Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 Read more: Conservapedia 3,861

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)

Read more

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1968 Aug 26, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you want? Do you want Skeptic to stop posting because he has only convinced 5,000, or only 5 people that he is right? What if he has convinced 50,000 topix lurkers who never post but read his every message? What is the point of that?
Can you prove God is possible? There is absolutely nothing that requires God to explain it. And if you get cute and claim that everything requires God to explain it, then you have to explain where God came from, what created God if everything needs a creator to explain its existence.
You are wrong, if anyone should shut up and listen it is you.
Skeptic isn't convincing anybody of anything except the fact that he's obnoxious.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1969 Aug 26, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that, faith based mental illness. You'll see me repeating it, that is for sure, good one!
So what's your excuse, psycho?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1970 Aug 26, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy. The Universe has always existed therefore it was not created and if it was not created it was not created by a supreme intelligence.
Nothing in the Universe and the Universe itself does not need a God to explain it, but if it did, then the God needs a creator to explain its existence. And so on and so forth.
Are you ready to drink a quart of Draino?
Promoting suicide, again? Scumbag.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1971 Aug 26, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I can understand their push for religious exemptions. These people are afraid they are being stripped of their religious freedoms. We MUST insure they see that we will always protect their 1st Amendment rights within their own houses of worship.
Yeah, we wouldn't want the government to start insisting on taxes now that unbelievers have jumped on the tax exempt gravy train...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/athe...

...would we?

There's lotsa money to be made by atheist televangelists.

Lotsa.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1972 Aug 26, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>BIG RED HEART.
GOLDEN LIGHT BULB
I see you have caught on that certain posters are not allowed to submit judgits on this thread...probably the whole forum by now.

Funny how some people think censoring the opposition helps their cause. ;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1973 Aug 26, 2013
Oh look!

6 posts from the local can't-even-give-it-away Genuine Christhole™.

As mindless as ever, too...

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1974 Aug 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Oh look!
6 posts from the local can't-even-give-it-away Genuine Christhole™.
As mindless as ever, too...
Do you pay taxes on the money you make selling atheist t-shirts and other novelties, Bob.

lol

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#1975 Aug 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly I do not believe in God and would fully agree that a God with Biblical atributes is absurd. But nobody has yet proven that a supreme being of any type is impossible. Ever. You may argue that given how vague "SUPREME BEING" is as a label, the claim of a supreme being is valueless scientifically. Its unfalsifiable. Very true. Yet still possible, no matter how unlikely or superfluous you regard it.
Its even possible that a supreme being zapped you into existence last Thursday.
I dont know what your or Skeptic's obsession with proving no God can exist comes from. For me the idea of God is irrelevant but that does not mean its proven false. Its just not a necessry hypothesis.
Like I said in my post "If we don't (define god) or just say something like "you can't define god", or "god is all there is", there is nothing to debate.". Since you just are talking about a "supreme being of any type", there is nothing to debate.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#1976 Aug 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no interest in proving God is real. I do not think God is real.
I merely point out that despite your deluded claims, you cannot prove God is impossible.
And still you do not answer my question. How successful has your little dogmatic fundamentalist crusade of the last 2 years been? In spite of calling everyone who disagrees with you brain damaged, your success rate appears to be remarkably low.
Define god, or there is nothing to talk about.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1977 Aug 26, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>There is no more reason for you to insist that people accept your non belief than it is for them to insist you accept their belief.
I am a person of faith. I have no problems reconciling that faith with scientific principles.
BTW IMO you got it backwards.
When you're able to prove that "god may or may not be real" you will then have to graduate to "god is possible".
It's inevitable.
I have never seen a baby pigeon or the Dark side of the moon. But I'm pretty sure they exist.
You're just a simple minded religious liar with no proof of god. That's all you are. Your reality doesn't apply to anyone but yourself. You choose to be breinwashed and answer back. To me you are just human matter, taken over by a disease of the mind. It is sad that people inflict this hateful way of life upon themselves and ultimately others.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1978 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Because 100% of those self-styled "christian conservatives" do **not** live by the rules they want everyone **else** to abide by. They **always** exempt themselves...... always.
You sued them because they live by their moral principles. Why do you keep suing conservative Christians?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1979 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy: nothing in the universe points to design.
That?
That is more than sufficient to prove no supreme (or other sort) of intelligence.
You are welcome.
Nothing in the universe point to design for me either.

However that is not a disproof of God. That is merely a good reason why I find God an unlikely hypothesis.

Can't you tell the difference between these two things?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#1980 Aug 27, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose, you rascal you, what an excellent post. I think this may be one of your best. I certainly enjoyed reading it. I have to say your logic is impeccable! Flawless.
Perhaps we need to take a look at some of the rules the Christians refuse to follow?
But first what does Jesus tell us about keeping his "suggestions"?
John 14:15 KJV, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
Well, that is pretty clear is it not? If you love Jesus you do what he says. So what does sweet Jesus say to his followers?
•(a) "...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
•(b) "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
•(c) "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
•(d) "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
•(e) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
•(f) "How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
•(g) "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
•(h) A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21),
Clearly no Christian loves Jesus.
Thank you.:)
And it's clear Christians love to pick and choose commandments more then they love Jesus.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1981 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy:
Our present universe is based on quantum mechanics.
At that level of existence? Everything is probabilistic and not causal.
Moreover, it appears that quantum particles require multiple (quantum) states to work as they do.
But if an observer tries to determine which of these multiple states, the particle collapses and becomes either nothing or something else.
So.
If there **was** an all-knowing **something** in the universe? The very fact of it's existing, would cause all the quantum particles to collapse into a single state.
Making the entire universe go **woosh** into not-a-universe.
And that shows the impossibility of this god/supreme intelligence/magical being.
So you find it impossible to posit a being who could create a universe ruled by probability rather than determinism at the fine level? With a many-worlds interpretation of QM, that looks perfectly possible. In that case the "ultimate observer" would observe all states anyway and there would be no collapse.

Even physicists cannot agree on how the observer's interaction affects the outcome. A bit premature to rule out God on this basis.

Nice approach though. Certainly better than Skeptic's little word game argument where he defines "real" then conflates the definition of "exists" and "real" so that he has really done nothing more than redefine "exists" to suit himself.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1982 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
"can't we all just get along?"
<laughing at everyone here who's basically on the same page, if just in different sections...
.... and I include **myself** here too>
:D
I chimed in on one of Skeptic's periodic ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares to suggest that some sort of God is possible (which has nothing to do with whether one believes in God or not). The Dude in this case.

Its ironic, turning skepticism into a religious dogma. But that is just what Skeptic is trying to do, whether he knows this or not.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1983 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you find it impossible to posit a being who could create a universe ruled by probability rather than determinism at the fine level? With a many-worlds interpretation of QM, that looks perfectly possible. In that case the "ultimate observer" would observe all states anyway and there would be no collapse.
Even physicists cannot agree on how the observer's interaction affects the outcome. A bit premature to rule out God on this basis.
Nice approach though. Certainly better than Skeptic's little word game argument where he defines "real" then conflates the definition of "exists" and "real" so that he has really done nothing more than redefine "exists" to suit himself.
It's a good thing we can't predict the outcome. I don't think mankind can handle time travel yet.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1984 Aug 27, 2013
Standing against same sex marriage isn't the same thing as standing against homosexuals. Same sex marriage is bad because it renames and trivializes bigotry.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1985 Aug 27, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Define god, or there is nothing to talk about.
Yes, good point. God can be just about anything. But behind all the local variations and myths, "the God hypothesis" would appear to be that some kind of conscious sentience is the originator of all things material. And opposing this hypothesis is the one where conscious sentience is the product of things material.

I back the latter position because the only place we see sentience is in brains and we can see that sentience disintegrate as brains do (eg Alzheimers, death). Any consciousness we have witnessed requires a material substrate, is an emergent property of matter, not vice versa. There is nothing in the universe requiring the guidance of any sentience either. In my view, the God hypothesis is just wishful thinking and its usually tied to some vain hope that this will enable the believer to avoid death.

Yet its still POSSIBLE that I am wrong and when people claim that any and all definitions of God are IMPOSSIBLE they are making a claim that they cannot back. That is not a skeptical position, its a dogmatic one.

If "nothing to talk about" means we ignore such an unanswerable, ill defined question, I am with you. However, when some dogmatist incorrectly naming himself "Skeptic" starts his rabid attacks, there is something to say. He is no different from any Christian Fundie even if his conclusion happens to be the same as mine.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1986 Aug 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It's a good thing we can't predict the outcome. I don't think mankind can handle time travel yet.
Yes...Pandora's Box should stay shut. Pity we cannot get to hit the Replay button sometimes though.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1987 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I chimed in on one of Skeptic's periodic ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares to suggest that some sort of God is possible (which has nothing to do with whether one believes in God or not). The Dude in this case.
Its ironic, turning skepticism into a religious dogma. But that is just what Skeptic is trying to do, whether he knows this or not.
Let us all bow our heads to his temple of Charismatic Skepticism, or was that the church of Schismatic Axiomsism?

I still prefer a Pokayism to most any other ism.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min NoahLovesU 18,462
News Confessions of a black atheist 1 hr Samoan Irish 318
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr James 14,554
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aerobatty 237,705
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr James 7,399
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 2 hr James 19
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 2 hr James 149
More from around the web