Same-Sex Marriage: Yes or No, and why not? Apr 12, 2009 6:26:23 GMT 12
Post by Rishi on Apr 12, 2009 6:26:23 GMT 12
Works for me. I've opened it up in a new tab about a minute ago. Perhaps your chosen internet browser is defective in some way, just like your line of reasoning.
My point which you so opaquely avoided was simply that there are some things which we have no choice over (such as homosexuality and, oh..... eye colour too! . The example I chose got my point across and it was therefore sufficient.
Thanks for the clarification.
Who doesn't? Moot point.
LOL. No wonder what you've been saying in this thread is so dodgy!
Dude, there's more than one problem with Wikipedia. I tend to use Wikipedia as a last resort.
You sure 'bout that?
No arguments there!
Couldn't agree more.
Is there only one theism? No, there are different degrees and types of theism and so it also is with atheism.
The big picture would not be as big as it is were it not for those 'small portions'. All of my points still stand.
Using none other than your own peculiar flow of logic, I therefore say again: Hindu Atheist =/= oxymoron
Keep thinking that.
Still not taboo (as you admitted yourself), which is exactly my point.
The example I mentioned about the state of Karnataka is also relevant. The predominant religion in Karnataka is Hinduism and many of the Hindus there eat meat to a certain extent.
I'm not actually denying that the majority of Indians (read: 'Hindus') embrace vegetarianism. That is a fact. But, as I have already mentioned, embracing vegetarianism is not one of the strictest of laws outlined in the Vedic literature and is merely a product of arbitrary cultural customs which have manifested in Indian society throughout the last few millennia.
Not just sense..... common sense.
No. Short enough for your liking?
You can be as verbose as you want, whenever you want. I'm fine with that. I have all the time in the world to read and refute your arguments.
When did I actually say something about speaking about this issue in its entirety? Never. Exactly! I said:
Note how I said that I will explore this issue in its entirety as much as I possibly can. Apparently, you didn't properly read the underlined words of that statement otherwise I don't see how you could've established such a blatant straw-man argument.
I would not defeat myself, as the views which contradict my own would be taken into due consideration, analysed and, if I ultimately find myself still in disagreement with those particular views, they will be defeated by me exposing their flaws.
I know. However, I never said I would do it. Another moot point, my friend!
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you that I've placed the majority of my attention in this thread on relatively obscure details and fringe beliefs, I have still compared these relatively obscure details and fringe beliefs to their mainstream counterparts and found myself satisfied with the conclusions I have reached.
If you only enjoy the uniformity the beach offers, you miss the beautiful diversity that comprises it.
More like throwing away the risk of getting heart disease!!!
tut tut tut.
I was talking about religion in general as well and have merely disagreed with that which does not align with my sense of reason.
As I've already mentioned earlier in this post, the fact is that I basically said I'd explore this issue in its entirety to the very best of my ability.
Nothing happened to 'that' as 'that' did not actually exist to begin with. It was a straw-man argument you constructed.
Yes... just... yes.
'He who claims to realise it does not realise it, he who claims to not realise it does realise it.'
I never stated that I defend everything, as that is simply untrue.
'When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.'