"But seriously, the most active part you can play in biologic evolution is unprotected sex."

Yeah, both statements I still will repeat as valid for my opinion. We are talking about different plains here. One is the pure determinist biological plain. The other is the illusionary plain where you have choices. In other animals we can influence evolution as a selective force. In our own evolution we are influenced by our own (evolutionary formed and psychologically amended) drives and tastes. So, it's not like we can manage our own evolution totally ad libitum. You have the illusion of mating choice though, when it really is a mixture of more or less fixed action patterns, acquired psychological preferences and coincidence (probability).

>You mean prephysical not prophysical, don't you?
Metaphysical means beyond physics. All scientists that I heard of claimed that the laws of physics stop working just before we reach the time of the Big Bang. That makes the Big Bang beyond physics. We have a word for that and it's metaphysical. So, why make up new words?

"Metaphysics" was conceived millenia before any theory of a big bang and possible prophysical conditions were even thought of. And metaphysics certainly does not refer to the conditions prior/during the big bang. So, it is a new concept with a demand for a new word. You already tried to hijack the word evolution and call it god... I won't go for that. I also won't call gravity angel-weight and I won't call nuclear power satan's invisible ore sunshine.

Btw: don't try to out-smartass me, you will hurt yourself. Meta- is greek and so is pro- meaning before. Pre- is latin. I made the word up, I make the call about its components.

>How about one of your extrem American churches (Evangelists or whatever they are called) would say I don't care about what these atheists define as Theory of Evolution, as long as it contains the possibility of creationism.
See how stupid that sounds, but you are similarily hijacking the term marriage.

I don't know how you can confuse that. One is a scientific concept, the other one is a societal function. That is why it sounds stupid! You can't just redefine scientific concepts like you want, you need evidence. The important thing here is that the secular term for it is also marriage. The Christian churches have no copyright on that! But if it was for me, they even could have it. What you call it is not really important.

>The complicated way to describe how God has created the world". All that would change would be the name. There can obviously be no problem with that, can there?

OK, where do I sign? I can't wait to have evolution accepted by religionists... Now, wait a minute!!! If the name implies that the process was not scientific at all, then there is obviously a big problem with that. I already told you that what you believe in is not really evolution. Especially if you take this definition.

>>"What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives."

>That's a childish position. When you are thouroughly convinced of something you try to convince others. (You do so with atheism, btw)
That's like saying:
I want you to stfu about what religious people can or cannot do with their lives.

How is that childish? In your opinion, individual liberty is childish? You're on an American site, remember? Bold print marks the very big difference. I don't tell religious people how they should live their life. I also do not try to convince people of atheism. I just like discussing and mocking religious beliefs for the bullshit they are. If people are deconverted by that, their faith must have been weak all along. Isn't faith defined as believing in something no matter what evidence and rational arguments exist against that position? If anything, in this debate, I try to convince you that your position is just disingenuous creationism. You don't have to compromise your beliefs at all to accept that.

>When they want to spend their lives talking about religion, than that is as much their right as it is yours to fuck another guy in the ass.

Bigotry rears its ugly head again. They do not only talk about religion, they influence public morality and legislation. If a gay guy fucks someone in the ass who is not consenting, he will be punished. Religion has fucked humanity in the ass without unanimous consent for thousands of years and is still in high regards.

>>"The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot."

>Now wait a minute. You say the exculsiveness is based on biological facts and still you want to change it. When the laws of nature were formative in this their is no reason to change it. That would be madness.

Sigh... the important factors are the absolute exclusiveness and the condemning of non-procreational bonding. The "laws of nature" obviously do not prevent sexual desires that are not in the interest of procreation. Nature does not control who can love whom. Abrahamic religions OTOH try to regulate who can love whom by not allowing certain constellations based on the biological fact that they cannot produce offspring. In a way they arbitrarily set the rule that sex is only for procreation when in reality it has many more functions.They use a biological fact (not a "rule of nature") as an excuse to impose their arbitrary moral norms on other people.

">>Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do."

>I don't get it. Why do you think that humans are somehow different from the rest of the animals? Different biological rules for humans? Is this a foot-shooting competition?

You can't be that stupid, can you? Obviously, you tried to aim at your small brain and shot your foot instead. There are no different biologic rules. Humans differ from all the other animals in that they ARE different animals. Just like ants and giraffes are different animals who live different lives. Do you also ask why giraffes don't inhabit giraffehills and don't have a giraffe queen? No? That is not how they roll?

>When is it ethical to rape babies?

You are a sick person. I don't blame you. You suffer from a sick religion. Poor guy, abused by religion your whole life... And now you can't even think for yourself... I tell you when it is morally OK to rape small children according to your own holy tome: when angels visit you and your neighbors want to rape them (everybody knows how inconvenient it is when that happens), you can offer them your baby daughters to rape instead (Genesis 19). You already told me you get inspirations from the bible. I can clearly see that. Only the perversion that is religion can justify baby rape.