• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is a female??

K

Kfox

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
I am saying it can be observed some allow eggs to pass. other not. That is all, that is what can be observed, unless you do for how they function or not. But not functioning it is that the eggs stay. That is all in the objective sense.
Click to expand...
So what in your view is the use of Fallopian Tubes that do not allow eggs to pass?
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Valjean said:
What about fish, female plants, &c? The OP said nothing about "a female" being human.

People need to read, not interpret or jump to conclusions. Posters need to write what they mean, not just allude to things.
Click to expand...
Yeah.... There are many threads here about transgender fish, plants, etc. I can see why its so confusing
 
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Kfox said:
Yes. They are the vehicle allowing eggs to pass.
Click to expand...

But that is not a purpose, because that is a subjective evaluation. There is in the objective sense no purpose to the natural world. It is natural processes happening. What you call good and bad as for your examples are in effect both processes, it is just you assigning good and bad to them.
So while you can objectively describe processes, it is false that they are good or bad as processes, because good and bad are in you as they have no objective referent.

If you want to use evidence, then you have to learn when evidence doesn't apply, otherwise you are doing garbage in garbage out and that is irrelevant as to religion or not.
Learn that to describe the world is not the same as how we ought to live in it.
And for humans you can't just describe humans with evidence, because we are also in a limited sense subjective and evidence doesn't apply to that.

That is the first step. As for how we then ought to live, you can then learn to subjectively compare different assumptions about that. But you can't do it with evidence.
undsci.berkeley.edu

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu undsci.berkeley.edu

You have to learn however you claim useful and good, that is without evidence. Or that if you in effect claim objective good and bad, then it is false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top