Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 Full story: Conservapedia 3,862

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)

Full Story

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#596 Jul 22, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be true however when "debating" with someone who doesn't provide any supporting evidence and flatly denies evidence to the contrary, you're left with very few alternatives.
BG has made it clear that he simply doesn't think that homosexuals are American citizens deserving of rights. His position isn't based on anything even remotely approaching an argument.
The closest he's come is by incorrectly speculating that no other cultures have alternative forms of marriage.
He's further "supported" his argument by making the bizarre claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow change the gender of people. He offered no medical evidence to support this. Hell, he didn't even offer a sci-fi movie to support this.
I take the more obvious approach when someone fails to support their assertions. I say that the have failed to support their assertions. My shortcut for that is "No QED." Undramatic, but direct and to the point--and impossible to counter without resorting to sound logic.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#598 Jul 22, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I take the more obvious approach when someone fails to support their assertions. I say that the have failed to support their assertions. My shortcut for that is "No QED." Undramatic, but direct and to the point--and impossible to counter without resorting to sound logic.
Unfortunately, in a world where everyone gets a vote, relying on sound logic doesn't carry the day.

You can present a well reasoned, well supported argument which is logically perfect and impossible to counter.

Brian G can respond with "Jesus hates fags!" and he'll get 75% of the votes.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#599 Jul 22, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I take the more obvious approach when someone fails to support their assertions. I say that the have failed to support their assertions. My shortcut for that is "No QED." Undramatic, but direct and to the point--and impossible to counter without resorting to sound logic.
Nuggin seems to have invented the idea that I don't believe in the moon landings.

It's really funny to see him talking so much about logic and evidence, in fact it's rather cute, considering that he's a liar.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#600 Jul 23, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuggin seems to have invented the ...moon landings.
Oh geez, here we go again.

I didn't invent the moon landings. They happened.

You nut jobs need to get over it. We put a man on the moon. Period. End of story.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#601 Jul 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh geez, here we go again.
I didn't invent the moon landings. They happened.
You nut jobs need to get over it. We put a man on the moon. Period. End of story.
LOL nice try moron. Next time you want to invent some bullsh*t about me, you better come with the proof, you lying sack of sh*t.

YOu're still butthurt about you thinking I denied the moon landings HAHAHA.(and being shown up in the forum)

Want me to post more comments about what everyone really things of you?

What a f*cking moron.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#602 Jul 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh geez, here we go again.
I didn't invent the moon landings. They happened.
You nut jobs need to get over it. We put a man on the moon. Period. End of story.
Also, for all your claims about caring about grammer, you obviously didn't read the rest of the sentence properly.

I never said you invented the moon landings, I said you invented the idea that I deny them.

Its a good idea to actually be as sharp as you claim you are, otherwise you come off looking like a right tw*t, like now.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#603 Jul 23, 2012
Ding, ding, ding....

&fe ature=related

...and the fur continues to fly!

xD
Skeptic

Bury, UK

#604 Jul 23, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
Ding, ding, ding....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =CXdJYw7GD3QXX&feature=rel ated
...and the fur continues to fly!
xD
Get out of the way if you want to keep your fur intact.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#605 Jul 23, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
I denied the moon landings HAHAHA.
Yes. that's the whole point of the debate.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#607 Jul 23, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I think people will believe me.
Keep thinking that, it's healthy for you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#608 Jul 23, 2012
Let me know when your ego is sufficiently bruised Nuggin.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#609 Jul 23, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Let me know when your ego is sufficiently bruised Nuggin.
All of existence lies inside his ego, ergo, there is nothing large enough to bruise it.

>:-)

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#611 Jul 23, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Let me know when your ego is sufficiently bruised Nuggin.
Skeptic, let me clue you in on something.

I check Topix occasionally when I bored or waiting to hear back about something. When I stand up and walk away, I've got other stuff to do.

I'm not engaging in message conversations with other posters about you. You aren't important enough to me or them to bother.

The fact that you spending additional time discussing ME is sad. The fact that I am SO IMPORTANT to you _and_ the other posters than you need to engage in separate channels of communication just to try and coordinate your positions on my opinion is hilarious.

In what world do you think revealing that you and your buddy spend all your time thinking about me would _bruise_ my ego?

You're just demonstrating how important I am to you, and if I cared what you thought at all, that would be an ego boost, not a bruising.

My advice to you: Get a life. Seriously.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#612 Jul 23, 2012
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Get out of the way if you want to keep your fur intact.
I guess you find that amusing?

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#613 Jul 23, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you find that amusing?
The above post was meant for Nanoskank.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#615 Jul 18, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Creationist have to accept defeat since homosexuality is a fact.
So in short if a mother is stressed out during pregnacy the chances are that a kid could be homosexual. A hormonal effect.
Your premise is that homosexuality is caused by a strain on the woman during pregnancy. You are equating homosexuality with a disfunction. Your premise lacks support and, in my opinion, is incorrect.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#616 Jul 18, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your premise is that homosexuality is caused by a strain on the woman during pregnancy. You are equating homosexuality with a disfunction. Your premise lacks support and, in my opinion, is incorrect.
Actually, he's closer than you think. He's just wording it extremely poorly.

Male homosexuality has been shown to be more prevalent in down the line male offspring born to the same mother.

This holds true even when the offspring is raised in a separate single child environment.

This suggests that the repeat exposure to the testosterone from the male fetus is causing a reaction in the mother (think "allergic" or "immuno") which in turn has an epigenetic effect on the fetus.

To say that the child is "defective" would be incorrect, but I would say "not normal". In the same way that a child with two different color eyes or a birthmark would be "not normal". No negative assessment, just a deviation from the norm.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#617 Jul 18, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, he's closer than you think. He's just wording it extremely poorly.
Male homosexuality has been shown to be more prevalent in down the line male offspring born to the same mother.
This holds true even when the offspring is raised in a separate single child environment.
This suggests that the repeat exposure to the testosterone from the male fetus is causing a reaction in the mother (think "allergic" or "immuno") which in turn has an epigenetic effect on the fetus.
To say that the child is "defective" would be incorrect, but I would say "not normal". In the same way that a child with two different color eyes or a birthmark would be "not normal". No negative assessment, just a deviation from the norm.
Does anyone know if epiphenotype is a proper term in epigenetics. If so, it would be more accurate I think to refer to homosexuality as an epiphenotype than as abnormal trait. It may be uncommon in the population, but calling it such doesn't bear the negative connotations and scientific inaccuracy of "not normal."

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#618 Jul 18, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Does anyone know if epiphenotype is a proper term in epigenetics. If so, it would be more accurate I think to refer to homosexuality as an epiphenotype than as abnormal trait. It may be uncommon in the population, but calling it such doesn't bear the negative connotations and scientific inaccuracy of "not normal."
Doesnt matter its just that nuggin troll trying to win some points with the atheists he pissed off last year.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#619 Jul 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesnt matter its just that nuggin troll trying to win some points with the atheists he pissed off last year.
Skeptic is just mad because I called him on his whole "The Moon Landing was Faked" bullsh1t

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min ChristineM 230,889
Heaven 48 min susanblange 41
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Evidence for God! 3 hr Uncle Sam 38
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 4 hr tha Professor 76
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Chiclets 23,039
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr _Bad Company 1,103

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE