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

#2010 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
sheesh I have been noticing those effects since I was 10. Yeah doing ok though.

Tell me, has anyone arrived at a proof of god nonexistence on those forums? You might be able to helo out old Skeptic here.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2011 Aug 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Do you pay taxes on the money you make selling atheist t-shirts and other novelties, Bob.
lol
Hate speech acknowledged.

Stalking also noted.

Get a life.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2012 Aug 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You sued them because they live by their moral principles. Why do you keep suing conservative Christians?
I didn't sue anybody.

But.

Conservative Christians™? Are literally the world's most hypocritical hypocrites.

They lie, they cheat, they fill the prisons.

But they want HATE LAWS passed that match their ugly religion...

... a religion THEY DO NOT EVEN FOLLOW THEMSELVES (see above).

As I said? Hypocritical hypocrites.

You must be one too...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

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

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2014 Aug 27, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.:)
And it's clear Christians love to pick and choose commandments more then they love Jesus.
Or to put it more bluntly?

"Them Kristians sure do love their hate-- if you eliminate **one** group as the target of their hate, they will sure as shootin' invent them another, right-quick."

Proof? During the 50's and 60's, the Genuine Christians™ openly hated people of color, and went out of their way to abuse and persecute them.

When that was no longer legal?

They moved on to hippies, then to gays, and recently? Immigrants.

(but they still, for the most part, secretly hate the blacks even now...)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2015 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.
False. Every experiment so far has shown that the "observer effect" works, regardless of how far away or how disconnected the observer is.

So your hypothetical "mega observer" would still collapse any universe it pays attention to.

Or else, it's simply **not** actually observing.
Chimney1 wrote:
Even physicists cannot agree on how the observer's interaction affects the outcome.
So? All the experimental evidence points to the fact that particles seem to require uncertainty to exist properly.

An all-knowing **anything** would remove this uncertainty.

And destroy the particles.
Chimney1 wrote:
A bit premature to rule out God on this basis.
Not at all.

You appear to be clinging to the idea of "god" while at the same time trying to claim that you don't.

Interesting.

In my experience, anyone clinging to a concept, seems unwilling to part with it for some reason or other-- usually because they need the concept to be true, even in the face of reality.
Chimney1 wrote:
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.
Well, Skeptic is what he is-- someone sick and tired of god-robots forcing their goddism, via law, onto everyone.

Which denies the freedom of religion to anyone not in their club.

----------

In truth, I agree-- it may be possible for there to be beings sufficiently elevated from our station to be considered "gods".

But, I reject the word "god" as applied to these, as I suspect they are simply life-- just not as we know it.

And not gods, as **humans** have inscribed meaning to that word.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2016 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.
I cannot fault your criticism of Skeptic; he is over the top in his methodologies.

Back in 2005, when I first started on Topix? I took great pains to be even-handed, and to avoid absolutism and all-or-nothing statements.

I found that doing so, weakened my points considerably -- the people I was debating with, would focus in on my careful language, and totally miss the main point/argument.

So over time, I dropped that approach; at the same time, I occasionally offend the moderate theists (and some nontheists too).

Alas, that was the price I paid for being more **clear**.

..........

"When talking to idiots, take care that you do not descend to their level; they are experts at it."

(... a quote by someone or other, but apropos here, I think...)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2017 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.
I agree with you, here, apart from your final paragraph.

I do think we need Skeptic and people like him-- they serve a quite useful purpose-- flushing out the chaff from the **interesting**.

:)

I also sometimes take a similar approach: I see if I can invoke the **real** person behind a particular set of posts.

I am usually successful in bringing who they are to the foreground, which often reveals their real motives and agenda.

It's not that hard to do, actually.:P

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2018 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.
That would occasionally be handy.

Similar to loading a "saved game" file...

... but once through the game is all that each player is granted.

The religions of the world have failed to be ...
... convincing in this regard.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2019 Aug 27, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. Back @ ya.:)
But I have to ask, when you say "God" what do you mean?
That...

... is the 64 Million Dollar Question.

The answer is?

First-- we need to calculate exactly how many people **believe** in some form of god.

Then? Take the intersection of those people and roughly 5% of the others.

And **that** ought to be pretty close to the number of gods that are believed in in the world....

... heh.

One god for each god-believer.

And at **least** one god for every two or five believers who pretend they share the same god...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2020 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.
Indeed. Such beings could qualify as "god" under many of the older human definitions, but not any of the more recent ones.

And certainly they would fail the test of "all knowing".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2021 Aug 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
The burden of proof lies upon the idiot who decides to invent and lie about god.
That's nice. But that ain't me.
-Skeptic- wrote:
There is no such thing as god.
Then obviously you have somehow determined that it is a falsifiable and therefore scientific concept, which has now been falsified by the scientific test that YOU performed. I would like to know exactly what that is.
-Skeptic- wrote:
That is where the conversation is supposed to end.
Except that you have never addressed the points the first few hundred times.
-Skeptic- wrote:
But you're ignorant of the burden of proof, and decide to continue to type utter nonsense.
Sez the guy who denies the moon-landing and the existence of lizard creatures.
-Skeptic- wrote:
When you're able to prove that "god is possible" you will then have to graduate to "god may or may not be real"
And not before.
Just have. You were unable to falsify it, meaning it's possibility is still a potential.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Its been explained to you in great detail over the last two years but you keep embarassing yourself over and over again by bringing it up.
Your 'explanations' have not actually explained anything. They are stagnant and never addressed a single point for years now. So EXPLAIN again how the mighty Skippy was able to scientifically falsify the unfalsifiable?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2024 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.
Is waffle your middle name?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#2025 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.
well, that sort of God would be more plausible than the nonsense notion of an allgoodallpowerful one, which glorifies evil and calls it good. I often think about the horrid possibility that every human work of fiction, in writing or film or whatever, could create its own reality in another dimension - or that at each point in time a change could be made that would alter future events. Both would likely be worse than what we have now.(which is plenty bad enough, in my view).
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#2026 Aug 27, 2013
why does anyone think there is any link between atheism and homosexuality that would cause such a topic to be proposed? it is silly. atheism is merely not believing in a God. it has no implications for sexuality whatsoever.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2027 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.
A god would, for all intents and purposes, be an entity that we could never catch up with, cognitively, no matter how much time passes.

http://io9.com/5916758/meet-setis-new-boss-ge...

A zebra will never evolve fast enough to even communicate with the dumbest of humans. That makes us their gods. We can wipe out nearly all life on this planet with nukes and toxic chemicals; that's godlike to the dumb creature we are surrounded by. Not that any terrestrial animals are likely to have the ability to even understand the abstract concept of the supernatural.

Fear me, I haz laser eyez and black hole earz, I am Thunder Kitteh! I create worldz with a Word and shoot lightning from my clawz!

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2028 Aug 27, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>well, that sort of God would be more plausible than the nonsense notion of an allgoodallpowerful one, which glorifies evil and calls it good. I often think about the horrid possibility that every human work of fiction, in writing or film or whatever, could create its own reality in another dimension - or that at each point in time a change could be made that would alter future events. Both would likely be worse than what we have now.(which is plenty bad enough, in my view).
And the paradox IS...the fascination that so many atheists and agnostics have with movies and stories of the supernatural.:}
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#2029 Aug 27, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
why does anyone think there is any link between atheism and homosexuality that would cause such a topic to be proposed? it is silly. atheism is merely not believing in a God. it has no implications for sexuality whatsoever.
Extremists need their pigeonholes, and the fewer the better. They don't like to think and details just give them headaches.

If they could, they would just create one giant pigehole that included everyone they don't like. Then they wouldn't have to worry about taxonomy at all.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2030 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't sue anybody.
But.
Conservative Christians™? Are literally the world's most hypocritical hypocrites.
They lie, they cheat, they fill the prisons.
But they want HATE LAWS passed that match their ugly religion...
... a religion THEY DO NOT EVEN FOLLOW THEMSELVES (see above).
As I said? Hypocritical hypocrites.
You must be one too...
Says the hypocrite who still goes to church to keep up business contacts.

Doesn't it make your brain squirm to sit there next to all those people you hate?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2031 Aug 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The science doesn't start until the idiot who claims god is real, proves it.
Its that simple.
I never said I'd conducted any tests. That's the whole point of the burden of proof.
Its the idiots like creationist / agnostics like yourself that have a mental illness that prevents you from understanding basic procedural logic.
Procedural logic happens in this order:
1. idiot dreams up god.
2. idiot proves god is possible
3. evidence for god presented
4. god becomes real
5. idiot stops being idiot.
Its that f*cking simple you idiot!!!
Here's how it looks like for atheists:
1. Atheist waits for idiot to dream up god.
2. Atheist waits for idiot to prove god is possible
3. Atheist gets on with life.
As you can see, the atheist does not need to do any science UNTIL the idiot has proven his god.
This cannot be spelled out to you any clearer dude.
I await your ignorant pseudo-intellectual accusatory reply, signalling you've understood none of the above...again.
*sigh dumb agnostics*
Ah, then we agree it has not been falsified. For if it had been falsified then that would mean somebody had a scientific definition for the concept.

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) 1 min IB DaMann 61,334
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Dogen 28,318
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 58 min Eagle 12 2,684
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Wed Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web