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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2072 Aug 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You post "Hate and bigotry is intolerable" but yet both live in many of your comments.
Do you have an actual **example**? no?

We thought as much-- you are just lying to try to cover your own seething hatred for anyone who isn't a True Believer™
replaytime wrote:
It should not bother you nor give you reason to attack someone if they believe in God no more than it Should bother Brian G if someone is gay and wants to get married to the same sex.
It doesn't-- I don't give a rat's fart in the wind **what** idiots choose to believe in.

But.

I **do** care when they try to **force** their delusions into LAW.

** anti-gay legislation-- that's ugly religion **forcing** itself onto everyone

** anti-women's rights legislation --- again, ugly **religion** forcing it's bigotry onto everyone.

** TAX FREE CHURCHES -- that is making **everyone** pay for the ugly, bigoted religious institutions.

Shall I go on outlining how you religious **thugs** force your ugly onto everyone?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2073 Aug 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Please seek medical help, now. Nobody is launching a pogrom against atheists, loon.
Hate speech reported.

Stalking post reported.

Your hate has made you ugly---

-- make that, even more ugly.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2074 Aug 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You post "Hate and bigotry is intolerable" but yet both live in many of your comments.
It should not bother you nor give you reason to attack someone if they believe in God no more than it Should bother Brian G if someone is gay and wants to get married to the same sex.
The problem with Brian_G's post is that the people were not forced to participate, they were forced not to discriminate. Businesses have less rights than individuals. A business cannot say that they won't sell to black people. And also a business cannot say that they won't sell to gay people.

There really is no difference between the two situations. People are born black. People are born gay. It is perfectly legal (obviously) to be black. It is perfectly legal to be gay (not so obvious since they had to fight for their rights) you cannot discriminate against either group. If you don't want to deal with gay people then don't own a business open to the public. And yes, I used to own a business open to the public. Not too many obvious gay people in my small city but I had a few gay customers.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#2075 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have an actual **example**? no?
We thought as much-- you are just lying to try to cover your own seething hatred for anyone who isn't a True Believer™
<quoted text>
It doesn't-- I don't give a rat's fart in the wind **what** idiots choose to believe in.
But.
I **do** care when they try to **force** their delusions into LAW.
** anti-gay legislation-- that's ugly religion **forcing** itself onto everyone
** anti-women's rights legislation --- again, ugly **religion** forcing it's bigotry onto everyone.
** TAX FREE CHURCHES -- that is making **everyone** pay for the ugly, bigoted religious institutions.
Shall I go on outlining how you religious **thugs** force your ugly onto everyone?
What do you think costs tax payers more,,, Tax free churches or government tit sucking free loaders that don't want to work, live for free, eat for free, have health care for free, in some cases have more children to get a bigger check not to mention some live better than some hard working people. But yet I don't see you saying anything about them. With you the target lies only on the back of religion.

As far as someone protesting anything that anyone wants, that is human nature of greed and hate for no one likes if others have more and want what the others get same as others think they deserve what they have and others should not have it.

Using the word "others" I am referring to people in general. Not to a group, gender or religion.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2076 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate speech reported.
Stalking post reported.
Your hate has made you ugly---
-- make that, even more ugly.
Yer still nuts. The mods roll their eyes when they see your complaints, crybaby.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2077 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is meaningless in English.
Seriously-- the **practical** conclusions are both the same.
Mathematically speaking? You might have a point-- but we do not live and act by mathematics.
Humans, for the most part, live by **practical** means, or "good enough" if you prefer.
The fact that the universe has no elements of design, pretty much proves it had no designer.
Which eliminates 99.99% of the gods heretofore proposed.
As for the remainder?
Who cares?
NOBODY WORSHIPS THOSE ANYWAY.
But more to the point?
**Nobody** passes **laws** based on such deities.
And that is the **practical** bottom line.
I don't give a crap **what** people believe-- so long as they don't try to force **others** to follow suit.
Response to this and your posts that followed.

Firstly I do not cling to any God possibility. I fully accept death as full and final, and that we are on our own as far as developing rules and morals to live by.

But when I say God is a possibility, I am talking about sentience as author of a universe that is run on the laws we can discern from our observations and logic. Certainly not from delusionals claiming God spoke to them whether now or 3000 years ago. I am merely acknowledging that it is a possibility we have not been able to definitively rule out. But its far more likely to me that sentience is a product, not the cause, of the universe.

As far as my practical views go I cannot be distinguished from any athiest.

Now, I do have a problem with those who wish to REPLACE Christian dogma with new dogmas. These include the rabid marxists and even those who propose a so called Humanist Manifesto. They are merely finding new dogmas to cling to. Its the whole notion of dogmatic thinking that is a problem.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2078 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Correct. They do not have the right to be bigots in public. The lawsuit was correct. Right next to the tolerance for the KKK, the NeoNazis and the Skinheads.
Hate and bigotry is intolerable.
Where so do you see bigotry in not wanting to participate in a same sex wedding? When did toleration turn into complulsion? See wbat happens when same sex marriage becomes law? Those who support one man and one woman marriage are turned into racists.

If you want to keep the definition of racism the hatred of those of different race, keep marriage one man and one woman. Else the left will trivialize racism.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2079 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Where so do you see bigotry in not wanting to participate in a same sex wedding?
What other reason could there be to not want to?
Brian_G wrote:
When did toleration turn into complulsion? See wbat happens when same sex marriage becomes law?
Yeah, it gets vile bigots like you all worked up. Reason enough to make it law!
Brian_G wrote:
Those who support one man and one woman marriage are turned into racists.
Why the dishonesty? The only people who are against one man/woman marriage are people who have been divorced, like you.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to keep the definition of racism the hatred of those of different race, keep marriage one man and one woman. Else the left will trivialize racism.
Wow, that makes no sense at all.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2080 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think costs tax payers more,,, Tax free churches or government tit sucking free loaders that don't want to work, live for free, eat for free, have health care for free, in some cases have more children to get a bigger check not to mention some live better than some hard working people. But yet I don't see you saying anything about them. With you the target lies only on the back of religion.
The lost tax revenue from churches would *far* outweigh what we pay for social services.
As far as someone protesting anything that anyone wants, that is human nature of greed and hate for no one likes if others have more and want what the others get same as others think they deserve what they have and others should not have it.
Using the word "others" I am referring to people in general. Not to a group, gender or religion.
And those that have food, clothing, good jobs, and health care seem to think nobody else deserves them.

Instead of complaining that some poor people get a few breaks, why don't you complain about the huge companies that are subsidized? They take much more than the poor.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2081 Aug 28, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Please seek medical help, now. Nobody is launching a pogrom against atheists, loon.
it was launched thousands of years ago and its called religion.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2082 Aug 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Response to this and your posts that followed.
Firstly I do not cling to any God possibility. I fully accept death as full and final, and that we are on our own as far as developing rules and morals to live by.
But when I say God is a possibility, I am talking about sentience as author of a universe that is run on the laws we can discern from our observations and logic. Certainly not from delusionals claiming God spoke to them whether now or 3000 years ago. I am merely acknowledging that it is a possibility we have not been able to definitively rule out. But its far more likely to me that sentience is a product, not the cause, of the universe.
As far as my practical views go I cannot be distinguished from any athiest.
Now, I do have a problem with those who wish to REPLACE Christian dogma with new dogmas. These include the rabid marxists and even those who propose a so called Humanist Manifesto. They are merely finding new dogmas to cling to. Its the whole notion of dogmatic thinking that is a problem.
Wrong, its been ruled out by:

a. Its own incoherency/
b. persistent lack of evidence for
c. persistent, strong evidence egainst it being possible, from many many different areas.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2083 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
Have you ever read any of Robert A Heinlein's books?
Specifically, the novella called "Methuselah's Children", and the follow-on novels that take place after that one.
In that larger-than-life story arc, the characters meet a planet were there really are gods-- or so it appears at first glance.
They are eventually asked to leave--and indeed, are swept away from that planet with godlike speed.
In a much later story, one of the main characters, Lazarus Long, talks about the "god planet" and how he and a buddy of his later went back to that planet, and killed all it's gods--freeing the slaves living there.
Long observed that although the newly freed slaves were polite about it (and dutifully thanked them), they seemed unhappy about losing their gods at the same time.
I always thought that story snippet could have been deeper-- and interesting thing to think about.
Never read it myself but the story is definitely familiar.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2084 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Where so do you see bigotry in not wanting to participate in a same sex wedding? When did toleration turn into complulsion? See wbat happens when same sex marriage becomes law? Those who support one man and one woman marriage are turned into racists.
Racists? No. In fact no-one even mentioned what colour they were. They were turned into people who were prejudiced.

Oh wait - they were *already* prejudiced.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to keep the definition of racism the hatred of those of different race, keep marriage one man and one woman. Else the left will trivialize racism.
No, this is merely YOU trivializing prejudice. You're saying blacks are okay but gays aren't but it doesn't matter about the gays having equal rights because there's no reason they should have to have them. After all the Constitution is just a piece of paper right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2085 Aug 28, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, its been ruled out by:
a. Its own incoherency/
b. persistent lack of evidence for
c. persistent, strong evidence egainst it being possible, from many many different areas.
A - Correct.

B - Correct.

C - Incorrect.

What evidence do you have *against* the Matrix being real?

Oh wait - it ONLY applies to God and God only, right? God is the only non-falsifiable concept that we're allowed to unequivocally state its 100% non-existence, despite the complete and utter total lack of scientific research that has taken place to demonstrate this.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2086 Aug 28, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, its been ruled out by:
a. Its own incoherency/
b. persistent lack of evidence for
c. persistent, strong evidence egainst it being possible, from many many different areas.
A agreed
B agreed
C I see you are scaling back your claim from "proven impossible" to "strong evidence against it being possible". I would change the last word to "likely" but whatever.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2087 Aug 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
What other reason could there be to not want to?
Religious and moral reasons not to want to participate in a same sex marriage. Nobody can force you to attend an opposite sex marriage; why should these three victims of Political Correctness be persecuted for their religion?

.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Yeah, it gets vile bigots like you all worked up. Reason enough to make it law!
These hate laws harm free expression and speech, a photographer's art has been corrupted by court action. A baker is forced to support a service he finds immoral; where's the tolerance in charging a florist with violating state codes when all she's done is turned down an invitation to photograph a same sex wedding?

.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Why the dishonesty? The only people who are against one man/woman marriage are people who have been divorced, like you.
I've never been divorced; I don't make false and derogatory claims about my political opponents; this is where we differ. There are good and bad people on both sides of this issue. Many homosexuals support one man and one woman marriage.
I believe their dishonest because truth and reason aren't on their side.
.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Wow, that makes no sense at all.
Thanks for trying.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2088 Aug 28, 2013
Where's the greater harm? A gay couple having to be referred to a less religious photographer or the government fining the photographer for her artistic freedom? Where's the greater tolerance?

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#2089 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Where's the greater harm? A gay couple having to be referred to a less religious photographer or the government fining the photographer for her artistic freedom? Where's the greater tolerance?
What's the harm in stretching equal treatment under the law so that religious people can slip past. Yes, lets call it "artistic freedom". That does sound nicer than bigotry and discrimination and criminal behavior. Get in the back of the bus because it is an expression of the drivers artistic freedom.
Thinking

Bridgetown, Barbados

#2090 Aug 28, 2013
Or we always have done.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think mankind can handle time travel yet.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2091 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Looks like the folks claiming religious values can't be written into law are wrong. What are blue laws?
Looks like you have neither com to grips with the fact that the US Constitution bars congress (the US Supreme Court has held this also applies to state and municipal government) from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. You also seem to suffer from the delusion that the mere existence of a law makes it constitutional. In the end, you seem no brighter than when I last saw you here.

Which specific religion, do you purport that blue laws respect?

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 min Insults Are Easier 245,138
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 min ChristineW 11,012
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min karl44 20,672
John 3:16 1 hr Shizle 97
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 3 hr Anonymous1386 22
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 6 hr Thinking 19
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 15 hr ChristineW 14,668
More from around the web