's true and you aren't just making stuff up? If they're you're words, why should I even care?

Since science is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us, I would use it to try and test the supposed evidence for god that is offered. If god can't be verified scientifically, then I have no good reason to believe he exists.

"We haven’t even figured out all of our own planet, and yet you think our science should be able to locate God?"

If he manifests in our physical universe, then yes.
0 ups
You’re right about God’s own words...except God already spoke to Man, through the Bible. So if you don’t find my arguments convincing, go read the Bible. Though you’ve already read at least part of it, and will tell me you weren’t convinced by that either.

On the one hand you speak of evidence supporting Evolution. Yet the “evidence” you like to cite is based entirely on assumptions. Assumptions that human science is correct about what supposedly happened billions of years ago. Much like the George Washington argument; we have only the word of our history books that he existed. The theory of Evolution has only the word of scientists that it’s true.

Science changes every few years, when new things are discovered that overturn old ideas. We don’t know what we don’t know, until we know it. Creation must assume God exists? Well, Evolution must assume science can accurately measure back as far as scientists claim it can. And that the Big Bang occurred, but no one knows why. And that life began where no life could possibly have existed beforehand. Assumptions? Evolution is rife with them. Every shred of “evidence” that has ever been compiled regarding prehistoric events will never be more than conjecture, until someone invents a time machine.

Also, you’re still trying to drag God down to Man’s plane of existence, to a level you can measure. God is not on a level comprehensible by Man. If God is real, and if he can bring matter into existence with just a word, then he exists on a plane completely unfathomable to humans. And very much beyond defining by any science that will ever exist within the universe - even if God were to again physically manifest in the universe. If God created the universe out of nothing (not out of matter; if he created matter where none had previously existed), then he is beyond the universe’s scope.

I’m out of space and have schoolwork to do. More later.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Well if you are mutating you genitals I think that is a mental disorder just a hypothesis
reply
4 ups
I think that nothing says you truly feel like a woman than cutting off your junk....
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Oh, really?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Muslim-ian?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Nope trying to be pidantic isn't going to be in any aid of your future endeavours when trying to be humourous.
reply
0 ups
pe·dan·tic
p??dan(t)ik/Submit
adjective
of or like a pedant.
"many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
synonyms: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky;
Flip Settings
Look Son memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
LOOK SON; A MENTALLY ILL MAN CLAIMING TO BE A WOMAN
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback