Atheism and homosexuality

Atheism and homosexuality

There are 3861 comments on the Conservapedia story from Dec 5, 2011, titled Atheism and homosexuality. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]'s original [[Intelligent design ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2337 Sep 1, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, nano. How ya been?
Now that same sex marriage is legal in New Mexico I guess I should put my legally valid ordination to work. What do you think?
Hey! I'm good, what's up with you?

Is that a decent money maker for you? Does the blessing you give come from the universal wave function, or what? ;)

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2338 Sep 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you feel compelled to **respond** to me, and to mark all my posts with your "stalker's markings".
LOL!
That is because you are so funny. The idea you're not trying to be makes it so much better.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2339 Sep 1, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It was a joke about how you're a little scaredy pants like Red Riding Hood, wussy.
The fact that you love trying to censor people only proves how insecure you are, deep down inside those worms you call brains.
I've met chickens that are braver than you are.
He actually came out of the closet for less than a day. This guy is priceless. He couldn't take the jokes online. I told him there was no way he'll ever come out amongst the people he hangs out with. If such people exist.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2340 Sep 1, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Bob: What mean judgicons you have, nano!!!
nano: More than a mouth full's a waste, Bob!!!
lol
Don't sell yourself short, I wish I thought of that nickname. I have never read such bobbing with topics as Little Red does. BUT. I think Little Red is over 400 pounds. Him and many other online Atheist. My opinion is based on how much online posting they do. I am sure we see less than half of Little Red Bobbing Hoods post here on Topix. I am sure he does youtube, and some we might not even know of.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2341 Sep 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I am not an atheist. I'm a gay man of faith. I believe when the Bible starts being used as a weapon, most of the good messages it contains get lost.
You have to understand the timing and the purpose of the Old Testament I am not a Bible expert, nor do I wish to pretend to be on online. When possible discuss with clergies of your liking. I recommend Rabbis for The Old Testament. Maybe you might wish to choose your religion accordingly. I have personally touched mine up. There are many good options out there. Best of Luck with your life choice.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2342 Sep 1, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't sell yourself short, I wish I thought of that nickname. I have never read such bobbing with topics as Little Red does. BUT. I think Little Red is over 400 pounds. Him and many other online Atheist. My opinion is based on how much online posting they do. I am sure we see less than half of Little Red Bobbing Hoods post here on Topix. I am sure he does youtube, and some we might not even know of.
lol
Bob's not fat, but he is nuts.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2343 Sep 1, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because you are so funny. The idea you're not trying to be makes it so much better.
He's like a Chihuahua with a Doberman delusion.

xD

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2344 Sep 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text> WOW. So only sterile male female married couples deserve a right to privacy?
You sure are re-defining marriage and a lot of laws to get your lifestyle made the law of the land.
Indeed he his-- he wishes to re-define it to fit his own pet prejudices.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2345 Sep 1, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>They know I'm not stalking them because they aren't as delusional as you are.
Public forum; I'll come and go as I please.
Stalking post noted.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2346 Sep 1, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It was a joke about how you're a little scaredy pants like Red Riding Hood, wussy.
The fact that you love trying to censor people only proves how insecure you are, deep down inside those worms you call brains.
I've met chickens that are braver than you are.
Stalking post noted.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2347 Sep 1, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because you are so funny. The idea you're not trying to be makes it so much better.
Stalking post noted.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2348 Sep 1, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Who said we live in a free society?
http://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/...
Is it fair that I end up in line behind some creep showing his crackhole by wearing his pants below his buns?
Most dress norms are enforced through attitude, not law. You can legally walk through wall street in a bikini, but who does that?

If people disapprove, they generally make it clear enough.

Now, go and visit Iran. Be very very careful how you dress. My wife once spent a day in lock-up for wearing jeans. They are not quite so tough these days, but periodically they turn nasty.

Just sayin'- be careful before you demand guns and prisons to enforce your personal preferences. Vote with your disdain, if you must. I little personal discomfort beats the oppression of law - wherever possible.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2349 Sep 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
So we **must** ban **all** marriages where children are not possible? Including old people, young people who are infertile, and so on? More: if one of the partners in the marriage gets "fixed" (either tubes tied, or a vasectomy) THEN THEIR MARRIAGE IS NOW DISSOLVED? Under **your** rules-- that would be the case!
Face it: you cannot justify your BIGOTRY.
No, we mustn't "ban all marriages where children are not possible"; that's Bob's fascistic idea, not mine. I merely observed male/female marriage gives society a benefit same sex marriage can't provide.

Same sex marriage is like suing your christian neighbors if they decline to serve your wedding as florists, photographers or bakers. If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2350 Sep 2, 2013
DNF wrote:
...NO we sued them because they broke the law. Just as if they refused someone service because they were black or a jew....
Would you sue a black or Jewish photographer for refusing to support a KKK rally or a Nazi party commemoration?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2351 Sep 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most dress norms are enforced through attitude, not law. You can legally walk through wall street in a bikini, but who does that?
If people disapprove, they generally make it clear enough.
Now, go and visit Iran. Be very very careful how you dress. My wife once spent a day in lock-up for wearing jeans. They are not quite so tough these days, but periodically they turn nasty.
Just sayin'- be careful before you demand guns and prisons to enforce your personal preferences. Vote with your disdain, if you must. I little personal discomfort beats the oppression of law - wherever possible.
Indeed-- anytime the **religious**(any brand will do--they are equally evil) get to be in charge?

Atrocity and totalitarianism thrive.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2352 Sep 2, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
Topix needs a wussy jackazz judgicon.
>:}
Like a Nano button?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2353 Sep 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed-- anytime the **religious**(any brand will do--they are equally evil) get to be in charge?
Atrocity and totalitarianism thrive.
I like the term **dogmatic**. It encompasses not just the religious nutcases but we can add marxists and fascists in there too. In milder form even those who think Ayn Rand was perfect or radical feminists.

They all think in a similar way regardless of WHAT they think. They have fallen for a non-falsifiable dogma where any any all possible phenomena are filtered through that dogma and no phenomenon could ever prove the dogma wrong.

How to avoid dogma? In a nutshell, do not accept non-falsifiable claims of Truth.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2354 Sep 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No, we mustn't "ban all marriages where children are not possible"; that's Bob's fascistic idea, not mine. I merely observed male/female marriage gives society a benefit same sex marriage can't provide.
Brian, infertile heterosexual couples do give "society a benefit same sex marriage can't provide." Are you implying that those marriage are invalid, or otherwise should not exist?

Do you see how you just contradicted yourself.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like suing your christian neighbors if they decline to serve your wedding as florists, photographers or bakers. If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.
No, it's like suing those who break the law and discriminate against people based on their sexuality in jurisdictions where there are laws preventing such discrimination.

Why do you defend the lawbreaking criminals Brian?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2355 Sep 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I like the term **dogmatic**. It encompasses not just the religious nutcases but we can add marxists and fascists in there too. In milder form even those who think Ayn Rand was perfect or radical feminists.
They all think in a similar way regardless of WHAT they think. They have fallen for a non-falsifiable dogma where any any all possible phenomena are filtered through that dogma and no phenomenon could ever prove the dogma wrong.

How to avoid dogma? In a nutshell, do not accept non-falsifiable claims of Truth.
Agreed.

I also think that insisting on an all-or-nothing approach to anything is dangerous too.

Such as libertarianism, or socialism, or capitalism or any of the "isms"....

... good ideas can be found in each of these, but if they are automatically rejected out of hand? The ideas are lost before they are even considered at all.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2356 Sep 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You opinions about anything are invalid because you don't follow logic. Its better if you just go to another forum because other wise people might mistake your posts as thought through.
Go boom.

Irony meter duz it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min cpeter1313 10,048
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 47 min Get Real 98
News Same-sex marriage protesters clash - exchange v... 1 hr Hector 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Facts Matter 56,100
News 'Christian Militant' Hopes More Police Officers... 1 hr Hector 6
Nebraska Morning News 1 hr Hector 2
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 2 hr EdmondWA 34
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 2 hr EdmondWA 56
More from around the web