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.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1988 Aug 27, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>brilliant funny and agree.
I can tell he's getting frustrated when he includes the word "idiot" in nearly every response.
I see no logical reason to impose such an immature and illogical characterization into a discussion about logic.
;)
LOL
Thanks for the comments.

In fairness I should warn you that even if I really thought there was a God, it would be nothing like what you find in your Bible!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1989 Aug 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>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.
He is probably an ex-Christian Fundie who has transformed his chosen dogma but not the structure of his thinking.

And how is Pokay these days?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1990 Aug 27, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting and powerful points.
As you know I disagree that God can't exist but I liked how you said, "First, let's define god and/or look at his attributes. If we don't or just say something like 'you can't define god', or 'god is all there is', there is nothing to debate."
Hugs. Have missed you.
Thank you. Back @ ya.:)
But I have to ask, when you say "God" what do you mean?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1991 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes...Pandora's Box should stay shut. Pity we cannot get to hit the Replay button sometimes though.
How well would we learn to value what "is" if we thought we could be as careless as we chose to be because we could always simply hit rewind? Being able to go backwards is no guarantee that we would ever "get it right". Besides, I would rather go forward, just once and only for a very short amount of time. Going backwards one would be too tempted to stay and meeting yourself could be a nasty predicament. Dang, a person might get stuck paying twice the child support! There would have to be new laws drawn protecting a time traveler's right to move unrestricted by his past self's offences.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1992 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is probably an ex-Christian Fundie who has transformed his chosen dogma but not the structure of his thinking.
And how is Pokay these days?
lol

Too true.

Pokay still pops up, briefly. The last I saw of him was on a Top Stories thread.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1993 Aug 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>How well would we learn to value what "is" if we thought we could be as careless as we chose to be because we could always simply hit rewind? Being able to go backwards is no guarantee that we would ever "get it right". Besides, I would rather go forward, just once and only for a very short amount of time. Going backwards one would be too tempted to stay and meeting yourself could be a nasty predicament. Dang, a person might get stuck paying twice the child support! There would have to be new laws drawn protecting a time traveler's right to move unrestricted by his past self's offences.
Ever read Kurt Vonnegut's Time Quake?

Or, The Man who Folded Himself? By some mathematician. Weird and wonderful little book.

Warning, I have to go now...appointment.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1994 Aug 27, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
He isn't any more stupid than our other resident simple minded participators in Christ-insanity. Of course that isn't saying much is it!
Maybe this can help him?
One of great weaknesses of the Bible lies in the fact that it contains tangible mechanisms by which to refute its truthfulness. Within it pages are verses which can be used to test the book's validity. They can be generally grouped under two broad headings--those involving tremendous powers given to believers and those involving powers attendant to prayer and requests. The most prominent verses within the first category are Mark 16:17-18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lays hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Many true believers have handled deadly snakes and drunk deadly poisons only to find the Bible is both erroneous and dangerous. Courts in Illinois, Tennessee, and elsewhere have repeatedly stopped practices of this nature because of the treat to life. Ask believers to drink poison or handle deadly snakes and one will quickly realize the extent to which even they do not take the book seriously. Mark 16:17-18 clearly states what they can do if they believe. Put them to the test, however, and you will witness a lot of rationalizing.
Draino drinking should be mandatory before anyone is let into a church.
Jesus said that if you ask for anything in his name, you will get it.(John 13:14)
Well, I asked, "Please have Tom Cruise come to my door in those laced up leather pants he wore in Rock of Ages, nothing else, and have him bring a sausage pizza with him. I think he's out of the US now, so, I ask that he get here by Wednesday. In Jesus name I ask this."
I'll let you all know!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1995 Aug 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
What about this pattern of suing Christian Conservatives who live by their own morals? What's up with that?
Same sex marriage is like suing your neighbors.
That doesn't happen. Christan cons are free to live by their own morals. Nobody is forcing them to marry someone of the same sex against their will.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1996 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Maybe we will discover than consciousness and mater are one and the same, kind of like energy and matter are one and the same.
And while, technically we can't prove that some kind of conscious sentience isn't the originator of all things material, since there is no evidence that's the case, why entertain the idea?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1997 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever read Kurt Vonnegut's Time Quake?
Or, The Man who Folded Himself? By some mathematician. Weird and wonderful little book.
Warning, I have to go now...appointment.
That's a Vonnegut I never read but I did read Gerrold's when I was 15. Thanks for reminding me of it. I had forgotten the title of the story.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1998 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.
Since when did asking for proof of god become an ad-hominem attack?

Your lies are pathetic. That's a fact based comment.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1999 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
The dogma lies in you not understanding the burden of proof.

1. idiot invents god.
2. idiot proves god is possible.
3. idiot finds physical evidence of god.
4. idiot no longer idiot.
5. atheism & science evaporate in logical smoke.

We are at step (2) since time began being measured.

You liars have literally had all the time in the world...

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#2000 Aug 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
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.
same sex merriage isn't bigotry

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2002 Aug 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when did asking for proof of god become an ad-hominem attack?
Your lies are pathetic. That's a fact based comment.
No, asking for proof of God is a perectly valid question.

Calling everyone who does not buy into your logic "brain damaged, retarded, mentally ill" etc, is ad hominem.

Since a simple review of the last 3 days' postings from you will assure anyone that this is in FACT what you have done, it is you who is lying here.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2003 Aug 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The dogma lies in you not understanding the burden of proof.
1. idiot invents god.
2. idiot proves god is possible.
3. idiot finds physical evidence of god.
4. idiot no longer idiot.
5. atheism & science evaporate in logical smoke.
We are at step (2) since time began being measured.
You liars have literally had all the time in the world...
No its still you making the same basic error.

We have not proven that the multiverse exists, nor proven that it does not. We don't know. We are not even sure how we might prove it either way, and we are not sure what the properties of a multiverse might be if it exists.

According to your logic this already makes the multiverse an impossible. I suggest most physicists would strongly disagree.

Why is it so hard for you to leave an item in the "indeterminate box" . Your position is virulently religious in its anti-religiousness.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2004 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever read Kurt Vonnegut's Time Quake?
Or, The Man who Folded Himself? By some mathematician. Weird and wonderful little book.
Warning, I have to go now...appointment.
Haven't read the Vonnegut, but the second book is quite a fun ride.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2005 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No its still you making the same basic error.
We have not proven that the multiverse exists, nor proven that it does not. We don't know. We are not even sure how we might prove it either way, and we are not sure what the properties of a multiverse might be if it exists.
According to your logic this already makes the multiverse an impossible. I suggest most physicists would strongly disagree.
Why is it so hard for you to leave an item in the "indeterminate box" . Your position is virulently religious in its anti-religiousness.
Furthermore, there is the *possibility* that there is an intelligent race in the multiverse with the technology to create universes and that ours is one of these created universes. By at least one definition, this would mean there is a God (although other definitions would be violated). Such a 'God' need not be all-powerful, all-knowing, a source of morality, or even be aware of the life that exists in the created universe.

And so we are back to definitions.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2006 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't read the Vonnegut, but the second book is quite a fun ride.
gidday Poly. Been a while.

Hope yr well. The Vonnegut as always is an original

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2007 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Furthermore, there is the *possibility* that there is an intelligent race in the multiverse with the technology to create universes and that ours is one of these created universes. By at least one definition, this would mean there is a God (although other definitions would be violated). Such a 'God' need not be all-powerful, all-knowing, a source of morality, or even be aware of the life that exists in the created universe.
And so we are back to definitions.
that intelligent race could even be our future selves. Even the "which came first" question is immaterial once timebis a dimension to be manipulated. Cue Sheila. She sees a problem withblaw enforcement. Very practical mind at times, she has.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2008 Aug 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>gidday Poly. Been a while.
Hope yr well. The Vonnegut as always is an original
Yep, I've been hanging out in the atheism forum lately. Doing well in life, although I'm starting to notice the effects of aging. How are you doing?

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) 13 min Chimney1 43,180
Good arguments against Christianity 1 hr Thinking 188
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr Richardfs 495
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aerobatty 256,550
Atheism is a mental illness 1 hr LOSLLKSL 1
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Eagle 12 21,122
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr Thinking 3,843
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Patrick 18,501
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 hr Thinking 5,688
More from around the web