Dissily Mordentroge

A very odd conclusion.

If the universe is infinite we know nothing.

Do the robots have any say in the matter?

And the conclusions?

Jumping in late on a thread without having done more than give it a cursory reading I still suspect there's an elephant in the room nobody want's to acknowledge, the content of so called holy books, their rationality or lack of it etc. For the sake of argument let's assume the Old Testament/Torah gives an accurate description of 'God'. If so we can justify the present tribe of Israel's militaristic stance towards other semitic tribes in the middle east. Given God as portrayed in The Old Testament/Torah is a vicious, temperamental, vindictive and unpredictable tyrant with no consistent moral code what can we expect from his followers, Christian or Jewish? On the other hand we may ask does an analysis of so called holy books illustrate in any meaningful way the actions of, for instance, today's Muslim extremists? What are we to make of the claim the following passage is only a direction to Allah's followers at the time of writing and not a prescription for today? In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. "When ye encounter the infidels*, strike off their heads,till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters." * The Meccans and other unbelievers of Muhammad's time. The Hanefites suppose this law to apply only to the battle of Bedr. The Shiites take it as of universal application. Who is right and does it matter? I want also to draw attention to a weakness in the vast majority of criticism of religion encountered too often of late. Those who find religion a dangerous phenomena, as I do, too often refuse to acquire any familiarity with scripture and even less acquaint themselves with recent biblical and comparative religious studies.. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ And to return to the original question posed at the start of this thread. To ask would the world be better off without religion appears to assume religion is a idea divorced from human nature and can simply be left behind like an outmoded and discredited ideology. Not that easy kiddies. Our species is prone to experiencing 'religious states' sometimes induced deliberately by an elite priesthood yet often induced by secular forces we see at work at events like Hitler's Nuremberg rallies and even rock concerts. So, how do we modify this susceptibility to mindless group think? If by some miracle we did what would we be left with ?

I can't see the point you're trying to make here unless it's a veiled recommendation to be utterly paranoid.

I didn't miss the addendum but I'm still sceptical. How far back does the erection go? With me as far as I can remember. I'm still pondering the original intention of this thead was. A simple distinction between homosexuality being 'natural' or 'unatural'? If so what do we actually mean when we bandy these terms around? I suppose my focus though is a subjective and unscientific one in that for me sex with other males of my species I experience as very natural, sex with females of my species as very unnatural.

I'm inclined to suspect you're right but how do we KNOW this?

Predates culture? Which particular primate ancestor are you thinking of? Oppressive cultures like Islamic culture, encourage the existence of homosexuality over and above those who are homosexually inclined ? I'm at a total loss to see how they encourage such and would be interested to know having spent some time in the middle east in all male bath houses. Given passive homosexual acts witnessed by the religious police in Iraq will see the 'guilty' given a choice between a state funded sex change or stoning to death. Mind you prominent imams and those caught indulging in the active role are usually let off.

A noble aim, but given many of those involving themselves in such a debate probably have a powerful sub-conscious need to argue against your proposition one fraught with predictable difficulties. I'm also mindful, in the context of human behavior, the ambiguity and probable irrelevance of supposing any aspect of human sexual behavior could be examined in isolation from cultural influences, few if any of which could ever be accurately described and unambiguously 'natural'. We could also consider ( forgive me if this has been previously discussed, I'm too lazy to read back through seven years of debate) behavior for any particular individual experienced as 'natural' could for others will be experienced as profoundly 'unatural'. Maybe evolutionary psychology will eventually answer all these questions but we'd still face the invidious irrationality of religious fundamentalism not only telling us what was unatural but asserting it to be ungodly. Given the recent exposure of pedophilia within orgnised religion they're in no position to declare anything unnatural. Sorry to take the discussion away from a scientific approach - - when dealing with human behaviour cultural influences can't be fully discounted.

When measuring male preference with a penile plethysmograph, IMO it sounds like men form a U-shaped curve, similar to what's been found for pupil dilation. You get varying degrees of flexibility, but with a strong unisexual bias. Phallometric bisexuals are sparse yet existent, but is this really just extreme flexibility? Alas, this assumes phallometry is a perfect and complete measure of sexual preference. Until and unless we can somehow manage to conduct phalometric measurements without the subject knowing the purpose I doubt the results could be taken as a complete measure of sexual preference. About as reliable as lie detector tests I suspect. As to the origins, cultural or biological of homophobia is there any need to assume a single cause/origin? I've observed recently ( excuse the anecdotal un-scientific observation) a number of previously homophobic adults having their feelings and expressed objections totally altered upon getting to know a gay couple with a four month old baby. Possibly a change induced by the parents being alpha males and disarming any preconceptions about stereotypes. But how on earth do we 'measure' any of this outside of the somewhat unscientific approach of psychology? More importantly, why does it matter and why are we trying to nail this question down?

I find it amusing how the term 'homosexuality' is bandied about in this discussion. Individuals of our species can function anywhere along a broad spectrum of sexual behaviours. To assert there is 'pure' homosexuality or 'pure' heterosexuality is to deny this. What for instance do we make of so called heterosexual males imprisoned with other males for years resorting to male/male sexual encounters? Have they become homosexual? Are they simply desperate? Are they demonstrating a potential previously repressed by social pressure? Labelling animals as 'homosexual' is just as fraught with potential confusion. Take for instance the common dominance display of one male dog over another by mounting and acting out a sexual motion. What does this mean? Why would we anthropomorphise such behaviour and describe it as homosexual? What do we describe two men who love each other but have little or no interest in having sex together? All these discussions are in serious need of some careful definitions of the terms we accept on face value. How do I describe myself, a male of our species who chooses to have sexual/romantic relationships only with other men yet now and again is turned on by the sight of female breasts. Yet having decided decades ago never to again subject myself to what I percieve as the emotional blackmail so many females of our species are addicted I decided to avoid any intimate involvement ? Am I a latent heterosexual? A misogynist? A repressed heterosexual? Simply neurotic? Frankly I don't care. In short what I think I'm trying to say here is any discussion of such issues is as yet mostly outside the bounds of anything like empirical science. Not that I suggest the immature science of psychology has yet answered these questions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And now for a little unscientific experimentation and amusement kiddies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8_pyKz1iY

I thought I had a passing understanding of bondage and S & M altough I've never been involved much in either. Recently Ive taken up with another man, in fact have to confess I've fallen in love with him, whatever that means. My sexuality has always been vanilla active and passive gay but my new lover tells me he wants me to tie him up and have my way with him. At first the thought was exiting but when he told me his fantasy during such acts was one of being raped I went into a spin. I can't understand how I'm supposed to be raping someone when they've voluntarily asked me to play that role. Seems a contradiction. Still, I,m very surprised to be turned on by the idea of tying someone up and availing myself of their vulnerability as such an urge has never gotten near my consciousness until now. So, I'm happy to oblige with the ropes but the role playing of raping someone still goes against everything I am. Am I being a politically correct prude? A quick answer please, I'm staying overnight at the new man's place tomorrow night. And yes, I know over-intellectualising these things can be pointless but I can't help trying to figure out what the hell it means to be voluntarily raped.

>……….The only reason i could see for coming to earth is if they wanted living creatures for some reason, and then they are unlikely to try to exterminate us. They might use emp weapons to reduce our ability to respond collectively, just as the show proposed………….< Or they'd make an alien version of foise gras out of us by force feeding us until our livers became distended and diseased just as we do to geese. Or roast haunch of homo sapiens anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras Apologies for the duplicate posting mess.

Your obvious difficulty in grasping my actual meaning does require an answer to prevent anyone else accepting your analysis of my views. I have no knowledge of so called supreme beings. However, further discussion of this kind belongs not here but here :-http://www.theologyonline.com "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations" Romans Ch 14: V 1.

A refreshingly and man humble perspective rarely stated slyrat. At the risk of dragging this thread into off-topic areas your suggestion alien motives for coming here could be well beyond our ability to comprehend leads me to the absurdity our species frequently demonstrates when claiming to know with absolute certainty the nature of our creator (substitute God/Supreme Being etc) without suspecting that 'creator' could actually be the aliens we keep speculating about.

Is this idea obtained from astronomical observation, theory, experiment or maybe all three?

Without resorting to equations, can anyone please give a brief description of what these limits consist of and why it's thought they apply. Thanks.

At this point I suggest it would be a good idea if we all arrived at an agreed definition of 'fact'.

Now there's a view I wish more scientists would adhere to instead of struggling to fit observation to their favourite 'elegant' equation. Still, the idea of sneaking up on a black hole from a particular angle and finding yourself in another space-time appeals.

Yes, and I was aware I was wandering off topic but ( if you'll excuse me being unscientifically freudian for a moment) I suggest all this speculation about aliens dropping in on us, and the many hiddious things they'll do, is due to a widespread repression of a profound fear we are indeed our own worst enemy. Arther Koestler's "The Ghost in The Machine' approaches this notion with a yet to be refuted thesis.

Astonishing to me the many forms human paranoia about 'them' have taken on this thread when the biggest and most likely threat to human survival is the human race itself.

Why is it we insist on attributing human behaviours to aliens? Fear of the unknown? Why is it we continue to imagine aliens travelling through space to visit us when they may be here already? Really, this is all about us seeing the universe through human eyes. We fail to consider really scary possibilities such as alien intelligence having observed our behavior and, seeing it as a danger to all of creation, deciding to simply pull the plug on our entire universe without a second thought.

Sweet thing. Shame about the green nail polish.