Gay hating Atheists still suffer the effects of their religion. Give them time. At least they can think outside the box and you have to give them that.
@tkathryyn True - even people who do not believe in a god or gods do not grow up in a cultural vacuum. Our society is, like it or not, riddled with "morality" from christianity - whether that's homophobia, racism or hatred of women.
While some homophobes are just trolls and hate for no reason, I disprove of homosexuals because they are unproductive in the sense of procreation. I, as an Atheist, see little more point to life than living it to continuing your bloodline. So when you put a homosexual's life into my equation, they have no purpose but to live. And living by itself really has no sense of satisfaction since you have no legacy.
@IronicallyMature So you disapprove of opposite sex relations who chose not to have any children, and people in general who don't want children, right?
Not having children is a very positive thing for the state of the world and humanity right now. Is the bacterium that makes another bacterium instead of ceasing to exist better off for itself? Not really. It's just continuing the purpose of living, which you've made out to be pointless in and of itself with the only exception being continuation.
Yes, that's exactly right. I disapprove of those people as well. I was merely refusing to digress.
No, it's not having children, it's letting the elders we have now die. Keeping someone alive long past their usefulness isn't a smart thing. Would you keep a burnt out TV?
And as we all know, not all bacteria is bad. And still, since it is surviving, yes. Do you honestly think human conquest is the best thing for the World if you're saying no more kids is a positive?
@IronicallyMature Well, I say any way possible humanity can limit itself reproducing at this point is a big positive for the life supporting ability of the world and everyone already on it; because it's already past the point of being able to fully support the sheer amount of human beings on the surface. The less children are born, the fewer elders you'd have to worry about later on. That we even have elders as old as we do is a testament to our scientific accomplishments.
And I agree, to an extent. I don't think we should stop reproducing all together, but perhaps limit. Such as sterilizing the diseased or mentally defficient. And every couple limited to one child. I suppose the best way to put this is that China has the right idea at this point (from what I've heard). They limit each family to a boy and a girl or something like that, which makes perfect sense. Now we just need to let the elders die off.
@IronicallyMature Surely humanity's single greatest accomplishment was quadrupling our life spans, wasn't it? That we even have people as old as we do is amazing. Capping our age off is the worst possible idea ever, diametrically opposite our instinct.
Also, euthanasia is a slippery slope. "diseased" and "mentally deficient" are so vague - they could be used to euthanize gay people, little people, deformed people, inter-sexed people; it's much less a headache to limit kids for everyone period.
To me, it's not about making life longer, it's about making life better. So all this wonderful technology we have is what I think our greatest accomplishment is. Not necessarily what we use for, however.
None of those fall under mental defficiency as none of them indicate an IQ of under 70. And homosexual/inter-sex/midgets/dwarves are only diseases in the mind of a person with a phobia relating to said things and only in the sense that it ruins society.
@IronicallyMature Someone that's diseased or mentally deficient can still have a normal baby. You wish to impose upon society rules that you deem fit, but you have no right to control the lives of everyone else. Our species can develop new technologies to cope with a growing population.
It's not about the heredity, it's about keeping someone alive who would die without constant monitoring or medical treatment. Though yes, I am wishing to impose a new doctorine of rules that would drastically effect the lives of our modern society, these rules would push humanity in a healthy direction. Earth is an ecosystem and the laws of nature say that if a secondary consumer or higher's population grows too large, they decimate their food source and die off themselves.
@IronicallyMature It's just rooted in selfishness anyway. You want to impose these rules on others but you really wouldn't want it done to YOU, and since you're probably normal, you don't have to worry about it. Who are you to determine what a healthy direction is for humanity? Evolution is a natural process, it does not obey your rules. If we naturally die off then we naturally die off, but we don't need you killing people.
A healthy direction is what ever helps humanity survive the best; common sense.
Humans won't "naturally" die off because there's nothing actively hunting us. We will kill us off with man-made guns, man-made pollution, and man-made famine. None of that natural.
@IronicallyMature Yes but we're entirely dependent upon unsustainable consumption of resources, therefore, if we were to run out of oil the entire global economy would come to a crashing halt and many would die. Can you imagine what would happen to humanity if tommrow we woke up and there were NO gas and electricity?
@IronicallyMature I fail to see how that isn't a natural die off. We naturally evolved the ability to develop technologies, and we naturally make bad choices and if something doesn't change the population will go down... naturally.
I guess what I want to know is where we draw the line. If we need to give two men kissing the same PG rating we'd give a straight couple kissing then what about two people in fursuits, two people in slave/dom gear one wearing a leash another holding a whip, or a man who focuses solely on his date's feet never noticing if she has a head at all? How about a female lead in a series for kids that never makes out with the same person twice?
@SecondAmerica Ah - the old "slippery slope" argument. "If we allow kids to see two men kissing then why not 'two girls one cup'?" Would the rating of the people in slave/dom gear depend on whether they were same sex or mixed sex? I would say that it wouldn't. If it's acceptable for male/female kisses to occur in front of children it's acceptable for male/male kisses to occur.
@thatgaybloke In your opinion male/male kisses are just as acceptable to occur in front of children as male/female kisses but who are you to decide what's desirable or acceptable for my children to see? Should you ever have the good fortune of having children you can make the call on whether you kiss men in front of them.
@SecondAmerica It's quite interesting that you don't mention two women kissing. And that when you talk about a "female lead" that never makes out with the same person twice, I can easily think of series where the MALE lead never makes out with the same person twice. Your distinctions seem quite arbitrary.
@thatgaybloke I would prefer not to be bombarded with images of male promiscuity (Rockford Files?) or two women kissing either. In western culture double standards do exist and to some degree those double standards may be informed by biology. Do our media, governments and economic systems already have to be painting the perfect moral picture before we can ask them not to muddy the cultural landscape even more? Character limits make it difficult to clear up any arbitrariness but I'll do my best.
@SecondAmerica The message that people should be allowed to flourish by not being oppressed as second class citizens, by not being reviled for something that is natural and beyond their control and does others absolutely no harm, far from muddying the waters actually provides clarity and reason.
I am a high intelligence, well educated skeptic and I certainly would not consider myself a bigot. The flaw in your assertions and ZJ's is that you assume that all reasons to embrace social homogeneity and sexual modesty are religious ones. I do not hate gays or sexual deviance in general as it pertains to adults in private but I oppose exposing young ones to these concepts. Being gay may not be a choice but it does begin with an idea, an idea that needn't be presented to an immature mind.
@SecondAmerica Do you feel that being heterosexual "begin[s] with an idea, an idea that needent be presented to an immature mind"? If so, then how do you explain to a child that mum and dad are married?
@thatgaybloke Hetero marriage is exactly the idea that should be presented to the immature mind. In order to be deviance there has to be some value to deviate from. We can exclude more people from the ideals we teach our children (ie instead of just marrying a woman, marry a woman from a good home) or we can teach our children to be less exclusive (ie anyone with a pulse deserves consideration) In adulthood one can determine his own values but its a disservice not to start children off with any
@SecondAmerica "In order to be deviance there has to be some value to deviate from". Doesn't that just about say it all? The fact of it is that everyone deviates from "the norm" in some way. If you think that excluding people from the ideals that we teach our children, then perhaps a good start would be excluding bigots who believe that only they are on the right path and that economic worth or social status are a measure of a human being?
@thatgaybloke We don't have to strive to be pod people or clones and we don't have to execute people for not embodying "normality." Normal isn't even the ideal we ought to be striving for. We should strive to be much more, much better, than normal. Before we shed traditional morality can we at least examine the reasons behind the morals? Do these ideals promote community, strengthen families, and increase individual well being? If not then let's draft a new set of ideals rather than have none.
@SecondAmerica Yes. Let's examine the reasons behind the morals. Shouldn't they be that people are able to live a fulfilled life, free from unnecessary pain, free from fear and persecution? Shouldn't all people be treated equally in the law? If someone decides to live their life in a way that causes no harm to others - should our morality not compel us to support their right to do so? Or should we condemn the different as "less". As not worthy.
@thatgaybloke if you wanted to live your life in a way that causes no harm to others I would support you fully! You said so yourself that you mean to cause harm to me and my children because I deserve to be undermined by a gay man with no responsibility to anyone but himself. Since when did being treated equally under the law give you a dominant share in the rearing of other peoples' children whom they dedicate their lives to and love dearly? Why do you have to target children? Pedo much?
@SecondAmerica If we look at traditional morality then we need to consider whether those morals contribute to the well being of people and society, or whether they are traditional because that's how we've always done it and so that's how we want to continue. We don't need to draft out a new set of ideals They are already here - tolerance, equality, social responsibility, empathy and compassion. That's it. You don't need religion for that. You don't need "traditional" status quo morality.
@thatgaybloke "because that's how we've always done it" so not one iota of critical thought into why they began doing it that way to begin with. Everyone is putting all of their effort into doing things one way for ages and no one has gotten any benefit from it. Every person would be substantially better off if we tolerated every manner of BS, were equal regardless of our BS, abandoned our family responsibilities to become a small voice in a sea of perverts who now are responsible for our kids..
@thatgaybloke How do you go from making out with a man in front of another person's kids to believing you treat people with respect? Since neither you or your partner have a womb and showing enough respect not to make out in front of other peoples' families isn't your idea of "personal fulfillment" you're given yourself a green card not to treat others with respect. I would not have assumed that you would do such a thing but it seems as though that is what you are advocating.
@thatgaybloke It seems that I have much more empathy and compassion for you than you have for me and my family. Rather than being labelled a faggot and having your rights trampled on you've labelled me a bigot and trampled on mine. What for exactly? For supporting your right to privacy, for you to love whom you see fit and in the manner you see fit, for seeing you as no different than myself, my friends and my family. I embrace your ideals and you still shit on mine. You're a selfish pig cunt.
@thatgaybloke Do people have the right to follow their happiness regardless of how popular it is? Yes, within limits. I feel the line is crossed whenever a group tries to bring their alternative lifestyle out of the shadows and into the consciousness of the most impressionable among us and when they try to alter the very fabric of a society's morality without fear of consequence (no not God's wrath). Where you stand you only see the down side of moral strictures and ignore potential positives.
@SecondAmerica "I feel the line is crossed whenever a group tries to bring their alternative lifestyle out of the shadows and into the consciousness of the most impressionable among us". So you wouldn't want your kids exposed to black people, Muslims or Jews, then? I'm sure there's a word for people who think that way - give me a few minutes and I'm sure I'll remember. Oh yes...
@thatgaybloke I wouldn't call being black an "alternative lifestyle", the critical element here is behavior. Alternative religions and cultures are another thing altogether. If members of a religion or culture practice beliefs that I find detrimental or immoral then of course I wouldn't want to expose my children to these people who will effectively undermine my teachings as a parent. Show tunes and glitter are fine btw (but not suggestive clothing, promiscuity, or redefining marriage.)
@thatgaybloke I don't think you are undesirable of disgusting. I think you're probably a fine, respectable gentleman who happens to be unquestionably and decades past the point of no return. I'm not a christer trying to condemn you to hell for your recreational activities or imploring you to "pray the gay away." In fact I see no reason why we should have any problem with one another... except for you undermining my parenting and trying to indoctrinate my children into deviant sexual behaviors
@SecondAmerica "My recreational activities" - because my relationship with my partner has nothing to do with love or companionship, it's just sex. Your bigotry reveals itself in all its ugliness.
@thatgaybloke Rest assured, I'm not trying to indoctrinate your children into any kind of sexual behaviour. The idea that being gay is something you can be taught is ridiculous. If sexual orientation could be taught, we'd all be heterosexual. My concern for children is the thousands of children who get disowned, or beaten or kill themselves every year because they have parents like you.
@thatgaybloke Nice try. I wouldn't disown my child if they were to be homosexual. Why would I sever the relationship with one of the people who has shown me the purest love on earth because of the type of porn he's into? Or because of the person he's dating? You're grasping for straws trying to emblazon on me the visage of some monster from gay folk lore. Give me a damn break!
I don’t want to get in on your debate, but there are two big things to consider: fine tuning - the idea that if the universe differed in any way matter and planets would not have formed and life would not exist. It's an argument a lot of religious physicists use. Then there’s the idea of life appearing form dead matter. Make of that what you will.
@IonxZone Oh please the "fine tuning" argument is ridiculous. If the Universe operated by different laws then none of us would be here. The fact that we are here to observe it means that it has those parameters suitable for supporting intelligent life. The fine tuning argument is like saying that water has just the right density for fish to swim in it. Less dense they would sink, too dense they would float on top and drown. The flaw in that premise is obvious even to unintelligent life.
The argument runs far deeper than that. However your argument is flawed - our existence as observers is not in question, it is the existence of our vastly, vastly, improbable planet sitting in our vastly (times several billion more 'vastly's!), universe that is in question.
I'd prefer not to have replys, I'm just commenting, but there are around forty-two sources for the historical existence of Jesus, and he is accepted as existing by nearly all historians (including non-Christians). Plinny is well known for writing a big long letter about the early Christians. Note that I'm not claiming all this evidence says God exists, or that Jesus is God's son - simply that there is a lot of evidence for Jesus the teacher.
@IonxZone The casual research I've done on the Internet seems to indicate that all the "evidence" for the existence of Jesus is after the event hearsay. Usually early christians who can hardly be considered impartial. Pliny is not a contemporary and so can't have written of any first hand experience of Jesus. The Pharoh's of Egypt claimed to be gods. There is historical evidence for their actual existence - but people don't take their claim of goodhood seriously. I feel the same about Jesus.
@thatgaybloke I never claimed they proved he was divine in nature, only that he existed. If the evidence is hearsay you'll have to take it up with the historians because they seem to think it's pretty solid - almost all consider Jesus a historical figure, atheists included. Indeed, there is more evidence for Jesus having existed than there is for numerous contempory figures, and even for events such as Hannibal crossing the Alps, yet I doubt you would argue against those.
I am not homophobic at all, i'm pretty certain someone else commented using my account, or when I've left myself signed in. thanks for drawing my attention to this or I would have probably never known about it.
@dex1391 What a typically nebulous statement. No specifics, no facts, just a vague condemnation. Intellectual superiority? Absolutely. Can I back it up? Yes I can back it up with the evidence. I think about what people say and compare that with what makes sense - rather that just believe it because I'm told to believe it. I don't believe in magic. I can look at "scripture" and see that it was written by people who didn't understand the world as well as we do now. Pretty easy after all.
@dex1391 So evidence for scientific explanation of "big bang" - observation of red shift, cosmic background radiation. Evidence for evolution - consistent fossil record with intermediate species like Tiktaalic being found exactly where expected in the geological record. Evidence for "god" - none. Evidence for the existence of Jesus - documents written by the founders of Christian religion containing re-worked fables - i.e. nothing independent. There you go - no effort at all.
@dex1391 The evidence for atheism is the complete lack of evidence for claims made by religion. Given the lack of evidence supporting these claims and the conflicting arguments between religions the most sensible approach is to disregard all of them. Although absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, in the absence of evidence supporting existence of god the null hypothesis has to be that there is no god.
@dex1391 I am saying that is someone is making a claim they had better have something to back it up if they expect me to believe them. So the default position when someone claims there is a god is that without evidence their claim is at best unsubstantiated and therefore I have no reason to believe them. Quite the opposite, I see that the people making the claim have their own vested interest in doing so. If you are a theist because of the evidence then what evidence is that?
@dex1391 Not really because I'm not the one making any claims about the existence of something. I'm saying "I don't believe in your god unless you show me otherwise". It seems you're saying, "I believe in my god unless you show me otherwise" - which is a strange position because you could believe in anything. That's pretty much the basis of the argument for Sagan's dragon and Russell's teapot.
So are you saying that I should convert to atheism with absolutely no evidence?
That's exactly what I'm saying (other than "my" God)
I looked at the evidence and determined that God is real. Why wouldn't it take other evidence to change my mind? I don't get how you think I should just take your word for it.
@dex1391 I'm not saying you should convert to atheism with no evidence. I'm saying that without evidence atheism is the default position - as is shown by Russell's teapot and Sagan's dragon. If, as you say, you have evidence to show that your god is real and that's why you believe in it then "converting" to atheism would make no sense. If there is evidence that your god exists, it is sensible to believe in that god. So what is the evidence that proves your god is real?
@dex1391 You're losing me in a mass of contradiction. You say there is no such thing as "your god" - if there isn't then what do you believe in? You believe in someone else's god? Wouldn't that make it your god? You say that the evidence for the existence of your god is irrelevant, but that it was enough to make you believe. Why the reluctance to present that evidence? Perhaps it isn't as compelling as you are saying?
@dex1391 I use the term "your god" because the qualifier "your" is necessary. There are so many gods out there that we need to be clear it's yours we're talking about, not Odin or Isis or FSM.
@dex1391 Whether you believe me or not doesn't alter the fact that I don't fear death. There is nothing I can do about the end of my existence. There is nothing to fear because I won't be there to experience it. No contradiction at all. There are a good 13billion years or more in which my mind didn't exist. My non-existence in the past doesn't scare me - why should non-existence in the future be any more scary? You may fear death - it isn't valid for you to project that on to other people.
@dex1391 The evidence for atheism is the total lack of evidence for your god. That's it. Google "Carl Sagan dragon in my garage". Take the double quotes off when entering the terms. You'll find an explanation as to why you should discard a hypothesis for which there is no evidence.
@dex1391 That is the flaw in your argument. Given the assertion that something exists but being able to provide no evidence for that existence is it more sensible to believe in the mystical evidence-less entity, or assume that until proven otherwise it most probably does not exist?
@dex1391 OK. Let me be clearer. I know of no evidence for your god. If there is evidence to support your claims then surely it is incumbent upon you to present that evidence?
@dex1391 If I've given you the impression that I'm out to "save" you, let me assure you I'm not. If you are happy with your faith then I happy for you. You are entitled to live your life in any way that makes you feel fulfilled. If, for you, that involves believing in a deity that very probably does not actually exist in reality, then go for it. I once worked with a guy who believed that Star Trek was some kind of future history - he liked the optimistic vision.
@dex1391 So, in a nut shell, there is no evidence that "led me" to a "faith" in atheism. Atheism is what's left when I discount the claims made by others - claims for which they have no evidence. Now - you claim you DO have the evidence. I am puzzled as to why you are so cagey about sharing it.
I reject athesim because I've seen no good reason to believe in it. All the evidence points towards God being real. I've seen not one logical argument come from the opposition.
@dex1391 "All the evidence points towards God being real." You have yet to hear one logical argument come from the opposition - I've yet to see one piece of evidence.
@dex1391 You are quite correct that I don't live in a cave or under a rock - unless you count the slate on the roof of my house and the house itself as an artificial cave. Again whether you believe I have never seen evidence doesn't affect the reality that I haven't. You keep talking about this evidence but never present it. That's a bit fishy, you have to admit. It's like you're expecting me to believe something just because you and a load of other people say it's so.
@dex1391 It seems to me that you keep on about of this evidence that led you to belief in your god. Yet you won't explain it. I can only assume that the evidence doesn't exist.
And let me assure you I've long stopped trying to convert atheists... It's an exercise in futility. If you want to live with your head in the sand who am I to help you out?
I asked a friend of mine who is an atheist if he saw someone in the middle of the highway screaming "there is no truck" while an 18 wheeler came toward him ...what would he do.
He told me he'd let the truck take care of the problem.
@dex1391 I love the "runaway truck" and "burning building" analogies. These fail because if someone shouts about a truck rushing towards you - you have evidence. If someone warns of a burning building - you have evidence. If there's no evidence for either truck or fire but you have someone screaming at you about them where is the difference between them and the drunk in the street trying to beat off the invisible seagulls?
@dex1391 You keep mentioning evidence for god, but refuse to divulge what it is. If evidence converted you to theism, you have low standards for what passes as evidence. Ancedotes, personal experience and revelation may be reasons for belief, but they don't constitute evidence.
As for evidence for atheism, I agree with you. There is none, beyond the lack of evidence of the alternative. The only way someone will 'convert' you to atheism is to point out how your evidence of god is no such thing.
1. Expression of disgust is not "bigotry" DUMB ASS
2. Expression of disgust is NOT an indication of a lack of intelligence...DUMB ASS
3. Opposing gay marriage is not an indication of a lack of intelligence. ..That's like saying being a republican is an indication of a lack of intelligence
4. I know SOME queers were born with a malfunctioned brain
The truth is, YOU are NOT intelligent. As a matter of a fact, you're a STUPID ASS FAGGOT.
@SmackGaysWithTruth It's not about "one word" it's about being denied equal treatment and equal protection under the law. The argument you're using is the same one used by people half a century ago who condemned interracial marriages as against nature, against their god, or whatever. You are no better than these people.
@SmackGaysWithTruth Sp what is your problem? I can't speak for all gay people but I can assure you that I don't really care whether you find me disgusting or not. All I care about is that I should be allowed to live my life in a way that allows me to feel fulfilled - regardless of anyone else's bigotry and small minded attitudes. I have seen people on YouTube who regard black people as worthless and sub human. They use exactly the same arguments you use in your video.
@SmackGaysWithTruth Couldn't find it. Although I did look at your video and, surprise, surprise, you talk at length about your "disgust" and how straight you are. Whatever.
So you faggots believe anyone who expresses a NATURAL DISGUST of homosexualtiy is "unintelligent"???? So if you admit to being disgusted by bestiality, are you unintelligent????? Well bestiality and homosexuality are both disgusting so why should a person get ridiculed for being disgusted by only one of them???? You homos ARE NOT another race. Get that through your delusional, gay brain. Are you a bigot for opposing polygamy, incest, and bestiality???
these kinds of homophobes, the "its cool that you're gay, BUT" kind are terrible. Also, atheism has nothing to do with a person's values, as you well know. Rationality is what prevents people from being bigots. No rational person in the modern world can come up with a cogent reason why homosexuality is a problem. And not just private homosexuality. If you think you have reasons why people should keep their sexuality private, you have an uphill battle ahead of you trying to justify them.
Oh gay gay gay fucking gay - who cares? Stop telling us. Why do we want to know you're gay. If you're OK with it, then just go ahead. Why do you need everyone's approval all the time? The answer is, because you have no peace with it because DEEP deep deep down you know its wrong. Why should the whole fucking world have to validate gays all the time?
@jbooks888 I neither need nor wish for your approval or validation - don't flatter yourself that your opinion is that important to anyone other than yourself. If people don't have to hide their heterosexual orientation, I'm not going to hide mine. If heterosexual people have certain rights, I expect those same rights. If you judge someone on the basis of their sexual orientation, that makes you a bigot. The point of this video is that we often wrongly assume that atheists aren't bigots.
@thatgaybloke Yeah, right! Of course we judge on all kinds of things - what's wrong with being discerning, discrimination is a good thing - otherwise we will accept all the garbage with the good stuff - YOU HAVE TO discriminate to survive. You wouldn't eat a big fat juicy turd would you? WOULD YOU??? Well, maybe you would.
@thatgaybloke no - it makes me a discerning person. Like I said, we HAVE to discriminate - and I never said that gay people are garbage - but their behaviour most certainly is!
@jbooks888 lol, discriminating for pure survival is extremely basic. It would amount to how to properly cook meat and oh! If you don't know a thing about mushrooms, then maybe you shouldn't pick any in the woods and eat them at home.
Discrimination has its place. . true, but not when it comes to other people's personal lives and quite frankly if a guy and a girl can hold hands in public without molestation two guys should be able to as well. Simple :)
Ok so my first point was already addressed by to in text as regards to bigotry against the Religious and their intellectual prowess.
I completely agree that you have every right to be who you are and live as you see fit but that's a two edged sword isn't it? Meaning that you have a right to be whatever you are and live however you like but that in no way obligates anyone else to accept you or your life style.
I personally dont hate you but I do find Male Homosexuality extremely repugnant!
@ConservativeAtheist There is no two edged sword here. I am entitled to be who I am and live as I see fit as long as I am not harming other people. That's it. The only "acceptance" here is that other people accept my right to freedom. there is no requirement for their approval. People are as entitled to their feelings as I am to mine.
Interesting that you say you find male homosexuality extremely repugnant, what about female homosexuality?
@thatgaybloke: In most cases I am either sexually excited by Lesbians or indifferent toward them only in a few extreme cases where they are extremely butch and/or hostile to Males am I repulsed or annoyed by them.
If you have alittle spare time look up an organization called NAMBLA and the fact that all 3 major national Gay Organizations supported them for many years before they decided to denounce them…publically anyway and tell me what you think if you would…
@ConservativeAtheist I find that men who judge male homosexuality to be repugnant are those who are not secure in their own sexuality and masculinity.
@bkwalk: This of course is a very weak attempt at intimidating me into either reversing myself or at a minimum staying quiet unfortunately for you such tactics roll right off me like water off a ducks back. The idea is that if you don't like gays then having your sexuality called into question will send you running. I will let my initial statement stand. I will add though that it's quite sad indeed that you and your kind can't weather alittle disapproval this too you share with women.
@ConservativeAtheist I'm not trying to intimidate you into anything. You expressed your feelings, I expressed mine. I really don't give a flying fuck what you think of me personally. It's sad that there are so many conservative assholes like yourself that find the need to go to channels and deride others for their differing lifestyles. There's nothing to question about my sexuality, it is what it is. Some people have a difficult time accepting that.
@bkwalk: Hey the bottom line is that you can't help being Gay and I can't help being repulsed by you being Gay because how I feel is no more a choice than how you feel.
@ConservativeAtheist That doesn't justify you coming in and broadcasting your negativity for all to hear, including the people it's referring to. That has the singular purpose of attempting to cause shame in the vulnerable. Go ahead and feel the way you want but don't come around and shit on other people's day just because you feel like it needs to be heard. It's called civility. And if you need to reach out and find people who agree with you in that sentiment, then that's really fucking sad.
@bkwalk: Well actually there is more to this than just the way I feel. While I am not against Gay Adoption I do not think it should have the same standing as Heterosexual Adoption meaning all things being equal the Male/Female couple should get the child. The reason being of course is that atleast in part who we are is determined by our environment which means having a same-sex couple for parents would throw off the natural balance of the Childs development.
@ConservativeAtheist Here we go with the gender roles bullshit. Show me the studies where child development is impeded because of same sex parents. You can't because kids grow up just fine in that environment. Homo couples are just as capable, you pulled that one out your huge ass. I'm tired of debating you because you're clearly prejudiced and ignorant.
@bkwalk: I don't know whether there are stats one way or another but any claim that the differences between Males and Females is only a physical one is obviously a false one easily proven by the fact that so called Gender Roles are global and of course anyone with half a brain knows that behavior that is global can not have a societal cause.
This of course is becoming less and less true due to global media but the point is still currently valid.
I'm going to be straight; I'm an Atheist and I find myself to be quite homophobic. That's not to say it's a choice I've made, in fact, I am quite angry with myself about it. I am perfectly fine being around gay people, I don't have anything against them, but I find myself slightly... repulsed at the though.
Why this is true I don't know, perhaps it is due to being brought up in a society whose morality is rooted in religious texts, or maybe it's just a lack of comprehension on my part.
@dan012345 I think one thing that truly makes it difficult for me is that lack of understanding as to WHY people are gay. I havn't really looked into it but I have never really seen evidence for any explanation, whether that be genetic or due to psychological development. From pure assumption I would presume it is more likely to be due to development rather than some 'gay gene' as I've so crudely heard it called. I would like to hear anything you have to say.
It's really dumb that people harbor such irrational views against homosexuality, but they consider themselves rational thinkers. Just because we don't believe in any deities, doesn't mean that we're all free thinkers.
First time viewer of your vids. I agree with most of what you say, though i don't think that someone having spiritual or religious beliefs is necessarily a sign of poor education. Fundamental, evangelistic bigoted beliefs, yes. But there is a difference between that and someone who is practicing a religion or spirituality that emphasizes tolerance as a basic tenant. Sorry to get off the subject. But definitely, eloquently stated, and i think i will watch more of your vids :)
I watched this video again and realised that I boobed. When I talk of strength of religious conviction, what MEANT (and didn't clarify) was strength of religious conviction in the more strident, bigoted forms of religion. I didn't mean to suggest that ALL people with strong religious conviction are poorly educated or thick. That is clearly not the case as is evidenced by the many intelligent and eloquent believers here on YouTube.
No problem. It wasn't really a gripe or anything, just an opinion. Been watching your videos, and i have to say i enjoy them a lot. I'm not an atheist (neopagan here), but I welcome dissenting opinions. I believe we can learn things from just about anyone, and having a good intellectual argument can make the arguers walk away with things to think on, whether or not their minds are changed. Great channel, and subbed :)
There are two kinds of atheist's, The skeptic one's and the non skeptic one's.
Skeptic one's ussually are englithed and had the pleasure to understand how nature works, they know a great deal about evolution by natural selection and somethimes know alot about the big bang theory. Those are the skeptic's, people who are forced to think and do not draw rellious conclusions abt nature. Then you have the nonindoctrinated, the haters, the people that lost soneone close etc the nonskeptic atheists.
I see what you mean but the emphasis should be on usually and your dividing into two kinds of atheists is a general one that can be helpful in understanding but still there are many other factors coming into play.
Sometimes personal experiences overshadow critical thinking and a Skeptic will abandon his rational because of emotions. I know a Skeptic who was robbed twice by Arab thugs and now he hates Arabs. He will deny it when confronted but to me it's obvious.
It IS hard to imagine why an atheist would give a rat fuck about who someone bangs or the manner in which they do it. Pretty common complaint about religion sticking its nose in other people's bedrooms, just seems hypocritical and stupid.
But atheists are still people so that's no surprise.
If you don't have religion to back up your stupid views why WOULD you be homophobic? I'M agnostic and I can't understand. All the atheist types I know are also for gay rights. I have to think these polls are bogus.
I agree with you, I is hard to believe that someone in a minority would hate gays. One would think that they would know what it is like to be the victim of bigotry. Atheists and Blacks, for example, should overwhelmingly be sympathetic to the gay community.
this argument is so Bias what atheist can't have flaws mate that's ignorant in itself and you shouldn't suspect anything from atheist the ones i know are very irrational but absolutely brilliant
Sadly homophobes come from all beliefs and backgrounds. I even know some gay people who are very homophobic. As a gay atheist myself I have yet to meet a fellow atheist who struck me as homophobic. Perhaps I have been lucky.
Gay hating Atheists still suffer the effects of their religion. Give them time. At least they can think outside the box and you have to give them that.
tkathryyn 5 months ago
@tkathryyn True - even people who do not believe in a god or gods do not grow up in a cultural vacuum. Our society is, like it or not, riddled with "morality" from christianity - whether that's homophobia, racism or hatred of women.
thatgaybloke 5 months ago 3
While some homophobes are just trolls and hate for no reason, I disprove of homosexuals because they are unproductive in the sense of procreation. I, as an Atheist, see little more point to life than living it to continuing your bloodline. So when you put a homosexual's life into my equation, they have no purpose but to live. And living by itself really has no sense of satisfaction since you have no legacy.
Well, that's just my view.
IronicallyMature 6 months ago
@IronicallyMature So you disapprove of opposite sex relations who chose not to have any children, and people in general who don't want children, right?
Not having children is a very positive thing for the state of the world and humanity right now. Is the bacterium that makes another bacterium instead of ceasing to exist better off for itself? Not really. It's just continuing the purpose of living, which you've made out to be pointless in and of itself with the only exception being continuation.
PeachyPeachPie 6 months ago
@PeachyPeachPie
Yes, that's exactly right. I disapprove of those people as well. I was merely refusing to digress.
No, it's not having children, it's letting the elders we have now die. Keeping someone alive long past their usefulness isn't a smart thing. Would you keep a burnt out TV?
And as we all know, not all bacteria is bad. And still, since it is surviving, yes. Do you honestly think human conquest is the best thing for the World if you're saying no more kids is a positive?
IronicallyMature 6 months ago
@IronicallyMature Well, I say any way possible humanity can limit itself reproducing at this point is a big positive for the life supporting ability of the world and everyone already on it; because it's already past the point of being able to fully support the sheer amount of human beings on the surface. The less children are born, the fewer elders you'd have to worry about later on. That we even have elders as old as we do is a testament to our scientific accomplishments.
PeachyPeachPie 5 months ago
@PeachyPeachPie
And I agree, to an extent. I don't think we should stop reproducing all together, but perhaps limit. Such as sterilizing the diseased or mentally defficient. And every couple limited to one child. I suppose the best way to put this is that China has the right idea at this point (from what I've heard). They limit each family to a boy and a girl or something like that, which makes perfect sense. Now we just need to let the elders die off.
IronicallyMature 5 months ago
@IronicallyMature Surely humanity's single greatest accomplishment was quadrupling our life spans, wasn't it? That we even have people as old as we do is amazing. Capping our age off is the worst possible idea ever, diametrically opposite our instinct.
Also, euthanasia is a slippery slope. "diseased" and "mentally deficient" are so vague - they could be used to euthanize gay people, little people, deformed people, inter-sexed people; it's much less a headache to limit kids for everyone period.
PeachyPeachPie 5 months ago
@PeachyPeachPie
To me, it's not about making life longer, it's about making life better. So all this wonderful technology we have is what I think our greatest accomplishment is. Not necessarily what we use for, however.
None of those fall under mental defficiency as none of them indicate an IQ of under 70. And homosexual/inter-sex/midgets/dwarves are only diseases in the mind of a person with a phobia relating to said things and only in the sense that it ruins society.
IronicallyMature 5 months ago
@IronicallyMature Someone that's diseased or mentally deficient can still have a normal baby. You wish to impose upon society rules that you deem fit, but you have no right to control the lives of everyone else. Our species can develop new technologies to cope with a growing population.
shitthrowingmonkey1 2 months ago
@shitthrowingmonkey1
It's not about the heredity, it's about keeping someone alive who would die without constant monitoring or medical treatment. Though yes, I am wishing to impose a new doctorine of rules that would drastically effect the lives of our modern society, these rules would push humanity in a healthy direction. Earth is an ecosystem and the laws of nature say that if a secondary consumer or higher's population grows too large, they decimate their food source and die off themselves.
IronicallyMature 2 months ago
@IronicallyMature It's just rooted in selfishness anyway. You want to impose these rules on others but you really wouldn't want it done to YOU, and since you're probably normal, you don't have to worry about it. Who are you to determine what a healthy direction is for humanity? Evolution is a natural process, it does not obey your rules. If we naturally die off then we naturally die off, but we don't need you killing people.
shitthrowingmonkey1 2 months ago
@shitthrowingmonkey1
A healthy direction is what ever helps humanity survive the best; common sense.
Humans won't "naturally" die off because there's nothing actively hunting us. We will kill us off with man-made guns, man-made pollution, and man-made famine. None of that natural.
IronicallyMature 2 months ago
@IronicallyMature Yes but we're entirely dependent upon unsustainable consumption of resources, therefore, if we were to run out of oil the entire global economy would come to a crashing halt and many would die. Can you imagine what would happen to humanity if tommrow we woke up and there were NO gas and electricity?
shitthrowingmonkey1 2 months ago
@IronicallyMature I fail to see how that isn't a natural die off. We naturally evolved the ability to develop technologies, and we naturally make bad choices and if something doesn't change the population will go down... naturally.
shitthrowingmonkey1 2 months ago
@shitthrowingmonkey1
It's unnatural because we created it. Not so much caused it like famine, but fully created pollution, guns, trains, etc.
IronicallyMature 1 month ago
All I hear is shit and smells like it too.... #_#
jamirflyd 7 months ago
I guess what I want to know is where we draw the line. If we need to give two men kissing the same PG rating we'd give a straight couple kissing then what about two people in fursuits, two people in slave/dom gear one wearing a leash another holding a whip, or a man who focuses solely on his date's feet never noticing if she has a head at all? How about a female lead in a series for kids that never makes out with the same person twice?
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica Ah - the old "slippery slope" argument. "If we allow kids to see two men kissing then why not 'two girls one cup'?" Would the rating of the people in slave/dom gear depend on whether they were same sex or mixed sex? I would say that it wouldn't. If it's acceptable for male/female kisses to occur in front of children it's acceptable for male/male kisses to occur.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke In your opinion male/male kisses are just as acceptable to occur in front of children as male/female kisses but who are you to decide what's desirable or acceptable for my children to see? Should you ever have the good fortune of having children you can make the call on whether you kiss men in front of them.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica That you feel there is a difference between a male/male kiss and a male/female kiss pretty much makes my point.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica It's quite interesting that you don't mention two women kissing. And that when you talk about a "female lead" that never makes out with the same person twice, I can easily think of series where the MALE lead never makes out with the same person twice. Your distinctions seem quite arbitrary.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke I would prefer not to be bombarded with images of male promiscuity (Rockford Files?) or two women kissing either. In western culture double standards do exist and to some degree those double standards may be informed by biology. Do our media, governments and economic systems already have to be painting the perfect moral picture before we can ask them not to muddy the cultural landscape even more? Character limits make it difficult to clear up any arbitrariness but I'll do my best.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica The message that people should be allowed to flourish by not being oppressed as second class citizens, by not being reviled for something that is natural and beyond their control and does others absolutely no harm, far from muddying the waters actually provides clarity and reason.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
I am a high intelligence, well educated skeptic and I certainly would not consider myself a bigot. The flaw in your assertions and ZJ's is that you assume that all reasons to embrace social homogeneity and sexual modesty are religious ones. I do not hate gays or sexual deviance in general as it pertains to adults in private but I oppose exposing young ones to these concepts. Being gay may not be a choice but it does begin with an idea, an idea that needn't be presented to an immature mind.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica Do you feel that being heterosexual "begin[s] with an idea, an idea that needent be presented to an immature mind"? If so, then how do you explain to a child that mum and dad are married?
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke Hetero marriage is exactly the idea that should be presented to the immature mind. In order to be deviance there has to be some value to deviate from. We can exclude more people from the ideals we teach our children (ie instead of just marrying a woman, marry a woman from a good home) or we can teach our children to be less exclusive (ie anyone with a pulse deserves consideration) In adulthood one can determine his own values but its a disservice not to start children off with any
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica "In order to be deviance there has to be some value to deviate from". Doesn't that just about say it all? The fact of it is that everyone deviates from "the norm" in some way. If you think that excluding people from the ideals that we teach our children, then perhaps a good start would be excluding bigots who believe that only they are on the right path and that economic worth or social status are a measure of a human being?
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke We don't have to strive to be pod people or clones and we don't have to execute people for not embodying "normality." Normal isn't even the ideal we ought to be striving for. We should strive to be much more, much better, than normal. Before we shed traditional morality can we at least examine the reasons behind the morals? Do these ideals promote community, strengthen families, and increase individual well being? If not then let's draft a new set of ideals rather than have none.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica Yes. Let's examine the reasons behind the morals. Shouldn't they be that people are able to live a fulfilled life, free from unnecessary pain, free from fear and persecution? Shouldn't all people be treated equally in the law? If someone decides to live their life in a way that causes no harm to others - should our morality not compel us to support their right to do so? Or should we condemn the different as "less". As not worthy.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke if you wanted to live your life in a way that causes no harm to others I would support you fully! You said so yourself that you mean to cause harm to me and my children because I deserve to be undermined by a gay man with no responsibility to anyone but himself. Since when did being treated equally under the law give you a dominant share in the rearing of other peoples' children whom they dedicate their lives to and love dearly? Why do you have to target children? Pedo much?
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica You claim to be high intelligence, well educate and not a bigot. Your subsequent words reveal all three to be a lie.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica If we look at traditional morality then we need to consider whether those morals contribute to the well being of people and society, or whether they are traditional because that's how we've always done it and so that's how we want to continue. We don't need to draft out a new set of ideals They are already here - tolerance, equality, social responsibility, empathy and compassion. That's it. You don't need religion for that. You don't need "traditional" status quo morality.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke "because that's how we've always done it" so not one iota of critical thought into why they began doing it that way to begin with. Everyone is putting all of their effort into doing things one way for ages and no one has gotten any benefit from it. Every person would be substantially better off if we tolerated every manner of BS, were equal regardless of our BS, abandoned our family responsibilities to become a small voice in a sea of perverts who now are responsible for our kids..
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica What is BS about believing people should be treated with respect?
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke How do you go from making out with a man in front of another person's kids to believing you treat people with respect? Since neither you or your partner have a womb and showing enough respect not to make out in front of other peoples' families isn't your idea of "personal fulfillment" you're given yourself a green card not to treat others with respect. I would not have assumed that you would do such a thing but it seems as though that is what you are advocating.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke It seems that I have much more empathy and compassion for you than you have for me and my family. Rather than being labelled a faggot and having your rights trampled on you've labelled me a bigot and trampled on mine. What for exactly? For supporting your right to privacy, for you to love whom you see fit and in the manner you see fit, for seeing you as no different than myself, my friends and my family. I embrace your ideals and you still shit on mine. You're a selfish pig cunt.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
Comment removed
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke Do people have the right to follow their happiness regardless of how popular it is? Yes, within limits. I feel the line is crossed whenever a group tries to bring their alternative lifestyle out of the shadows and into the consciousness of the most impressionable among us and when they try to alter the very fabric of a society's morality without fear of consequence (no not God's wrath). Where you stand you only see the down side of moral strictures and ignore potential positives.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica "I feel the line is crossed whenever a group tries to bring their alternative lifestyle out of the shadows and into the consciousness of the most impressionable among us". So you wouldn't want your kids exposed to black people, Muslims or Jews, then? I'm sure there's a word for people who think that way - give me a few minutes and I'm sure I'll remember. Oh yes...
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke I wouldn't call being black an "alternative lifestyle", the critical element here is behavior. Alternative religions and cultures are another thing altogether. If members of a religion or culture practice beliefs that I find detrimental or immoral then of course I wouldn't want to expose my children to these people who will effectively undermine my teachings as a parent. Show tunes and glitter are fine btw (but not suggestive clothing, promiscuity, or redefining marriage.)
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica Your teachings as a parent "anyone who isn't like us is undesirable and probably disgusting" should be undermined.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke I don't think you are undesirable of disgusting. I think you're probably a fine, respectable gentleman who happens to be unquestionably and decades past the point of no return. I'm not a christer trying to condemn you to hell for your recreational activities or imploring you to "pray the gay away." In fact I see no reason why we should have any problem with one another... except for you undermining my parenting and trying to indoctrinate my children into deviant sexual behaviors
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica "My recreational activities" - because my relationship with my partner has nothing to do with love or companionship, it's just sex. Your bigotry reveals itself in all its ugliness.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke Rest assured, I'm not trying to indoctrinate your children into any kind of sexual behaviour. The idea that being gay is something you can be taught is ridiculous. If sexual orientation could be taught, we'd all be heterosexual. My concern for children is the thousands of children who get disowned, or beaten or kill themselves every year because they have parents like you.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke a foot fetish isnt taught and you arent born with it either, the images are planted and they just sort of stick.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@SecondAmerica try consulting a psychiatry textbook on how fetishes are manifested. It could be an enlightening experience for you.
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke Nice try. I wouldn't disown my child if they were to be homosexual. Why would I sever the relationship with one of the people who has shown me the purest love on earth because of the type of porn he's into? Or because of the person he's dating? You're grasping for straws trying to emblazon on me the visage of some monster from gay folk lore. Give me a damn break!
SecondAmerica 8 months ago
I don’t want to get in on your debate, but there are two big things to consider: fine tuning - the idea that if the universe differed in any way matter and planets would not have formed and life would not exist. It's an argument a lot of religious physicists use. Then there’s the idea of life appearing form dead matter. Make of that what you will.
IonxZone 8 months ago
@IonxZone Oh please the "fine tuning" argument is ridiculous. If the Universe operated by different laws then none of us would be here. The fact that we are here to observe it means that it has those parameters suitable for supporting intelligent life. The fine tuning argument is like saying that water has just the right density for fish to swim in it. Less dense they would sink, too dense they would float on top and drown. The flaw in that premise is obvious even to unintelligent life.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke Please don’t get angry at me.
The argument runs far deeper than that. However your argument is flawed - our existence as observers is not in question, it is the existence of our vastly, vastly, improbable planet sitting in our vastly (times several billion more 'vastly's!), universe that is in question.
IonxZone 8 months ago
I'd prefer not to have replys, I'm just commenting, but there are around forty-two sources for the historical existence of Jesus, and he is accepted as existing by nearly all historians (including non-Christians). Plinny is well known for writing a big long letter about the early Christians. Note that I'm not claiming all this evidence says God exists, or that Jesus is God's son - simply that there is a lot of evidence for Jesus the teacher.
You'll have to look them up yourself though.
IonxZone 9 months ago
@IonxZone The casual research I've done on the Internet seems to indicate that all the "evidence" for the existence of Jesus is after the event hearsay. Usually early christians who can hardly be considered impartial. Pliny is not a contemporary and so can't have written of any first hand experience of Jesus. The Pharoh's of Egypt claimed to be gods. There is historical evidence for their actual existence - but people don't take their claim of goodhood seriously. I feel the same about Jesus.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke I never claimed they proved he was divine in nature, only that he existed. If the evidence is hearsay you'll have to take it up with the historians because they seem to think it's pretty solid - almost all consider Jesus a historical figure, atheists included. Indeed, there is more evidence for Jesus having existed than there is for numerous contempory figures, and even for events such as Hannibal crossing the Alps, yet I doubt you would argue against those.
IonxZone 8 months ago
@kazoonightmare You're a bigot.
DannySinfield 9 months ago
I am not homophobic at all, i'm pretty certain someone else commented using my account, or when I've left myself signed in. thanks for drawing my attention to this or I would have probably never known about it.
kazoonightmare 8 months ago
@DannySinfield someone has done this whilst I was afk, thanks for drawing my attention to it. I am definitley not a bigot :)
kazoonightmare 8 months ago
Wow... another atheist video where the atheist again claims intellectual superiority.
If you wish to make this claim... try and back it up someday... You're not going to have an easy time doing so.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 What a typically nebulous statement. No specifics, no facts, just a vague condemnation. Intellectual superiority? Absolutely. Can I back it up? Yes I can back it up with the evidence. I think about what people say and compare that with what makes sense - rather that just believe it because I'm told to believe it. I don't believe in magic. I can look at "scripture" and see that it was written by people who didn't understand the world as well as we do now. Pretty easy after all.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
REALLY... I can't wait for this evidence.
Please... do share this evidence with the rest of the room.
The rest of us can't wait to hear it.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 So evidence for scientific explanation of "big bang" - observation of red shift, cosmic background radiation. Evidence for evolution - consistent fossil record with intermediate species like Tiktaalic being found exactly where expected in the geological record. Evidence for "god" - none. Evidence for the existence of Jesus - documents written by the founders of Christian religion containing re-worked fables - i.e. nothing independent. There you go - no effort at all.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
Hmmm still waiting for evidence for athesim...
(and what the hell does evolution have to do with anything? LOL)
Are you going to actually provide the evidence you claimed to have or are you going to block me for asking? hahahaha
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 I think I see what you're getting at. You want evidence for the lack of god?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
I've been asking... where's the evidence for atheism? You claimed to have some.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 The evidence for atheism is the complete lack of evidence for claims made by religion. Given the lack of evidence supporting these claims and the conflicting arguments between religions the most sensible approach is to disregard all of them. Although absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, in the absence of evidence supporting existence of god the null hypothesis has to be that there is no god.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
Simply not true. I'm a theist BECAUSE of the evidence.
Now that I'm a theist... you're trying to tell me that I should convert to atheism... but you're not willing to give me any reason to do so.
Should I convert and then ask for evidence? Should I just believe you and not ask any questions?
Sounds like faith to me.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 I am saying that is someone is making a claim they had better have something to back it up if they expect me to believe them. So the default position when someone claims there is a god is that without evidence their claim is at best unsubstantiated and therefore I have no reason to believe them. Quite the opposite, I see that the people making the claim have their own vested interest in doing so. If you are a theist because of the evidence then what evidence is that?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
Absolutely... that's exactly how I feel about atheism. If you want me to believe you... you better have something to back it up.
Isn't that reasonable?
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 Not really because I'm not the one making any claims about the existence of something. I'm saying "I don't believe in your god unless you show me otherwise". It seems you're saying, "I believe in my god unless you show me otherwise" - which is a strange position because you could believe in anything. That's pretty much the basis of the argument for Sagan's dragon and Russell's teapot.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
So are you saying that I should convert to atheism with absolutely no evidence?
That's exactly what I'm saying (other than "my" God)
I looked at the evidence and determined that God is real. Why wouldn't it take other evidence to change my mind? I don't get how you think I should just take your word for it.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 I'm not saying you should convert to atheism with no evidence. I'm saying that without evidence atheism is the default position - as is shown by Russell's teapot and Sagan's dragon. If, as you say, you have evidence to show that your god is real and that's why you believe in it then "converting" to atheism would make no sense. If there is evidence that your god exists, it is sensible to believe in that god. So what is the evidence that proves your god is real?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
That's cool.. But I didn't just believe something without evidence... so atheism can't be a default.
I'm a theist BECAUSE of the evidence. And now that I am... isn't it going to take some evidence on your part to convert me?
BTW... there's no such thing as "your" God.
What the evidence was... is irrelevant. It was enough to make me believe.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 You're losing me in a mass of contradiction. You say there is no such thing as "your god" - if there isn't then what do you believe in? You believe in someone else's god? Wouldn't that make it your god? You say that the evidence for the existence of your god is irrelevant, but that it was enough to make you believe. Why the reluctance to present that evidence? Perhaps it isn't as compelling as you are saying?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
Wow... if you don't understand this there's not much help for you.
There's no such thing as "your" God. I don't own God...
There's no such thing as someone elses God. It's just God... Just that easy.
Why don't you present your evidence for atheism?
If you truly want to "save me from religion" then show me why I shouldn't believe.
Show me the evidence that led you to your faith.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 I use the term "your god" because the qualifier "your" is necessary. There are so many gods out there that we need to be clear it's yours we're talking about, not Odin or Isis or FSM.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
I was simply correcting you because there is no such thing as "your" God... God is sufficient.
We were all created by God. What we believe he is like is what makes different religions.. that's all.
When we die we'll get to see who was the most correct.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 I doubt that we'll see anything when we die. When we die - that's it.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
I have no doubt that we will. Death isn't the end. Don't fear it.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 I don't fear it. I won't be there so it won't harm me.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
See that's a huge contradiction. I've heard atheists say that you don't fear death... I don't believe you.
How can you not fear the end of your existence? I know my death won't be my end...
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 Whether you believe me or not doesn't alter the fact that I don't fear death. There is nothing I can do about the end of my existence. There is nothing to fear because I won't be there to experience it. No contradiction at all. There are a good 13billion years or more in which my mind didn't exist. My non-existence in the past doesn't scare me - why should non-existence in the future be any more scary? You may fear death - it isn't valid for you to project that on to other people.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke
You're right... I don't believe you.
I have no reason to fear death. If I were an atheist I'd have to.
dex1391 8 months ago
@dex1391 The evidence for atheism is the total lack of evidence for your god. That's it. Google "Carl Sagan dragon in my garage". Take the double quotes off when entering the terms. You'll find an explanation as to why you should discard a hypothesis for which there is no evidence.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
If there were no evidence for God (which is not true) that still wouldn't be evidence for atheism.
I'm a theist BECAUSE of the evidence. If you wish to convert me to atheism... you need to provide me with some evidence...
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 That is the flaw in your argument. Given the assertion that something exists but being able to provide no evidence for that existence is it more sensible to believe in the mystical evidence-less entity, or assume that until proven otherwise it most probably does not exist?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
Again... you claim that there's no evidence for God... which of course you know isn't true.
Why must you do this? Does it make you more comfortable in your beliefs?
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 OK. Let me be clearer. I know of no evidence for your god. If there is evidence to support your claims then surely it is incumbent upon you to present that evidence?
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thatgaybloke
There's no such thing as "your" God. I don't own Him.
dex1391 8 months ago
@dex1391 If I've given you the impression that I'm out to "save" you, let me assure you I'm not. If you are happy with your faith then I happy for you. You are entitled to live your life in any way that makes you feel fulfilled. If, for you, that involves believing in a deity that very probably does not actually exist in reality, then go for it. I once worked with a guy who believed that Star Trek was some kind of future history - he liked the optimistic vision.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@dex1391 So, in a nut shell, there is no evidence that "led me" to a "faith" in atheism. Atheism is what's left when I discount the claims made by others - claims for which they have no evidence. Now - you claim you DO have the evidence. I am puzzled as to why you are so cagey about sharing it.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
I don't claim anything... I'm simply explaining why I reject atheism.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 Why do you reject atheism?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
I reject athesim because I've seen no good reason to believe in it. All the evidence points towards God being real. I've seen not one logical argument come from the opposition.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 "All the evidence points towards God being real." You have yet to hear one logical argument come from the opposition - I've yet to see one piece of evidence.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
I don't believe you. I doubt very much that you've never seen evidence for God.
95% of the planet has seen this evidence and decided that God does indeed exist.
You couldn't possibly be living in a cave or under a rock.
You're free to come up with another conclusion... that's your right. But I'll call you to task when you simply claim that the evidence doesn't exist.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 You are quite correct that I don't live in a cave or under a rock - unless you count the slate on the roof of my house and the house itself as an artificial cave. Again whether you believe I have never seen evidence doesn't affect the reality that I haven't. You keep talking about this evidence but never present it. That's a bit fishy, you have to admit. It's like you're expecting me to believe something just because you and a load of other people say it's so.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke
Well then you must live under a rock...
dex1391 8 months ago
@dex1391 It seems to me that you keep on about of this evidence that led you to belief in your god. Yet you won't explain it. I can only assume that the evidence doesn't exist.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke
What you assume is irrelevant.
Do you really think that assuming something ignorant like that will convert me to atheism?
dex1391 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke
And let me assure you I've long stopped trying to convert atheists... It's an exercise in futility. If you want to live with your head in the sand who am I to help you out?
I asked a friend of mine who is an atheist if he saw someone in the middle of the highway screaming "there is no truck" while an 18 wheeler came toward him ...what would he do.
He told me he'd let the truck take care of the problem.
That's what I'm doing with atheists.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 I love the "runaway truck" and "burning building" analogies. These fail because if someone shouts about a truck rushing towards you - you have evidence. If someone warns of a burning building - you have evidence. If there's no evidence for either truck or fire but you have someone screaming at you about them where is the difference between them and the drunk in the street trying to beat off the invisible seagulls?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke
The analogy had nothing to do with the existence of the truck... rather the want or need to move the denier away.
dex1391 9 months ago
@dex1391 So it's all about you - rather than anything real that might be a danger to the person supposedly under threat.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@dex1391 You keep mentioning evidence for god, but refuse to divulge what it is. If evidence converted you to theism, you have low standards for what passes as evidence. Ancedotes, personal experience and revelation may be reasons for belief, but they don't constitute evidence.
As for evidence for atheism, I agree with you. There is none, beyond the lack of evidence of the alternative. The only way someone will 'convert' you to atheism is to point out how your evidence of god is no such thing.
n00blet 8 months ago
@n00blet
Sorry no. I've tried to convert atheists before. Most of you are a lost cause. You're far too entrenched in your dogma to be reached.
What you'd like me to do is convert to your belief system on faith. You want me to believe you just because you say so.
Sorry but some of us need more than that. Some of us aren't easily indoctrinated.
dex1391 8 months ago
Hey fat faggot...I'm an atheist
1. Expression of disgust is not "bigotry" DUMB ASS
2. Expression of disgust is NOT an indication of a lack of intelligence...DUMB ASS
3. Opposing gay marriage is not an indication of a lack of intelligence. ..That's like saying being a republican is an indication of a lack of intelligence
4. I know SOME queers were born with a malfunctioned brain
The truth is, YOU are NOT intelligent. As a matter of a fact, you're a STUPID ASS FAGGOT.
QueersHateTheTruth 9 months ago
@SmackGaysWithTruth So you think it's OK for a black person not to be able to use a "whites only" drinking fountain?
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@SmackGaysWithTruth It's not about "one word" it's about being denied equal treatment and equal protection under the law. The argument you're using is the same one used by people half a century ago who condemned interracial marriages as against nature, against their god, or whatever. You are no better than these people.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@SmackGaysWithTruth Sp what is your problem? I can't speak for all gay people but I can assure you that I don't really care whether you find me disgusting or not. All I care about is that I should be allowed to live my life in a way that allows me to feel fulfilled - regardless of anyone else's bigotry and small minded attitudes. I have seen people on YouTube who regard black people as worthless and sub human. They use exactly the same arguments you use in your video.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@SmackGaysWithTruth Couldn't find it. Although I did look at your video and, surprise, surprise, you talk at length about your "disgust" and how straight you are. Whatever.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
I'm an atheist
So you faggots believe anyone who expresses a NATURAL DISGUST of homosexualtiy is "unintelligent"???? So if you admit to being disgusted by bestiality, are you unintelligent????? Well bestiality and homosexuality are both disgusting so why should a person get ridiculed for being disgusted by only one of them???? You homos ARE NOT another race. Get that through your delusional, gay brain. Are you a bigot for opposing polygamy, incest, and bestiality???
checkmwonderfulday 1 year ago
Comment removed
checkmwonderfulday 1 year ago
Comment removed
checkmwonderfulday 1 year ago
3:28 - Agree 100%
tlugnistari 1 year ago
these kinds of homophobes, the "its cool that you're gay, BUT" kind are terrible. Also, atheism has nothing to do with a person's values, as you well know. Rationality is what prevents people from being bigots. No rational person in the modern world can come up with a cogent reason why homosexuality is a problem. And not just private homosexuality. If you think you have reasons why people should keep their sexuality private, you have an uphill battle ahead of you trying to justify them.
doonuter 1 year ago
Oh gay gay gay fucking gay - who cares? Stop telling us. Why do we want to know you're gay. If you're OK with it, then just go ahead. Why do you need everyone's approval all the time? The answer is, because you have no peace with it because DEEP deep deep down you know its wrong. Why should the whole fucking world have to validate gays all the time?
jbooks888 1 year ago
@jbooks888 I neither need nor wish for your approval or validation - don't flatter yourself that your opinion is that important to anyone other than yourself. If people don't have to hide their heterosexual orientation, I'm not going to hide mine. If heterosexual people have certain rights, I expect those same rights. If you judge someone on the basis of their sexual orientation, that makes you a bigot. The point of this video is that we often wrongly assume that atheists aren't bigots.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago 7
@thatgaybloke Yeah, right! Of course we judge on all kinds of things - what's wrong with being discerning, discrimination is a good thing - otherwise we will accept all the garbage with the good stuff - YOU HAVE TO discriminate to survive. You wouldn't eat a big fat juicy turd would you? WOULD YOU??? Well, maybe you would.
jbooks888 1 year ago
@jbooks888 So you think gay people are garbage? That makes you a bigot.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago 3
@thatgaybloke no - it makes me a discerning person. Like I said, we HAVE to discriminate - and I never said that gay people are garbage - but their behaviour most certainly is!
jbooks888 1 year ago
@jbooks888 lol, discriminating for pure survival is extremely basic. It would amount to how to properly cook meat and oh! If you don't know a thing about mushrooms, then maybe you shouldn't pick any in the woods and eat them at home.
Discrimination has its place. . true, but not when it comes to other people's personal lives and quite frankly if a guy and a girl can hold hands in public without molestation two guys should be able to as well. Simple :)
TranscendantShadows 1 year ago
Ok so my first point was already addressed by to in text as regards to bigotry against the Religious and their intellectual prowess.
I completely agree that you have every right to be who you are and live as you see fit but that's a two edged sword isn't it? Meaning that you have a right to be whatever you are and live however you like but that in no way obligates anyone else to accept you or your life style.
I personally dont hate you but I do find Male Homosexuality extremely repugnant!
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist There is no two edged sword here. I am entitled to be who I am and live as I see fit as long as I am not harming other people. That's it. The only "acceptance" here is that other people accept my right to freedom. there is no requirement for their approval. People are as entitled to their feelings as I am to mine.
Interesting that you say you find male homosexuality extremely repugnant, what about female homosexuality?
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@thatgaybloke: In most cases I am either sexually excited by Lesbians or indifferent toward them only in a few extreme cases where they are extremely butch and/or hostile to Males am I repulsed or annoyed by them.
If you have alittle spare time look up an organization called NAMBLA and the fact that all 3 major national Gay Organizations supported them for many years before they decided to denounce them…publically anyway and tell me what you think if you would…
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist I find that men who judge male homosexuality to be repugnant are those who are not secure in their own sexuality and masculinity.
bkwalk 1 year ago
@bkwalk: This of course is a very weak attempt at intimidating me into either reversing myself or at a minimum staying quiet unfortunately for you such tactics roll right off me like water off a ducks back. The idea is that if you don't like gays then having your sexuality called into question will send you running. I will let my initial statement stand. I will add though that it's quite sad indeed that you and your kind can't weather alittle disapproval this too you share with women.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist I'm not trying to intimidate you into anything. You expressed your feelings, I expressed mine. I really don't give a flying fuck what you think of me personally. It's sad that there are so many conservative assholes like yourself that find the need to go to channels and deride others for their differing lifestyles. There's nothing to question about my sexuality, it is what it is. Some people have a difficult time accepting that.
bkwalk 1 year ago
@bkwalk: Hey the bottom line is that you can't help being Gay and I can't help being repulsed by you being Gay because how I feel is no more a choice than how you feel.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist That doesn't justify you coming in and broadcasting your negativity for all to hear, including the people it's referring to. That has the singular purpose of attempting to cause shame in the vulnerable. Go ahead and feel the way you want but don't come around and shit on other people's day just because you feel like it needs to be heard. It's called civility. And if you need to reach out and find people who agree with you in that sentiment, then that's really fucking sad.
bkwalk 1 year ago
@bkwalk: Well actually there is more to this than just the way I feel. While I am not against Gay Adoption I do not think it should have the same standing as Heterosexual Adoption meaning all things being equal the Male/Female couple should get the child. The reason being of course is that atleast in part who we are is determined by our environment which means having a same-sex couple for parents would throw off the natural balance of the Childs development.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
@ConservativeAtheist Here we go with the gender roles bullshit. Show me the studies where child development is impeded because of same sex parents. You can't because kids grow up just fine in that environment. Homo couples are just as capable, you pulled that one out your huge ass. I'm tired of debating you because you're clearly prejudiced and ignorant.
bkwalk 1 year ago
@bkwalk: I don't know whether there are stats one way or another but any claim that the differences between Males and Females is only a physical one is obviously a false one easily proven by the fact that so called Gender Roles are global and of course anyone with half a brain knows that behavior that is global can not have a societal cause.
This of course is becoming less and less true due to global media but the point is still currently valid.
ConservativeAtheist 1 year ago
I'm going to be straight; I'm an Atheist and I find myself to be quite homophobic. That's not to say it's a choice I've made, in fact, I am quite angry with myself about it. I am perfectly fine being around gay people, I don't have anything against them, but I find myself slightly... repulsed at the though.
Why this is true I don't know, perhaps it is due to being brought up in a society whose morality is rooted in religious texts, or maybe it's just a lack of comprehension on my part.
dan012345 1 year ago
@dan012345 I think one thing that truly makes it difficult for me is that lack of understanding as to WHY people are gay. I havn't really looked into it but I have never really seen evidence for any explanation, whether that be genetic or due to psychological development. From pure assumption I would presume it is more likely to be due to development rather than some 'gay gene' as I've so crudely heard it called. I would like to hear anything you have to say.
I'm frustratingly guild ridden.
dan012345 1 year ago
It's really dumb that people harbor such irrational views against homosexuality, but they consider themselves rational thinkers. Just because we don't believe in any deities, doesn't mean that we're all free thinkers.
gir908922 1 year ago
Im not atheist because there is a god JESUS
Tornadowatcher021 1 year ago
@Tornadowatcher021
I thought he was the son?
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
@Tornadowatcher021
How is Jesus(pbuh) God? Did he ever claimed to be Divine or Did he ever commanded to worship him?? Who told u this??
artistdigital 1 year ago
First time viewer of your vids. I agree with most of what you say, though i don't think that someone having spiritual or religious beliefs is necessarily a sign of poor education. Fundamental, evangelistic bigoted beliefs, yes. But there is a difference between that and someone who is practicing a religion or spirituality that emphasizes tolerance as a basic tenant. Sorry to get off the subject. But definitely, eloquently stated, and i think i will watch more of your vids :)
Kawamura2 2 years ago
I watched this video again and realised that I boobed. When I talk of strength of religious conviction, what MEANT (and didn't clarify) was strength of religious conviction in the more strident, bigoted forms of religion. I didn't mean to suggest that ALL people with strong religious conviction are poorly educated or thick. That is clearly not the case as is evidenced by the many intelligent and eloquent believers here on YouTube.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll put something in the side bar.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
No problem. It wasn't really a gripe or anything, just an opinion. Been watching your videos, and i have to say i enjoy them a lot. I'm not an atheist (neopagan here), but I welcome dissenting opinions. I believe we can learn things from just about anyone, and having a good intellectual argument can make the arguers walk away with things to think on, whether or not their minds are changed. Great channel, and subbed :)
Kawamura2 2 years ago
LOL! "leaping about sprinkling glitter on people!" Oh, I love the image. Thank you for your cogent response to this issue.
ReligiousFiction 2 years ago
There are two kinds of atheist's, The skeptic one's and the non skeptic one's.
Skeptic one's ussually are englithed and had the pleasure to understand how nature works, they know a great deal about evolution by natural selection and somethimes know alot about the big bang theory. Those are the skeptic's, people who are forced to think and do not draw rellious conclusions abt nature. Then you have the nonindoctrinated, the haters, the people that lost soneone close etc the nonskeptic atheists.
blauwen 2 years ago
I see what you mean but the emphasis should be on usually and your dividing into two kinds of atheists is a general one that can be helpful in understanding but still there are many other factors coming into play.
Sometimes personal experiences overshadow critical thinking and a Skeptic will abandon his rational because of emotions. I know a Skeptic who was robbed twice by Arab thugs and now he hates Arabs. He will deny it when confronted but to me it's obvious.
Great speech, thatgaybloke!
derunausstehlichekid 2 years ago
It IS hard to imagine why an atheist would give a rat fuck about who someone bangs or the manner in which they do it. Pretty common complaint about religion sticking its nose in other people's bedrooms, just seems hypocritical and stupid.
But atheists are still people so that's no surprise.
Keippernicus 2 years ago 3
If you don't have religion to back up your stupid views why WOULD you be homophobic? I'M agnostic and I can't understand. All the atheist types I know are also for gay rights. I have to think these polls are bogus.
vivalaleta 2 years ago
I agree with you, I is hard to believe that someone in a minority would hate gays. One would think that they would know what it is like to be the victim of bigotry. Atheists and Blacks, for example, should overwhelmingly be sympathetic to the gay community.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
hey if you like sucking dick and taking it up the bum then thats all good you have the rite to live your life any way you want
algeriasfinest213 2 years ago
this argument is so Bias what atheist can't have flaws mate that's ignorant in itself and you shouldn't suspect anything from atheist the ones i know are very irrational but absolutely brilliant
DSB0313 2 years ago
Hillbilly barbeque - is that like a spit roast with your close family?
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
I just wanted to say: I really liked this video. It covers about everything there really is to say about it.
FierceRodents 2 years ago
Thank you.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
Sadly homophobes come from all beliefs and backgrounds. I even know some gay people who are very homophobic. As a gay atheist myself I have yet to meet a fellow atheist who struck me as homophobic. Perhaps I have been lucky.
kensington25 2 years ago
Gee, it must suck to be both gay and homophobic. Wouldn't you be constantly ashamed of yourself? Seems like a bad joke.
Disthron 2 years ago
Sadly so many are :(
kensington25 2 years ago
Gays are often homophobic because they don't want to be gay for different reasons(their family, beliefs etc...)
People often don't like people who remind them of their "faults". Gays who don't want to be gay are sometimes the worst haters of all.
FierceRodents 2 years ago
I guess that makes seance. Still seems like it would suck though.
Disthron 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure it does.
FierceRodents 2 years ago
nasty ass buttfuckers , SHITEATER
butterball1234abcd 2 years ago
I saw this movie one time, and Mel Gibson was playing a religious wing nut who was getting whipped and beaten senseless.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago