Is homosexuality a sin?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

59,181 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#101213 Jun 11, 2014
DNF wrote:
I appreciate your responses. It's worth noting that you and I have very little discord over my religious beliefs, yet Kimare and you have a great deal. Is that because I never insist on imposing my religious beliefs on you?
That's a good question. I'm sure we could easily get into it if we tried. I enjoy discussing religion, but I know it's a sensitive subject for many people, and not everyone reacts well. It doesn't always lend itself to civil conversation, even among friends.

My questions tend toward "how do you know?" and "how can we be sure this is true?" and ultimately, I don't believe there is any way to know. No religious belief on Earth can truly be "proven", so humans are forced to choose a religion based on... let's say "less than ideal" evidence. I prefer to recognize that which is unprovable, and leave it out of my worldview. But, I'm fascinated by how other humans form their beliefs, and I'm always willing to discuss it. It doesn't always HAVE to devolve into a shouting match.

But KiMare's claims go beyond religion. He makes pronouncement about anal sex being "demeaning" and "harmful", neither of which I've ever experienced. He claims that it's a scientifically proven fact that marriage is a... well, I don't recall his long-winded, multi-word descriptive, but when asked for the URL's of scientists who back this up, he falls curiously quiet. RiccardoFire, too. He once insisted that "most" scientists believe in Creationism and are seeking theological explanations for the origin of the universe. But when asked for links to all the many scientific organizations that agree with his claim, I could feed a family of boa constrictors with all the crickets I hear.

I suppose it really depends on the subject matter. On this thread, for example, there is a specific question for discussion. If we're going to be asking if homosexuality is a sin, then we need to explore questions about criminality and justice, behavior and punishment. If I am only attracted to men, and I find a man who feels the same way, and we decide to spend our lives together, giving each other security and making each other happy, which part of that dictates that the proper and moral treatment for us is to light us on fire and burn us alive forever? This "punishment" seems to leap WAY beyond the limits of any appropriate reaction. It's ridiculously overblown. The same is true for disbelief. How could this be a "crime" which merits punishment AT ALL, let alone eternal agony? These are not acts of justice, or love, or mercy. It strains credibility, to say the least.

It may depend on how my "opponent" reacts, too. If they're willing to explore these questions, and see my point of view, then I'm sure we can continue amicably. But if someone ignores my every question, refuses to explain the details of their own doctrines, or dismisses me as "blind" without helping to correct that, then their intractability is certainly going to rile me up.

But, it's all just in fun. It's not as if KiMare could ACTUALLY impose his religious beliefs on me. I just enjoy practicing my debate skills, and familiarizing myself with the various points of view out there. I guess I wouldn't get much of that by "preaching to the choir", so I don't often engage people who seem to already be on "my side". Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and I would never advocate taking that away from anyone, but regardless of whatever supernatural beliefs a person has, if they already believe that gay people (or atheists) should be treated as full citizens then I have no real beef with them. I'm always open to the discussion though. Just be prepared for me to question why you think you know what you think you know, and how you think you know it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#101214 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not ignoring that, that is the basis of my issue with the Bible. Jesus has been gone 20 centuries now, and we're JUST starting to gain real knowledge about the universe. It's funny that God has had 2 millennia worth of opportunities to give us knowledge, yet it took the invention of microscopes and telescopes and radio oscilloscopes before we actually make some progress.
And what was the vast sum of knowledge that God decided to share with humanity? Don't eat pork or shellfish. Does he give reasons why? No. Does he explain that there are safe ways to eat them? No. Does he include all the other foods which are also dangerous to eat if prepared improperly? No. The limits of God's knowledge amazingly match the limits of human knowledge at the time. Eat one kind of food, get consistently sick. So they wrote it down. THEY didn't know why it happened, so God couldn't say so, either.
God's big reason for not eating these foods? They're "abominations". Now, why does that word sound familiar?
<quoted text>
As I just explained, it COULDN'T scientifically explain anything. The humans who wrote it were scientifically illiterate. They god they invented was equally illiterate.
<quoted text>
What will we learn by comparing folk tales? How many of them have talking animals? The ones which don't are already one point ahead of the Bible. The Incan god Tepeu made humans from cornmeal. That's exactly as believable as Jehovah needing a piece of bone to make a woman (right after he made an entire universe from absolutely nothing). Any stories that don't have a woman springing from a rib, or a magical tree with knowledge stored in its fruit, or a man riding around inside a fish, or a man with super-hair, or resurrections of the dead, are already more believable. There is no point in comparing these stories of magic.
ANY story which relies on magic is instantly discreditable. Any belief system which says that it is "justice" to set non-believers on fire and make them suffer in agony for all eternity may be discarded as immoral.
Yeah, you are ignoring that, and demanding that God should have educated us. Are you really suggesting our immense knowledge has been put to good use?

I understand your adamant aversion to comparison too. Those Laws you scoffed at created the most significant culture in human history. You not only would fail comparing it to other religions, you would fare even worse comparing it to atheists like yourself. You know the saying,'The proof is in the pudding!'

I'm really not impressed with your ideas about what God 'should' have done...

SMile.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#101215 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a good question. I'm sure we could easily get into it if we tried. I enjoy discussing religion, but I know it's a sensitive subject for many people, and not everyone reacts well. It doesn't always lend itself to civil conversation, even among friends.
agreed. some of my beliefs are considered heresy by some.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>My questions tend toward "how do you know?" and "how can we be sure this is true?" and ultimately, I don't believe there is any way to know. No religious belief on Earth can truly be "proven", so humans are forced to choose a religion based on... let's say "less than ideal" evidence. I prefer to recognize that which is unprovable, and leave it out of my worldview. But, I'm fascinated by how other humans form their beliefs, and I'm always willing to discuss it. It doesn't always HAVE to devolve into a shouting match.
I agree with you here as well. As for the "how do we know" I guess you and I see it the same way. As I've often said any man who has the arrogance to think he understands "God's Plan" because a certain text is considered sacred doesn't have a real concept of "my God". Strange that that is what they often say about my concepts of their god.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#101216 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, now what? Fortunately, it was not a long section. Very poetic. But what am I supposed to learn? If you understand it so well, can't you put your understanding into your own words?
The first couple of chapters spoke at length about angels. So, what is an angel? How can we confirm that they are real? Why does an omnipotent being need assistants? Are angels biological beings, like us? Do they have organs, or blood, or DNA? If not, then why did God need to switch to these naturalistic methods when creating us? Couldn't we operate on the same magic that angels do?
There's also a lot about putting the priesthood into a position of power, because, of course. That's how I'd write the Bible, too, if I wanted to rule over people.
The book goes on about all the blood sacrifice that God requires. Why is Christian symbology so creepy and graphic? Why does God REQUIRE a blood sacrifice? Who told him he had to follow that rule? It's all very strange.
None of it explains why I should accept this writing as “true”. The peoples of ancient Sumeria and Mesopotamia were FAR more given to superstitious belief than we are today. Why shouldn’t I expect that their writings would be just as superstitious?
I took issue with one terrible example of “morality” which seems to sum up the entire Bible.
Hebrews 3:12 says (in the KJV)“Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”
An evil heart of unbelief? A person is not “evil” simply because they hear stories about magic and say to themselves “I have trouble believing that”. This book constantly tries to paint rational, reasonable minded people in the worst light possible. The whole thing is one giant scare tactic, to get people to hand over their 10% to the priesthood. Clever, but not very ethical.
Admit it, you didn’t think I’d really read it, did you?
<quoted text>
Oh? More magic to come? As foretold by magical individuals who can magically see the future? I don’t suppose you’d care to fill us in on these upcoming predictions? Is there anything you can confirm? Or will it all be a bunch of non-committal “no one shall know the hour” and “thief in the night” stuff? These predictions are more slippery than Nostradamus. I could read my horoscope and be just as informed.
PROOF, is what I’m asking for. Evidence which will let me know that Christianity is correct, and all other religions are wrong. Not vague, magical stories about plants being created on day 1 and the sun on day 4. Not ill-defined descriptions of a serpent that is not a serpent, or maybe a devil. I want solid, confirmable evidence which supports exactly what the Bible says. It simply isn’t there.
Eddy, I'm not interested in your deliberate distorted obfuscation. I simply was answering your question about the seventh day and rest. Hebrews encourages us to be careful to enter that rest. Then I noted that God is still in that seventh period/day.

You clearly not only are not interested in entering that rest, you want to discourage others not to believe something you claim doesn't exist.

That's your eternal choice.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101217 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that MOST scientific findings are highly reliable..
Congratulations, you are exactly the model Liberal. You have short term memory problems, here is a reminder of what I asked:
RiccardoFire wrote:
"Do you think that all scientific findings are reliable?" Instead of answering "yes" or "no" you change it as if I wrote, " MOST" Are you scared to just simply answer the question with a yes or no and then go on your book tour?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101218 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that mean? What is "another mind wonder"? That makes no sense. Maybe you could rephrase it?
And where did I speculate? I only asked questions (NONE of which you bothered to answer, by the way). I ask questions so that I can AVOID speculating. But if you refuse to provide answers, then you FORCE people to speculate about your beliefs.
Even if you refuse to answer ANY other questions, I'd still appreciate it if you'd tell me exactly where I "bashed" Christianity, so that I can be sure I don't repeat that behavior. You accused me of something, and I think it would be fair for you to support that accusation with some proof.
Because all your long about nothing rants asks about 10 questions and offers a lot of what if and who knew and so on, You should change your name to "Wonder boy".

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101219 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

Science is designed to be self-correcting. If new evidence comes along which disproves earlier findings, then we update what we know..
Idiot, you just wrote that MOST scientific findings are highly reliable. Now you admit that science is not reliable and we should be very cautious believing it like the link I posted that we all came from an eel. Can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. Designed to be self correcting in theory, not in reality. There is a lot of crappy research out there that is unreliable. Most studies are of poor quality researchers and institutions are under high pressure to publish studies. This encourages produces a high volume of low quality studies, or in publishing the “least publishable unit” of ongoing research to maximize the number of papers derived from one’s research. Researchers are people who want their ideas to be correct, and studies may be conducted by industry or those with a vested interest in the outcome Along with mistakes and fraud like the man is causing it to snow, then rain, then it's windy and hot and cold...LOL... It's the sky is falling sheep like you that soak it up.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101220 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

Do you think that all the stories in the Bible are reliable?.
Typical bigot, you have no answers, therefore attack the Bible.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#101221 Jun 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Yeah, you are ignoring that, and demanding that God should have educated us.
What was God (if he were real) trying to do when he told people not to eat pork or shellfish? Wasn't he trying to educate them? Why give people nothing more than they already knew? Why not expand on that knowledge, so that they could eat safely? Why give bronze-age people knowledge that stops at the bronze-age level?

If God (if he were real) was NOT trying to educate people, then why did he tell people not to eat pork or shellfish? What goal did he have BESIDES education?
KiMare wrote:
Are you really suggesting our immense knowledge has been put to good use?
Oh, HELL yes. Medicine? Space exploration? Antiseptics? Organ replacement? Anti-drought crops? Radio communication? Proper food-handling techniques?

I could go on and on and on. YES, I absolutely suggest that our knowledge has been put to very good use.

There have been bad uses too, I admit that. But that doesn't mean we should sacrifice the good and go back to carving animal skins for shelter. We can't blame those bad uses on the process of learning.
KiMare wrote:
I understand your adamant aversion to comparison too. Those Laws you scoffed at created the most significant culture in human history.
How so? They were barbarians. Very little of those laws have survived in our society. God's Number One Rule is to follow no other religions. We tossed that out with the First Amendment. Should we go back to killing people for daring to work on the weekend? Or just for picking the "wrong" spouse.

Tell me something: Why doesn't the Bible outline an age of consent, and forbid sex with children? Your wonderful laws NEVER cover this topic. And now, in a frightening real-world example of how "significant" those laws are, we have a representative of your church, one Archbishop Robert Carlson, trying to employ this biblical loophole to wriggle out of human laws. He didn't know that raping children was a crime. Or, he doesn't remember if he knew that.

Sick. Not "significant", not moral, just sick.
KiMare wrote:
You not only would fail comparing it to other religions
I'm not interested in having a magic-off, to see whose myths are less magical. Yours is not the only religion with talking animals. I can read about Narnia for that.
KiMare wrote:
you would fare even worse comparing it to atheists like yourself.
That is a nonsense sentence. What does that even mean? You want me to compare a story about a serpent-not-a-serpent... to myself?
KiMare wrote:
You know the saying,'The proof is in the pudding!'
Where is the pudding? You can't hide your proof in desserts OR in metaphors. If there is proof, then trot it out. You don't excuse yourself from the burden of proof by reciting trite folk sayings. The Bible says there is a magic tree with knowledge magically packed into its fruit. Prove it.
KiMare wrote:
I'm really not impressed with your ideas about what God 'should' have done...
Well, I'm not really impressed with God, so maybe we're even. I think God should have said "thou shalt never own another human being", but he didn't, so maybe I'm wrong about that. I think God should have said "thou shalt not harm" rather than "kill", but he didn't. I think God should come and personally correct the misconceptions about himself that are being spread by a billion contradictory followers, but he doesn't do that, either. But what do I know? I'm just a lowly human who doesn't like to harm others, or own slaves, or pillage neighboring lands to keep their virgin daughters. I wouldn't call someone "righteous" if they offered their children to a rape gang. I wouldn't put someone to death for being gay. I wouldn't tell people pork is an "abomination" while neglecting to tell them that it's fine if you cook it hot enough and long enough.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101222 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

No, you have it a little off. Humans and eels evolved from a common ancestor, whose offspring diversified into divergent evolutionary lines.
<quoted text>
There is all kinds of proof of evolution, if you care to study the science.
Why do you always shade away your answers, where did I say there is no evolution? Do you think a cell showed up and then we evolved into intelligent life? Here are the odds of your fairy tale: 1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros. how did the first single cell organism create itself? There is no possible way for that to happen in the physical realm, life creates life.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101223 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
What was God (if he were real) trying to do when he told people not to eat pork or shellfish? Wasn't he trying to educate them? Why give people nothing more than they already knew? Why not expand on that knowledge, so that they could eat safely? Why give bronze-age people knowledge that stops at the bronze-age level?
If God (if he were real) was NOT trying to educate people, then why did he tell people not to eat pork or shellfish? What goal did he have BESIDES education?
<quoted text>
Oh, HELL yes. Medicine? Space exploration? Antiseptics? Organ replacement? Anti-drought crops? Radio communication? Proper food-handling techniques?
I could go on and on and on. YES, I absolutely suggest that our knowledge has been put to very good use.
There have been bad uses too, I admit that. But that doesn't mean we should sacrifice the good and go back to carving animal skins for shelter. We can't blame those bad uses on the process of learning.
<quoted text>
How so? They were barbarians. Very little of those laws have survived in our society. God's Number One Rule is to follow no other religions. We tossed that out with the First Amendment. Should we go back to killing people for daring to work on the weekend? Or just for picking the "wrong" spouse.
Tell me something: Why doesn't the Bible outline an age of consent, and forbid sex with children? Your wonderful laws NEVER cover this topic. And now, in a frightening real-world example of how "significant" those laws are, we have a representative of your church, one Archbishop Robert Carlson, trying to employ this biblical loophole to wriggle out of human laws. He didn't know that raping children was a crime. Or, he doesn't remember if he knew that.
Sick. Not "significant", not moral, just sick.
<quoted text>
I'm not interested in having a magic-off, to see whose myths are less magical. Yours is not the only religion with talking animals. I can read about Narnia for that.
<quoted text>
That is a nonsense sentence. What does that even mean? You want me to compare a story about a serpent-not-a-serpent... to myself?
<quoted text>
Where is the pudding? You can't hide your proof in desserts OR in metaphors. If there is proof, then trot it out. You don't excuse yourself from the burden of proof by reciting trite folk sayings. The Bible says there is a magic tree with knowledge magically packed into its fruit. Prove it.
<quoted text>
Well, I'm not really impressed with God, so maybe we're even. I think God should have said "thou shalt never own another human being", but he didn't, so maybe I'm wrong about that. I think God should have said "thou shalt not harm" rather than "kill", but he didn't. I think God should come and personally correct the misconceptions about himself that are being spread by a billion contradictory followers, but he doesn't do that, either. But what do I know? I'm just a lowly human who doesn't like to harm others, or own slaves, or pillage neighboring lands to keep their virgin daughters. I wouldn't call someone "righteous" if they offered their children to a rape gang. I wouldn't put someone to death for being gay. I wouldn't tell people pork is an "abomination" while neglecting to tell them that it's fine if you cook it hot enough and long enough.
Another rant about if you were God. "I think God should...." You atheist are all the same.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#101224 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

No, you have it a little off. Humans and eels evolved from a common ancestor, whose offspring diversified into divergent evolutionary lines.
.
Really, can you prove it?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#101225 Jun 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
What was God (if he were real) trying to do when he told people not to eat pork or shellfish? Wasn't he trying to educate them? Why give people nothing more than they already knew? Why not expand on that knowledge, so that they could eat safely? Why give bronze-age people knowledge that stops at the bronze-age level?
If God (if he were real) was NOT trying to educate people, then why did he tell people not to eat pork or shellfish? What goal did he have BESIDES education?
<quoted text>
Oh, HELL yes. Medicine? Space exploration? Antiseptics? Organ replacement? Anti-drought crops? Radio communication? Proper food-handling techniques?
I could go on and on and on. YES, I absolutely suggest that our knowledge has been put to very good use.
There have been bad uses too, I admit that. But that doesn't mean we should sacrifice the good and go back to carving animal skins for shelter. We can't blame those bad uses on the process of learning.
<quoted text>
How so? They were barbarians. Very little of those laws have survived in our society. God's Number One Rule is to follow no other religions. We tossed that out with the First Amendment. Should we go back to killing people for daring to work on the weekend? Or just for picking the "wrong" spouse.
Tell me something: Why doesn't the Bible outline an age of consent, and forbid sex with children? Your wonderful laws NEVER cover this topic. And now, in a frightening real-world example of how "significant" those laws are, we have a representative of your church, one Archbishop Robert Carlson, trying to employ this biblical loophole to wriggle out of human laws. He didn't know that raping children was a crime. Or, he doesn't remember if he knew that.
Sick. Not "significant", not moral, just sick.
<quoted text>
I'm not interested in having a magic-off, to see whose myths are less magical. Yours is not the only religion with talking animals. I can read about Narnia for that.
<quoted text>
That is a nonsense sentence. What does that even mean? You want me to compare a story about a serpent-not-a-serpent... to myself?
<quoted text>
Where is the pudding? You can't hide your proof in desserts OR in metaphors. If there is proof, then trot it out. You don't excuse yourself from the burden of proof by reciting trite folk sayings. The Bible says there is a magic tree with knowledge magically packed into its fruit. Prove it.
<quoted text>
Well, I'm not really impressed with God, so maybe we're even. I think God should have said "thou shalt never own another human being", but he didn't, so maybe I'm wrong about that. I think God should have said "thou shalt not harm" rather than "kill", but he didn't. I think God should come and personally correct the misconceptions about himself that are being spread by a billion contradictory followers, but he doesn't do that, either. But what do I know? I'm just a lowly human who doesn't like to harm others, or own slaves, or pillage neighboring lands to keep their virgin daughters. I wouldn't call someone "righteous" if they offered their children to a rape gang. I wouldn't put someone to death for being gay. I wouldn't tell people pork is an "abomination" while neglecting to tell them that it's fine if you cook it hot enough and long enough.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#101226 Jun 11, 2014
Dingringsing wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is a sin, an illness, a mental disorder, the purest form of evil, disgusting, unnatural, dirty, a mistake, vile, an abomination. a perversion, aberration, demeaning, insulting, corrupting, brainwashing, subhuman, obtuse, immoral, backward, primitive, a disease that can spread like wildfire, a contamination, a damned act, and unhygienic.
Trite nonsense.

Since: Jun 14

Los Angeles, CA

#101227 Jun 11, 2014
OMG no it is not!

I am shocked to read this king of formula in 2014!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#101228 Jun 11, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Trite nonsense.
Homosexual sex must smell really bad. Euugh! It's grotesque.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#101229 Jun 12, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Typical bigot, you have no answers, therefore attack the Bible.
Typical Riccardo.

Using the bigot card because someone challenges him about his beliefs.

Why is it that anytime someone questions a fundamentalist about their religious views they are immediately attacked as bigots and accused of attacking God and the Bible.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#101230 Jun 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
agreed. some of my beliefs are considered heresy by some.
I think all Christian beliefs are considered heresy by some other Christian somewhere.
DNF wrote:
I agree with you here as well. As for the "how do we know" I guess you and I see it the same way. As I've often said any man who has the arrogance to think he understands "God's Plan" because a certain text is considered sacred doesn't have a real concept of "my God". Strange that that is what they often say about my concepts of their god.
I guess I go a little farther. Not only am I not sure about “God’s Plan”, I can’t even say for sure that there’s a God. I’ve never seen any direct evidence for one, and I don’t want to jump to that conclusion. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there are two. Maybe there are 20, or 20,000, creating universes in committee. Or, maybe there is zero. Who knows? I don’t understand how people can get so stuck on the idea that they KNOW there is one, they know there’s ONLY one, and they know all kinds of facts about his plans and his personality. I think we'd all be better off just admitting that this is something none of us has any actual information about.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#101231 Jun 12, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
Congratulations, you are exactly the model Liberal. You have short term memory problems, here is a reminder of what I asked:
RiccardoFire wrote:
"Do you think that all scientific findings are reliable?" Instead of answering "yes" or "no" you change it as if I wrote, " MOST" Are you scared to just simply answer the question with a yes or no and then go on your book tour?
Not everything is so black and white. Many answers need deeper explanations. Why do you have to be so insulting about it?

YES, science is a reliable method for reaching accurate findings. But, it is run by humans, and humans are not perfect. They may insert their own biases into their work. They may WANT to reach a particular conclusion, and might push the evidence in that direction. There are a lot of ways that humans can foul up the process of science, leading to imperfect findings. But that’s why science relies on peer review. Other scientists need to be able to duplicate the findings. This helps to confirm that we are correct about something.

[QUOTE who="RiccardoFire”]Becaus e all your long about nothing rants asks about 10 questions and offers a lot of what if and who knew and so on, You should change your name to "Wonder boy".[/QUOTE]

What is wrong with asking questions? Is that a sin too?

And I never ONCE used the phrase “what if”. The only place you will find that in my posts is when I quoted KiMare saying it. You are accusing me of things I have not done. You also accused me of “bashing” Christians, but when I asked you to point it out for, you have not done so.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#101232 Jun 12, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
Idiot
I can only wonder if it is your religion which teaches you to talk to people like this.
RiccardoFire wrote:
you just wrote that MOST scientific findings are highly reliable. Now you admit that science is not reliable and we should be very cautious believing it
We should ALWAYS be cautious. But science provides us with a way to disprove incorrect ideas. That doesn’t mean we’re ALWAYS right, but we can be confident with the ideas that pan out and prove true time after time. Science may not know everything about gravity, for example, but we can rely on what we DO know, enough to predict the motions of objects in space.
RiccardoFire wrote:
like the link I posted that we all came from an eel.
It did not say we all came from an eel. As I explained, humans and eels came from the same common ancestor. If you look closer, the article says an “eel-LIKE” creature, which developed into all land chordates.

Also, why did you plagiarize AGAIN? Your post #101204 contained the EXACT SAME comment, word for word, as a poster named “busybum” from your link from 2 years ago. Right down to the all-caps, and even the strange line break after the word “no” and before “evidence”. Stop plagiarizing other websites. That’s TWICE I’ve caught you now.
RiccardoFire wrote:
Designed to be self correcting in theory, not in reality. There is a lot of crappy research out there that is unreliable.
Correct, that’s why we must be cautious, and subject all findings to rigorous standards of confirmation.
RiccardoFire wrote:
Most studies are of poor quality researchers and institutions are under high pressure to publish studies. This encourages produces a high volume of low quality studies, or in publishing the “least publishable unit” of ongoing research to maximize the number of papers derived from one’s research. Researchers are people who want their ideas to be correct, and studies may be conducted by industry or those with a vested interest in the outcome
You are a lying plagiarist.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blo...

You don’t even understand what you copy and paste from other people. And you think the people you talk to are too stupid to uncover your lies and plagiarism.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you want to earn $0,00025 from each your web... 3 min Juara ads 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min LAWEST100 641,240
Moroccan men have the largest penis (Oct '13) 7 min lorna 85
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 11 min Peace_Warrior 618,359
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 18 min nanoanomaly 969,916
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 27 min karl44 37,853
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 45 min onemale 280,864
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 2 hr Johnny 4,070
More from around the web