Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Conservapedia

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)

Comments (Page 114)

Showing posts 2,261 - 2,280 of3,865
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2355
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2356
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2357
Sep 2, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They are fined and threatened with imprisonment; that's force by court order. The road to fascism is labeled, "Equality".
Ad hom.

You know you ran out of arguments months ago, right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2358
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, Jesus didn't use the courts to compel participation in any ceremony.
Uh, no. He used the threat of eternal torture to compel participation in Abrahamic ceremony.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2359
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I need to disprove, that which you cannot provide proof of?
You are missing the point that Skippy has ALREADY claimed to have disproved it. When last I heard it was a non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific concept.

Therefore Skip is claiming it's scientific. Though falsified.
lides wrote:
Faith has no greater basis than belief. Pure and simple. It cannot be proven or disproven. If one starts making such an argument, they have lost track of the concept.
Bingo. And that's why Skippy the Skeptic has lost track of the concept. The concept being that of falsifiability, and how it pertains to the scientific method.

In other words he is a fundamentalist atheist. Something which is SUPPOSED to be ironic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2360
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
gender integrated marriage is a universal cultural model.
Not even close. It's not even a global cultural model.
Brian_G wrote:
The Bible describes marriage as male/female. My parents marriage was male/female; everybody's was. Man's law should recognize nature's law; that's why the state punishes criminals.
Nature's law does not outlaw homosexual marriage, period.

Nature quite frankly doesn't give a crud about the subject of marriage. Marriage is an arbitrary social construct for which you are using religious and anti-Constitutional excuses to oppose it for the sake of pandering to your votes.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If marriage law is written on the principle, "People should live for what makes them happy", every sexual predilection should be enshrined in marriage law. Also, why should Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons be unhappy, banned from polygamy?
As long is it involves consenting adults then marriage should take them into account.
Brian_G wrote:
There's no gender equality right in the Constitution, because men and women differ.
Actually there is gender equality AND orientation equality in the Constitution BECAUSE the document doesn't discriminate. By this argument saying women have boobz is justification for denying them the right to vote.
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage is one reflection of human nature
As is homosexuality. Ergo the decision to oppose it is arbitrary.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2361
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinions, like that of all creationists are to be regarded as worthless until you can prove your god and disprove evolution.
Since that will never happen, the best course of action is to f*ck off.
Perhaps it would be better to respond to posts about science vs creationism with posts about science vs creationism, and respond to posts about gay marriage pros and cons with posts about gay marriage pros and cons.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2362
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, since male/female marriage gives the benefit of procreation, it supersedes same sex marriage.
Marriage is not necessary for procreation. Also there are detriments to procreation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2363
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A "free society" isn't supposed to include indecent exposure. There's a huge difference between not preferring the color red in your attire and showing your genitals in public. There are children who share this "free society" with us adults and they should not have to wear blinders to keep from seeing some creep's a-hole or penis while they are standing in line at a check out.
Anyone exposing themselves like that should be arrested. It's abusive to the rest of us.
To be fair in the case of nudity it's become a problem only because we have become such massive prudes about it. I'm not saying everyone should all get their ghoulies out all of a sudden, just saying that if we didn't shame ourselves and just be happy like all the other animals the whole problem about humanity's self-image would disappear.

If the religious nuts hadn't got all stuck up about it thousands of years ago then perhaps we wouldn't have all these taboos about nudity and the portrayal of sexuality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2364
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Then again I suppose we should really blame evolution for this one. We lost our fur and had to cuddle up under snuggly woolly mammoth hides...

:-/

Hey, maybe that's why they're called hides?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2365
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You cant fool us creationist liar with nothing to back up your halfwitted opinions.
Climate change denial
Oh, dammit Skippy! Why do you have to upset the kittens?
LCNLin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2366
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Yes!
Dogma is the enemy

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2367
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go boom.
Irony meter duz it.
Take that irony meter out of your a$$ for the last time and address the burden of proof you dishonest troll.

That's right you have no proof that god is possible, so s*ck it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2368
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Marriage and having kids is irrelevant.

We know this because people have been having kids for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years before anybody thought up marriage.
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.
It's nothing like that at all. If you don't want to be sued, either make marriage lawfully meaningless or allow same-sex marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2369
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it would be better to respond to posts about science vs creationism with posts about science vs creationism, and respond to posts about gay marriage pros and cons with posts about gay marriage pros and cons.
Perhaps it would be better if you proved god was possible instead of pretending to be sound smart.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2370
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes!
Dogma is the enemy
Says the creationist troll that wants us all to follow his halfwitted dogma and deny dinosaurs ever existed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2371
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Take that irony meter out of your a$$ for the last time and address the burden of proof you dishonest troll.
That's right you have no proof that god is possible, so s*ck it.
O hai Skip! I see you still haven't mustered up an argument yet. Ah well, maybe when Jesus comes back, eh?

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2372
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have discussed these things with various clergy from different denominations as well as with Rabbis.

You need to remember the saying about assuming.

I am a theosophical Christian Unitarian Universalist.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2373
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Would you sue a black or Jewish photographer for refusing to support a KKK rally or a Nazi party commemoration?
If they did so based on race, religion, national origin, sex or sexual orientation, then in most places they could face criminal charges.

Now since I am not a member of the KKK or the Nazi party, I could not be suing the people you mentioned. I'd lack standing.

Your "what if's" don't make what these Christians did right, morally or legally.

Now about one of your favorite claims. How does SSM deny a child a mother and father? I have yet to meet a child that didn't have both. Have you?

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2374
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.
What the heck does, "In a nutshell, do not accept non-falsifiable claims of Truth" mean?

A non-falsifiable claim can't be false.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,261 - 2,280 of3,865
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••