@treysharkk Wrong Joseph Smith Never claimed to be the son of God, He never said performed any miracles, cast out demons, or arose from the dead. Im pretty sure if you got o where he was burried in Nauvoo youll find whats left of him. Plus Jesus came for the Jews but they denied him so How are they alike again???? Do more research before making such a statement! lol
@devinesmurf0723 The reason they are the same is that they both made extraordinary claims, and were rejected. If you were a little smarter and could think about more than just one way to look at things, then purhaps you would have understood what I meant. For instance, Jews didn't accept Jesus with hi claims. Christians didn't accept Joseph Smith's claims either. It doesn't matter who had the more rediculous claims because they were both only men.
@treysharkk Well I guess we got our own views in things but like you said you cant look at things just from one perspective. Us Christians have our beliefs just like you have yours just remember we act on what we know. Our experiences define us. I for example know that I am correct in what I believe because I feel his precense every day and I see how he works miracles in the simplest things. You dont and hey if that makes you feel good, go ahead. But dont generalize us we are not the same!
@devinesmurf0723 I agree you are not the same, but very similar. Christians, Muslims, Mormons call claim that their holy books contain all of the secrets to humanities needs. An atheist is just someone who has read the books, and finds the claims rediculous. People say they 'feel' God, but how can one trust such an unreliable sorce as emotions. Because it feels good? Still doesn't make it true. As for miraculous healings, they are all arbitrary. Why won't God heal amputees?
@treysharkk The way miracles work is through faith you have to believe without seeing it, God made us our entire body if he wants hell do it, Plus being an amputee is not a sickness it can be caused by a sickness but you dont get heal from lossing a part of your body. There is no malignant spirit behind it. But you may not understand that.
@devinesmurf0723 So when Jesus said, "Anyone who asks will recieve.", "If you have faith of a mustard seed", "Whatever you ask for you, if you believe you will get it" he was just kidding? When he said 'whatever', he meant no limbs? I don't think so. Besides, what is faith? It is belief without proof. It's not just about seeing something, it's hearing, tasting, touching, smelling.
@treysharkk Ok So you agree with me then, When Jesus said whatever it is whatever, and your definition about faith was a little off but was on the right path though!! Good job keep researching maybe youll ge it right next time.
@devinesmurf0723 From what Jesus said, you can have very little faith and still move mountains. Surely getting ones legs back would be trivial for such a power deity, yet not one person every got so much as a finger back. Either God hates amputees, isn't powerful enough, the amputees aren't speaking loud enough when they pray, so Jesus doesn't hear, God doesn't really answer prayers, or God is imaginary and prayer is nothing more than superstition. It has to be one of these.
@treysharkk oooor maybe the amputee s are not believing, everything in life has a purpose right? Well maybe you need to really have faith not just believe so you can have your legs back If thats the case then you really dont have faith it is just temporary faith, In other words that faith is smaller than a grain of mustard.
@devinesmurf0723 So are you really accusing all those Christian amputees (that must have prayed for their legs back) of lacking faith. This "faith" that actually demands that you believe in something without an iota of proof. This "faith" which believers uses as a cop-out for the total absence of any shred of evidence that a god exists?
@makikomi Wrong theres plenty of proof of God existance, you just have to have faith again and im pretty sure that all of those christian amputees that you claim prayed for their legs back!?!? meaning they had it at one point of time turned their prayers in to something else and have made peace with the way they are. You just have to be in that situation to know.
@devinesmurf0723 You say there is proof and then you say you have to have faith. So which is it? Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us about this proof you have?
As for your completely lame reasoning that "they turned their prayers to something else", BULLSHIT. It wasn't going to happen anyhow.
@makikomi Ok let me turn the lights on for a second; here is the definition of Faith=strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. So in simpler words believing without seeing. Now we do not see God "physicaly", but that doesent mean we dont have proof he exists. Take us we are the biggest proof he exists we where created whether we evolved from a monkey or a a kangaroo we where created had a CREATOR. That Creator is tum tum tum..GOD
God didn't create me. My parents did. That I know and can prove. Everything has to come from somehwere, so where did god come from?
Before you refer to the Big Book of Bullshit, (ie the bible) and quote that "in the beginning was the word" and that "the word" was actually god, stop. There is no proof of that. It also defies common sense.
Then try answering my question properly... what is this proof that you have of a god?
@makikomi Man, first of here is a definition taken from a non christian dictionary, creation= the bringing into of existence of the universe, esp. when regarded as an act of God. Proof is everywhre if you cant see it then is because you are not looking. That passage was talking about Jesus But you wouldnt know that you seem to have your mind made up. if you where serious about seeking the truth then how about entertaining the idea that the book of bullshit is actually true and start reading??
@devinesmurf0723 You have once again FAILED to answer my question. You failed to answer where your god came from and failed to cite proof of this god actualkly existing anyhow. "Proof is everywhere" is the kind of fuzzy, emotive shit that Christians like to spoon- feed gillible twats. Trees come from seeds. People came from their parents. PS3s came from Sony.
@devinesmurf0723 Furthermore, I AM serious about seeking the truth, but the sad fact of the matter is that no Christian I have ever asked has EVER provided clear evidence of their god. I still admit to being agnostic, but due to the fact that no proof has been provided, I feel that on clear balance of probabilities no God exists as the burdon of proof (which is on the claimer, ie theists) has not been met.
If proof is ever provided, I will reconsider my position.
@makikomi Here is a little trick I learned a while back wether you believe in God or not I guarantee you that you can not say out loud There is no God, God does not exist and not get this gut feeling that you are wrong. He is our nature. Now I know u will not admit this if you do it, but as long as you do it and you have that revelation all of this was worth it. Just try it!!
I'm pretty much sure I would be as combative with Islam if I had, or could invoke, such a flexible mind. I very, very much enjoyed the clip. More more more......
I was gonna inject into the debate as christian by saying that I agree with what Mark is saying largely and there's a reason why we don't sacrifice animals and that we don't have to follow the 10 comandment to the letter, but then I decided to shout at a brick wall instead as it's basicly the same effect on youtube.
@fullbleed24 really? don't have to adhere to the 10 commandments anymore? Why the hell is every christian trying so damn hard to put them on government buildings then? Also... did you not read jesus' sermon on the mount? He explicitly says that he didnt come to change or eradicate any of the previous laws, and that didn't mean just the 10 commandments. He meant all the mosaic laws, you know all 500 and something of them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This comic gives us a good example of how man places himself above God, actually making himself God. This is the theme of modern society: atheistic humanism, which hypocritically makes man God while denying the existence of the True God.
The video showed a poster with the caption Spoiler: Jesus Dies. It conveniently ignored the rest of Jesus's work, The Burial and the Resurrection. If we follow Jesus, and die to self, we are reborn as new eternal men.
ok, i'll pray to god to save the dying woman across my road, thats odd nothing happened. i'll pray to him to stop all religious wars by announcing himself to the world, oh look nothing happened. i'll pray to him to stop starvation across the globe, oh look nothing happened. i'll say FUCK YOU GOD, FUCK YOU JESUS! oh look nothing happened. pray all you want but there is a reason you don't get a response. In a thousand years time people will be praying to another god for help with the same result.
@maccyjames64: As the late great George Carlin said, "3 years ago I gave up praying to God and started praying to Joe Pesci instead. The results have been pretty much exactly the same."
Try the parts of Christianity where Women are only good as nuns because giving them power would give them choices, the parts where they forget slavery is bad and the parts where they forget homosexuals are humans who enjoy sex in a different mannerism then most, not Satan's little do-gooders.
@Farbo123 I dont know what Bible you have been reading, but everything that you have just said made you sound really ignorant, along with them 14 others. I would love for you to show me facts about these topics. Slavery in the Bilble you dont have slaves actually his people where held captive and became slaves but God free them many times so it does not promote slavery. About women you should read about Deborah she was a judge and lead the military in to a succesful battle! Do your research!lol
that is not what the Bible talks about if you read it you would know that there was a woman that lead a war and won her name was Deborah and she was a Judge Im pretty sure that meant she had lots of choices. 2)Which part in the bible says slavery is good? havent read that yet!! And About Homosexuals God Loves them he just hates sin not any different than Killers or liars they are not special in any way, get over it!!!
@linktalz Whoo BACK UP where did it state in this video or anywhere else for that matter, that athiests claim men are gods. Answer, oh thats right, THEY DIDN'T. if they did that would be hypocritic, however as that is not the case I will leave you to burble in the splintered wreckage of you argument.
Looking more in google the absolutely closest thing i found to what you said was a little study done that was social influence on oneself accepting being gay, not on being gay itself
1: Doesnt make it wrong either. the sexual acts of animals being productive or not does not change the gratification of them, which can easily be compared to the benefits of any sexual gratification
so gratification justifies the means now? Couldn't that argument very well defend the relationship of two consensual family members? or a man "pleasing" himself while watching kiddie porn? or any of the countless number of situations that society has deemed "wrong," for seemingly no apparent reason except for that religion first dictated these immoralities?
If we are to reverse the standards of sexuality that religion has created, then who is to stop us from reversing every law found by man?
3: so she made not have considered herself bi, but clearly she was (or at least curious)
Just wondering, you said dated for a while, when they broke up she go back to girls? im willing to bet she did. Oh, and i know a lesbian couple very well and my girlfriend even better. these 2 are serious lesbians and your guy friend would have never had a chance,
On that, you actually think cause you had a friend who did dated with a dyke shows in any way there is nothing genetic?
if that's true, then the whole idea of sexuality is debatable.
I consider myself straight - does that not mean anything?
She proclaimed herself as lesbian, and not curious. In fact, she was known for her stance on gay/lesbian rights. She let people know that she was lesbian, and NOT interested in men
who are you to say you know her better? and no, she did not go back to women. She is currently dating another man
She has admitted that she has "started" liking men. = psychological factors
joshuaspolar, are you not getting bored of and frustrated by your own arguments???? I could swear we had the same argument 3 months ago. You shouldn't let this consume you!!!
I can imagine, our debate been going on a bit now. Im gonna just leave it if his next post doesn't include where the hell hes getting his information (frankly im starting to think its from his ass)
well it looks like you guys are gonna be great youtube friends.
I'm getting my information from the facts. It's not my opinion, it's looking at science and understanding the information.
If homosexuality were genetic, there would have to be dominance and recessiveness. Obviously heterosexuality is not dominant, so if a gay parent had a child, it should be gay (or at least bi). My point is that sexuality does not follow the gene pool, otherwise we could find it
FOR THE LAST TIME POST YOUR SOURCES FOR YOUR "FACTS"
If they are facts then they have peer reviewed science based studies. you claim to know these things as fact, you must have seen the evidence yourself, SHARE IT
I just have strong convictions about certain things, and when I see people trying to dismiss certain things as things that aren't true, it doesn't make sense to me. So I try and spread the information that I know to other people in the hope that it might cause them to question how 100% they are on their opinions. (like evolution and God and stuff - most people just don't know the full side to either story)
After all, evolution is just millions of years of 'mistakes' that have lead us to here. Humans are just the result of millions of particals deciding to go left, right or stay still. Depressing thought isnt it ? But as Descartes said, I think therefor I am. So stop believing and start thinking.
Other studies have shown that attractiveness is fairly universal, who you find attractive doesnt depend on the way youve been brought up. This to me means that sexual preferences must be there from birth, there is no chosing. Your brain is just looking for a genetic match. Sometimes your brain thinks that match is the same sexe as you. Some people call that a mistake, I call it evolution.
Other emotions, like the fear of pain, are so essential for survival that they need to be in place from birth. These are known as basic instincts. Most scientists agree that sexual preferences, vital for the survival and diversity of the species, is instilled at birth. Recent studies have shown women to prefer the naturel body scent of men who are geneticaly very different from them. This isnt something that can come from a certain way of upbringing so it has to be there from birth.
There has never been any emperic evidence of a gay gene, just because you found an internet source claiming it, doesn't make it true. Feelings, sexual and other, are simply a result of sensory imput triggering the release of chemicals to the brain. Some emotions, like a fear of foreigners (or gay people) are a result of conditioning in childhood, teaching the brain how to respond to input.
sigh* ok, theres an interview for the guy who found it and reports on further research of it. its not just one source, as i believe i said in my original post referring to it. Yes i only mentioned one source of first finding out about it, but i also mentioned further research. Look for yourself
This means you are as capable of "choosing" to be gay as Sir Elton John. So let me get this straight, sorry poor word choice, you're coming out to all of us that you are fully capable of choosing to be gay? You?
Are you being serious?? Do you honestly mean to equate homosexuality with incest? People are not born incestuous, they choose to engage in something they know is debasing their species. I sincerely hope you do not wish for a return to proscribing homosexuality. Come on, don't let your blind faith completely ruin your judgement.
incestual people engage in the debasing of the human species?
homosexuals choose to discontinue the human species! nature doesn't even allow them to procreate; clearly the act is wrong.
Not every offspring of incestual relationships are born with handicaps; some are completely normal. and if you take into consideration that if we all "evolved" from one common ancestral primate, then we are all distant family members!!
Ex: you fall in love with this girl. after being married, you finally find out she's your sister you never knew about. Do you immediately end your relationship? to further my point - what if the couple never has any children? they just love each other.
The argument for homos is that "they love each other, they deserve to be happy."
If this incestual couple loves each other, with no procreating, then why is this wrong? what makes it wrong?
My word, for a man who does not approve of incest you make quite the defence of it. I personally do not care if a man wants to have a sexual relationship with his mother, nor do I worry about anyone's sexual preferences. People like you, with a skewed sense of moral righteousness, let yourselves become blinded by a doctrinal hatred of homosexuality. Does it really impact upon your life?? Can you not just admit that people are born gay, and are well within their rights to be happy??
Furthermore, I doubt the world's gay population are looking to extinguish the human race by lack of breeding. I am a 31 year old heterosexual man who is thankfully child free, and intend to remain so. Does that mean that you despise me as much as you despise homosexuals?? Maybe you should lend your support to the current bill before the Ugandan parliament calling for homosexuality to be outlawed, and AIDS sufferers executed. Sounds like your wet dream.
Oh, and before you make any snide remarks, I am currently in a 9 year relationship (and she is a believing Presbyterian!!!). Far be it from me to say that I am ever so slightly more tolerant than a rabid bigot like yourself...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
well if she is a believer in God then she should have the same (similar) opinions that I do (seeing as how they come from the Bible.)
and let's get some things straight-
a rabid bigot? no, calm down. I just don't agree, or "accept" everything that is thrown at me as true (like homosexuality being okay).
First off, it's NOT genetic. Only people who haven't gone to college think that way. take a psych class, take a genetics class; homosexuality is the result of social upbringing.
@joshuaspolar XD we have no idea if its bloody genetic or not, seeing as you obviously have the key to the human genome i suggest you decode its entire meaning to the rest of us, as last time i checked, we still do not know the complete meaning of every piece of human genetics.
now you might be confusing homo- with effeminance. Effeminate people are usually genetic (result of unbalanced hormones, etc), but there are plenty effeminate men out there who are completely hetero. Genetics do not provoke sexual preferences; if they did, we'd be able to tell if someone's gay by their DNA, which we can't
Now as for incest, I haven't made a defense at all! I just copied/pasted the argument for homosexuality, and yet when it's used for incest, no one wants to hear. its not right
You're an intelligent person, that much is clear, but I have to stop you right there.... when you say something along the lines of "I just don't like see seeing things that aren't true being spread like they are." from the stance of a believing christian, then I don't see how you can seriously attack another's position. You believe that your kids are "forced to see homosexuals as right", yet you have no qualms about imposing your own outdated world view on them. Sounds a tad hypocritical.
Might I add that there are more important things to be worrying about instead of obsessing over whether or not you see homosexuality as abhorrent or not. If only you could free yourself from the shackles of late Iron Age moralistic scribblings then maybe you can realise that your position is rather nasty. Stop worrying about what imaginary friends may think and just try to enjoy your life. I live in Ireland so I see how many people revere Church teaching. It is rapidly waning, which pleases me..
... and long may it continue as the church is doing a great job of discrediting itself. Your position is unnervingly close to Ratzinger's detestation of homosexuality, and I am sure you don't take his pompous gibberish seriously. So I think you should ease up before your homophobia becomes extreme, which may lead to other poisonous viewpoints. Good luck!
i dont know why you people think gay is a choice. i have a buddy who came out in highschool. he lost almost all of his friends, his parents freaked, and his life totally flipped upside down. he became the fag, a couple of us didn't disown him. everyone else made fun of him and he got knocked more then once (yes, by ex friends). he couldn't even go to his parents for support. you really think people choose that? what the hell makes you think anyone would willingly want this to happen?
we don't think it's a physical, all-of-the-sudden choice, no, but people are not "born" gay.
One's sexuality is the result of their childhood and upbringing. It has a lot to do with sociology/psychology as well.
I know several gay people. one in particular has even gone back and forth! Surely she couldn't have been "born" either way as she is constantly choosing a new partner.
Everyone has sexual desires/thoughts; we choose how to act on those thoughts, but not "what" we think
you are aware the gay gene was discovered a few years ago right? i first learn of it from P&T, then on further research found out it oddly only occurs in gay men and not lesbian women. Don't take my word for it, and if you somehow cant find a source, ill find them for you gladly. oh, and your friend, have you ever heard of bi sexual?
I do not believe that a persons environment has any bearing on there sexuality. As a gay man who was brought up in a military family ( My dad was in 42 commando Royal Marines, my mother was in the QUARNNS ) although I went to a local primary and secondary school in Plymouth there was nothing exceptionally different about me from my peers, most of whom had civilian parents. I enjoyed sports, was social and popular, but the very first time I was attracted to someone it was a man.
When I was younger I used to HATE when the radio or any music was on. It just always bugged me a lot. My family loved music though, and after so many years of subconsciously hearing music in the background, I started to like it. Now I love.
But on the other hand, if my family destroyed all of our radios, I would have never started liking music.
Kind of a weak argument but the same psycho/social elements apply
well that's clever, because I definitely "choose" to be straight. It's not a matter of you find physically attractive, it's a matter of to whom you want to admit your feelings.
and I "want" a traditional family, with one man and one woman, the way nature intended.
And I'd like to pre-say that if nature "intended" for homosexuality, mankind would've died out a long time ago
@joshuapolar if you need to 'choose' to be straight, you're probably not entirly parallel to that philosiphy.
Also, there is homosexuality in nature, why do you assume that if nature intended people to be homosexual it would not intend OTHER people to be hetero at the SAME TIME.
@RonnieJamesable he's remarkable commited though, a lot of what I percieve to be 'his type' try to run or just beg you to shut up, this guy just got himself stuck in a circle.
That's like if I met a black guy who likes chicken, and then I said, "well people I meet 'like him' like watermelon and grape drink, so this guy probably does too"
Sexual preference is a social construct. Men are made to believe they are attracted to women and vice versa by their society from birth to adulthood through culture (media, folk tales, etc). There are those who succumb and those who deviate because they haven't been fed such lies or they oversee the bigger picture of what it is being human.
yeah that's true to a stretch. Humans are basically just balls of clay, and we are molded into whatever society makes us.
But putting aside all outside influences, women and men are anatomically different. Women and men need each other to reproduce, so even if society dictates which sexual preferences we have, nature itself intended for man to be with woman. There's no argument in that.
Nature intends for the survival of a species, not the dying off of. Mass homosexuality would contradict nature
You mean it would contradict the reproduction aspect of nature. Gay animals are found and i dont just mean humans. Now no one will argue that the purpose of sex is reproduction in the big picture, cause it really is. but to claim it goes against nature is an over statement, as sex also (in the smaller picture) is stress relief and gratification, both of which happen naturally with sex and don't require it to be heterosexual.
reading several of your posts im starting to think your a word smith
@qwerty42a000000 there are actually many theories. I for one agree with the theory that 2 males can hunt more food and then get best mates. It is actually logical that way.
I grew up in a cattery (breeding pure breed cats) and one more then one occasion we had males that would mount other males but refused to breed with females. admittedly after 12 years and hundreds of cats this only happened... less then 10 times but still happened. also, for your comment that Gay comes from upbringing. My Parents are straight, i'm bi and have one bi sister. Now, my sister has 13 years on me and a different father. my mom is very against gays. if not genetic, why do i like guys?
There are multiple cases of twins where one is gay and the other is straight. If it were genetic, they would both be the same.
And there could not be the argument that maybe homosexuality follows a different genetic path - genetic twins have the same genes; clearly homosexuality does not fall into the "gene" category.
What I'm saying is that it is not genetic, nor a conscious choice. It is the subconscious response of our upbringing
Being "genetically influenced" isn't the same as being "genetically determined". There are both genetic and social factors which add up to define if someone is gay, straight or bisexual.
I don't see how you could still think that, when there are clearly not genetic factors involved.
If it were genetic, in any respect, than identical twins would have the same sexuality. That is not the case, so it can't be genetic. No matter how you look at it
As I said, "genetically influenced" does not mean "genetically determined". I never said there weren't non-genetic factors involved, of course there are. Genetic and non-genetic factors put together add up to make people what they are. It's called "nature by nurture".
I don't know if you're familiar with David Reimer? Basically, he was born a boy but his penis was burned off. Psychologists at the time were trying to prove that Nurture was more influential than Nature - that gender identity was sociological.
No 3rd party factors determined the outcome.
The experiment failed. Despite their efforts to make him female, he knew he was not. There's a documentary on it
OK, now you're confusing me, yesterday you were arguing against genetics, now you're arguing for it?
My point is: complex parts of the human brain/mind, sexuality being one of them, cannot be traced to one single cause, nature ot nurture alone. Both genetic and environmental factors put together add up to make people what they are. "Nature by nurture" has replaced the "nature vs. nurture" controversy of last century's psychology.
no it has not replaced it. Really, neither theory is 100% accurate.
cases like Thomas Beattie prove Nurture is more influential, but cases like David Reimer eliminate the idea of Nurture all together.
The thing is, nature intends for us to be a certain way. We are free thinkers - we exhibit sentience. Nature says we are either guys who need girls, or girls who need guys. Our ability to think for ourselves allows us to deviate from that path. Deviation isn't always good though
Also, please answer my question from my last post about why Im bi and how it fits with what you have stated. I think you must have somehow missed that part (even tho it was about half the message)
"Men are made to believe they are attracted to women and vice versa by their society from birth to adulthood through culture"
seriously...
so men and women don't like each other for breeding purposes but because of society? then how did the first humans fuck without anyone before them to tell them to like each other?
And for the lie thing, by your logic animals can be gay because they lie to each other?
frankly now im wondering if i completely misunderstood your post. Sorry but to be honest i have a few drinks in me at the moment
i will look into what ya posted, thank you for offering the link :-) but its gonna have to wait till tomorrow cause i gotta leave for work soon (yes im heading in drunk, i hate that place)
IF i did misunderstand you im sorry for the response
(and gay animals has been a big part of my arguments here lol)
oh that's actually a good point. I've heard Street's argument from other people so I'm sure he probably heard it in sociology class or something.
And okay, I really don't think I'm going all over the place, but whatever I'll stop talking and post a link
I still don't see why people can't just Google these things for themselves though. I mean I did and I found it, Like if you don't research for yourself you're only going to get 3rd party information anyways.
I mean, I know I'VE heard from my sociology professor, because that's what the theory is based off of (sociological factors), so yeah, I do assume that's where it came from. People who study sociology.
and look really there's no point in debating on this anymore. Depending on what site you get your information from, it's going to be one-sided.
If it's from an atheistic author, it will oppose religious beliefs
or from a religious author, it will oppose liberal beliefs.
2: Didnt you already say you saw this scientific evidence? You are being stupid. We are not being stupid for one simple reason: were going with the most likely odds. its the same argument as the whole god thing: sure, you can scientifically say there is no god, but that doesn't mean the 2 ideas are on even playing fields. you have to at that point use the evidence to explore probability and go with that. its
so you heard it from your sociology class but instead of jumping up and saying "my prof told me" you decided to say that you have heard it from a few places so you think its from a sociology class or something.
think what you want, though I don't see why you would jump to a random conclusion such as that. First off, I was defending your claim about it not being sociological, then you questioned why I would say that.
It's not my fault if you don't believe my answer; that lies on you
In truth though I did hear it from my sociology professor
Even if I didn't, where else would the idea come from?
Think about - the theory brings up sociological factors; who knows about sociology better then sociologists?
one last thing: it doesn't matter religious or not, im going for unbiased studied that have to be proven are at least withstand attack.
notice i keep stressing peer reviewed evidence? Unbiased is scientific. Science doesn't jump in looking to prove or disprove, it jumps in to see what there and reports back.
As you didn't provide evidence on your last chance, and as your clearly clueless, im done with you. i have addressed what are to be you final points, and im done with you
okay you want an unbiased study that is proven? Well good luck man, because I don't know if you realize this, but it has never been proven. So your own argument telling me to procure scientific evidence to support my claim is as impossible as proving that I like the color blue. It has not been proven, therefore I can't help you. We do have facts (i.e. twins who have different sexualities), but if that is not enough info for you to question yourself, then I have nothing else to say.
just googled it cause im getting tired of waiting for you. using the key words: "Social" "Influence" "Gay" and found nothing. NOTHING. what keywords did you use for your search you said you just made
@qwerty42a000000 they cant accept that its not a choice because if it isnt then god is punishing them for nothing but of coarse, punishing us for the sins of eve seems to be quite pathetic also
to fulfill the prophecies - that part makes perfect sense.
and okay yes word choice can get confusing when translating Hebrew to English, obviously.
but what He means by Him not destroying the laws; He has fulfilled them in that He never broke any of them. By him being perfect according to the laws, He is able to write a New Covenant, making it so that we don't have to follow such strict rules.
if you did read the whole Bible, I don't think you tried to understand it very well
beastiality is immoral because of lack of consent?
then animals are immoral, and therefore their homosexual acts can't be considered as normal because they are immoral creatures. also, animals don't have the ability to think rationally- dogs hump their parents, stuffed animals, etc.
incest usually HAS consent. they live together, they fall in love. Who is to say that that is wrong, yet not homosexuality? If anything, incestual relationships are more normal than homo ones.
and just because it's love doesn't make it not sinful.
Have you heard of beastiality? Pedophilia? incest?
even on a non-religion basis, homosexuality is naturally wrong!
species were NOT intended to be homosexual, because homosexuals can't produce offspring.
and even more nature shows us that it is wrong by giving homosexuals the highest rate of STD's. If we were designed to be either homo or hetero, then homos wouldn't get such deadly STD's so much more easily
@joshuaspolar And you fully disbelieve the fact even animals (who, along all else, should not get "the right to choose") still can be homosexual. Seeing as it's not a willing "choice", it's not "unnatural".
The simple fact if God did create the world, he already knew about homosexuality (i mean, he's supposed to be all-knowing). In fact, he created every living being KNOWING it would happen (if he didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. He wouldn't ask mortals to meddle in godly affairs...
But you can't deny that "choice" does not have much to do with many things called "sin" in the great book.
That and the fact that slavery is totally condoned. And the fact that women are totally downgraded to simple child raising and obedience and silence.
And that small part saying we should stone disobedient children
Since killing is a sin, Christinianity itself endorses in war, and killing the "unfaithful" Not to mention the Crusades and witches to the stake for easing birth pain
woah woah let's not get the acts supposedly "for" God confused with the acts "of" God.
The witch hunts and etc - done by confused, radical people, not God.
As for the other things you mentioned- many of those were written in the Old Testament of the Bible.
Now it's written that once Jesus came (New T), the old Jewish laws no longer applied, because with His perfect blood on the cross He was able to write the New Covenant for all to now abide by{perfect in that He never broke the laws
Alright, so IN the immortal and all-powerful God, OUT his preachers.
Fanatists will show up at every opportunity they have, creating their own cults if they can't find one suitable enough, so the best solution would be leaving God to do His things, and not preach Him
If he NEVER showed himself in the first place, Humanity by itself would be far better off. (add to that no other "fake" religion would have bases to rely on)
I wouldn't even have been able to MENTION those "errors" you spoke of.
woah woah, let's not get carried away with the religion-hate.
People seem to forget the massive genocide of Jews and thousands of others during WWII.
And the reason for Hitler's annihilation? He believed evolution had produced his master, white race, and that blacks and others were inferior. So because of science, he came to the conclusion that "less evolved" peoples shouldn't be able to live.
Now I don't know the numbers, but for one time period I think beats religion
you sir, are a moron. hitler didn't kill jews because he thought of them as genetically inferior. he killed them because he felt they weren't really germans, and because they amased an amazing amount of wealth while not being nationals in his mind. it's basic xenophobia/racism. it had nothing to do with genetics.
hitler always thought that his surviving of the many assasination atempts were providence... not to mention he was a catholic or christian or some shit like that
well let me say this - In a way I'm glad you know at least a verse in the Bible, but you haven't read much else.
That verse (it's one of the "Leviticus Laws") is in the Old Testament. (Also the Laws of Moses)- the laws before Jesus Christ even came in the picture.
When Jesus was born (the New Testament), he created the "New Covenant." (also basic Christianity).
Now the Old Test. was written for/by Jews, and when Jesus was born, He more or less "fixed" the laws and the ppl.
The thing is, most of us non-religious people don't hate religious people, however, we DO dislike religious extremists who try to force it onto others and view their OWN religion as the one and only truth. Religion itself is actually a really great idea, with excellent ground rules and morals to learn, but SOME people just take it tooooo far.
well thank you for not calling me an idiot or something - if we could all act like that this world be a lot better off.
and I completely agree with you - I consider myself very religious, and I also wish those extremists out there would just give it a rest ( i happen to know one personally)
I don't believe in forcing people to do things, ever. Inviting them to church in a friendly way is great, but going door-door is not my thing-in all honesty that probably drives people away
But I'd also like to add that us religious people really don't like it when people just outright publicly mock all religion. It's not fair, and it's malicious.
I mean really, most of "us" don't go out making fun of people's jobs or styles or anything...so why do we deserve a lifetime of prejudice?
religion has its extremists, just as atheists have their extremists. Only thing is the atheist extremists don't get as negative attention as religious ones =/
religion has its extremists, just as atheists have their extremists. Only thing is the atheist extremists don't get as negative attention as religious ones =/
that's because we don't try to limit anyones freedom and don't kill people wile doing it.
that's why there are no atheist extremists, there are just defensive atheists. one can not be extreme about not believing in something.
Who agress that christianity just gets funnier because christians take it less seriously as the years go by?
TheLogicalKey 4 months ago 2
The twelve apostles dislike this.
TomFynn 7 months ago
Jesus is to the Jews as Joseph Smith is to the Christians.
treysharkk 10 months ago
@treysharkk and yet theyre all the same as theyre all made up bullshit.
TheCaptainLulz 9 months ago
@treysharkk Wrong Joseph Smith Never claimed to be the son of God, He never said performed any miracles, cast out demons, or arose from the dead. Im pretty sure if you got o where he was burried in Nauvoo youll find whats left of him. Plus Jesus came for the Jews but they denied him so How are they alike again???? Do more research before making such a statement! lol
devinesmurf0723 9 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 The reason they are the same is that they both made extraordinary claims, and were rejected. If you were a little smarter and could think about more than just one way to look at things, then purhaps you would have understood what I meant. For instance, Jews didn't accept Jesus with hi claims. Christians didn't accept Joseph Smith's claims either. It doesn't matter who had the more rediculous claims because they were both only men.
treysharkk 9 months ago
@treysharkk Well I guess we got our own views in things but like you said you cant look at things just from one perspective. Us Christians have our beliefs just like you have yours just remember we act on what we know. Our experiences define us. I for example know that I am correct in what I believe because I feel his precense every day and I see how he works miracles in the simplest things. You dont and hey if that makes you feel good, go ahead. But dont generalize us we are not the same!
devinesmurf0723 9 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 I agree you are not the same, but very similar. Christians, Muslims, Mormons call claim that their holy books contain all of the secrets to humanities needs. An atheist is just someone who has read the books, and finds the claims rediculous. People say they 'feel' God, but how can one trust such an unreliable sorce as emotions. Because it feels good? Still doesn't make it true. As for miraculous healings, they are all arbitrary. Why won't God heal amputees?
treysharkk 9 months ago
@treysharkk The way miracles work is through faith you have to believe without seeing it, God made us our entire body if he wants hell do it, Plus being an amputee is not a sickness it can be caused by a sickness but you dont get heal from lossing a part of your body. There is no malignant spirit behind it. But you may not understand that.
devinesmurf0723 9 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 So when Jesus said, "Anyone who asks will recieve.", "If you have faith of a mustard seed", "Whatever you ask for you, if you believe you will get it" he was just kidding? When he said 'whatever', he meant no limbs? I don't think so. Besides, what is faith? It is belief without proof. It's not just about seeing something, it's hearing, tasting, touching, smelling.
treysharkk 9 months ago
@treysharkk Ok So you agree with me then, When Jesus said whatever it is whatever, and your definition about faith was a little off but was on the right path though!! Good job keep researching maybe youll ge it right next time.
devinesmurf0723 9 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 From what Jesus said, you can have very little faith and still move mountains. Surely getting ones legs back would be trivial for such a power deity, yet not one person every got so much as a finger back. Either God hates amputees, isn't powerful enough, the amputees aren't speaking loud enough when they pray, so Jesus doesn't hear, God doesn't really answer prayers, or God is imaginary and prayer is nothing more than superstition. It has to be one of these.
treysharkk 9 months ago
@treysharkk oooor maybe the amputee s are not believing, everything in life has a purpose right? Well maybe you need to really have faith not just believe so you can have your legs back If thats the case then you really dont have faith it is just temporary faith, In other words that faith is smaller than a grain of mustard.
devinesmurf0723 9 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 So are you really accusing all those Christian amputees (that must have prayed for their legs back) of lacking faith. This "faith" that actually demands that you believe in something without an iota of proof. This "faith" which believers uses as a cop-out for the total absence of any shred of evidence that a god exists?
Hmmmm...
makikomi 7 months ago
@makikomi Wrong theres plenty of proof of God existance, you just have to have faith again and im pretty sure that all of those christian amputees that you claim prayed for their legs back!?!? meaning they had it at one point of time turned their prayers in to something else and have made peace with the way they are. You just have to be in that situation to know.
devinesmurf0723 6 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 You say there is proof and then you say you have to have faith. So which is it? Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us about this proof you have?
As for your completely lame reasoning that "they turned their prayers to something else", BULLSHIT. It wasn't going to happen anyhow.
makikomi 6 months ago
@makikomi Ok let me turn the lights on for a second; here is the definition of Faith=strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. So in simpler words believing without seeing. Now we do not see God "physicaly", but that doesent mean we dont have proof he exists. Take us we are the biggest proof he exists we where created whether we evolved from a monkey or a a kangaroo we where created had a CREATOR. That Creator is tum tum tum..GOD
devinesmurf0723 6 months ago
Comment removed
makikomi 6 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 You've not really answered my question.
God didn't create me. My parents did. That I know and can prove. Everything has to come from somehwere, so where did god come from?
Before you refer to the Big Book of Bullshit, (ie the bible) and quote that "in the beginning was the word" and that "the word" was actually god, stop. There is no proof of that. It also defies common sense.
Then try answering my question properly... what is this proof that you have of a god?
makikomi 6 months ago
@makikomi Man, first of here is a definition taken from a non christian dictionary, creation= the bringing into of existence of the universe, esp. when regarded as an act of God. Proof is everywhre if you cant see it then is because you are not looking. That passage was talking about Jesus But you wouldnt know that you seem to have your mind made up. if you where serious about seeking the truth then how about entertaining the idea that the book of bullshit is actually true and start reading??
devinesmurf0723 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devinesmurf0723 You have once again FAILED to answer my question. You failed to answer where your god came from and failed to cite proof of this god actualkly existing anyhow. "Proof is everywhere" is the kind of fuzzy, emotive shit that Christians like to spoon- feed gillible twats. Trees come from seeds. People came from their parents. PS3s came from Sony.
makikomi 6 months ago
@devinesmurf0723 Furthermore, I AM serious about seeking the truth, but the sad fact of the matter is that no Christian I have ever asked has EVER provided clear evidence of their god. I still admit to being agnostic, but due to the fact that no proof has been provided, I feel that on clear balance of probabilities no God exists as the burdon of proof (which is on the claimer, ie theists) has not been met.
If proof is ever provided, I will reconsider my position.
makikomi 6 months ago
Comment removed
devinesmurf0723 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@makikomi Here is a little trick I learned a while back wether you believe in God or not I guarantee you that you can not say out loud There is no God, God does not exist and not get this gut feeling that you are wrong. He is our nature. Now I know u will not admit this if you do it, but as long as you do it and you have that revelation all of this was worth it. Just try it!!
devinesmurf0723 6 months ago
that was beautiful
weiRdFishYorke 11 months ago
thank you so much marcus brigstocke, you just crucified three things that I hate in only 6 minutes and eleven seconds
:D
marblememe1998 1 year ago
i peed a little at the 'dawkins quarrelling with his reflection' bit. so hilarious.
hipp6y 1 year ago
Looking for consistancy among the religious!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
Actually the fish would die because of all the fresh rain water.
drummerkid1993 1 year ago
I'm pretty much sure I would be as combative with Islam if I had, or could invoke, such a flexible mind. I very, very much enjoyed the clip. More more more......
kramdoog 1 year ago
I was gonna inject into the debate as christian by saying that I agree with what Mark is saying largely and there's a reason why we don't sacrifice animals and that we don't have to follow the 10 comandment to the letter, but then I decided to shout at a brick wall instead as it's basicly the same effect on youtube.
fullbleed24 1 year ago
@fullbleed24 really? don't have to adhere to the 10 commandments anymore? Why the hell is every christian trying so damn hard to put them on government buildings then? Also... did you not read jesus' sermon on the mount? He explicitly says that he didnt come to change or eradicate any of the previous laws, and that didn't mean just the 10 commandments. He meant all the mosaic laws, you know all 500 and something of them.
Shigren 1 year ago
i want that t-shirt where can i get it online
cjhmmp 1 year ago
@cjhmmp Go to Richard Dawkins' website to get the t-shirt. The web address is store.richarddawkins(DOT)net/collections/apparel
Put a period (.) where I put the (DOT) in the address.
Diasanti 1 year ago
@Diasanti thank you
cjhmmp 1 year ago
is anybody aware how stupid the phrase GOD FAILS is?
splattering if all over a video of a smart man makes you look like a monkey.
ghosterdude 1 year ago
Marcus Brigstocke as the star in a reasonably priced car !
thenarstar 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This comic gives us a good example of how man places himself above God, actually making himself God. This is the theme of modern society: atheistic humanism, which hypocritically makes man God while denying the existence of the True God.
The video showed a poster with the caption Spoiler: Jesus Dies. It conveniently ignored the rest of Jesus's work, The Burial and the Resurrection. If we follow Jesus, and die to self, we are reborn as new eternal men.
Pray to Jesus, spend time with Jesus.
linktalz 1 year ago
@linktalz Here you are again, spewing your bullshit. Go away, nobody wants to hear your rants. Go talk shit on some christian video's!
gateman42 1 year ago 2
ok, i'll pray to god to save the dying woman across my road, thats odd nothing happened. i'll pray to him to stop all religious wars by announcing himself to the world, oh look nothing happened. i'll pray to him to stop starvation across the globe, oh look nothing happened. i'll say FUCK YOU GOD, FUCK YOU JESUS! oh look nothing happened. pray all you want but there is a reason you don't get a response. In a thousand years time people will be praying to another god for help with the same result.
maccyjames64 1 year ago
@maccyjames64: As the late great George Carlin said, "3 years ago I gave up praying to God and started praying to Joe Pesci instead. The results have been pretty much exactly the same."
flankspeed 1 year ago 2
@linktalz Dumb as a bag of chipped hammers.
Try the parts of Christianity where Women are only good as nuns because giving them power would give them choices, the parts where they forget slavery is bad and the parts where they forget homosexuals are humans who enjoy sex in a different mannerism then most, not Satan's little do-gooders.
Bark elsewhere, religious dog.
Farbo123 1 year ago 36
@Farbo123 I dont know what Bible you have been reading, but everything that you have just said made you sound really ignorant, along with them 14 others. I would love for you to show me facts about these topics. Slavery in the Bilble you dont have slaves actually his people where held captive and became slaves but God free them many times so it does not promote slavery. About women you should read about Deborah she was a judge and lead the military in to a succesful battle! Do your research!lol
devinesmurf0723 9 months ago
@Farbo123 Hey Handy manny
that is not what the Bible talks about if you read it you would know that there was a woman that lead a war and won her name was Deborah and she was a Judge Im pretty sure that meant she had lots of choices. 2)Which part in the bible says slavery is good? havent read that yet!! And About Homosexuals God Loves them he just hates sin not any different than Killers or liars they are not special in any way, get over it!!!
devinesmurf0723 6 months ago
@linktalz Whoo BACK UP where did it state in this video or anywhere else for that matter, that athiests claim men are gods. Answer, oh thats right, THEY DIDN'T. if they did that would be hypocritic, however as that is not the case I will leave you to burble in the splintered wreckage of you argument.
sakkarinahp 1 year ago
Hahahahaha funny. And true.
Blobella1 1 year ago
Anyone seen George Carlin's dissection of the 10 commandments?
FatherTime89 1 year ago 35
@FatherTime89 i thought it was brilliant!
23Tev 1 year ago
@FatherTime89
I have. There's really only one commandment and it's half of two put together lol
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
Genius
dazpatreg 1 year ago
Is this Glastonbury 2009?! I think is was here.
chrisdowneaster 1 year ago
"out of wedlock of a toe" lmao
zcjtb43 1 year ago
okay!
Sorry if I'm not making any sense, but it's hard to understand someone when you don't have the same viewpoints
1) Yes animals have sex in nature, but that doesn't make it right (google Appeal to Nature)
2) I just realized, not even scientists have answered this question, so we are all being stupid. Oh well
3) My guyfriend once dated this girl. She was lesbian, strictly. She did not consider herself bi
They started hanging out and dated after a while. I don't see how that can be genetic
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Josh
Part 1
Looking more in google the absolutely closest thing i found to what you said was a little study done that was social influence on oneself accepting being gay, not on being gay itself
1: Doesnt make it wrong either. the sexual acts of animals being productive or not does not change the gratification of them, which can easily be compared to the benefits of any sexual gratification
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
so gratification justifies the means now? Couldn't that argument very well defend the relationship of two consensual family members? or a man "pleasing" himself while watching kiddie porn? or any of the countless number of situations that society has deemed "wrong," for seemingly no apparent reason except for that religion first dictated these immoralities?
If we are to reverse the standards of sexuality that religion has created, then who is to stop us from reversing every law found by man?
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Part 3
3: so she made not have considered herself bi, but clearly she was (or at least curious)
Just wondering, you said dated for a while, when they broke up she go back to girls? im willing to bet she did. Oh, and i know a lesbian couple very well and my girlfriend even better. these 2 are serious lesbians and your guy friend would have never had a chance,
On that, you actually think cause you had a friend who did dated with a dyke shows in any way there is nothing genetic?
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
if that's true, then the whole idea of sexuality is debatable.
I consider myself straight - does that not mean anything?
She proclaimed herself as lesbian, and not curious. In fact, she was known for her stance on gay/lesbian rights. She let people know that she was lesbian, and NOT interested in men
who are you to say you know her better? and no, she did not go back to women. She is currently dating another man
She has admitted that she has "started" liking men. = psychological factors
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
joshuaspolar, are you not getting bored of and frustrated by your own arguments???? I could swear we had the same argument 3 months ago. You shouldn't let this consume you!!!
iclaudius78 1 year ago
You sir just made my day :-)
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
Well thank you my friend. I see you've been having the same argument with this fool! Infuriating would be putting it mildly ;)
iclaudius78 1 year ago
I can imagine, our debate been going on a bit now. Im gonna just leave it if his next post doesn't include where the hell hes getting his information (frankly im starting to think its from his ass)
Im assuming that's where you left off as well lol
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
well i'm reading the whole thing, and i must say you guys deserve major credit for sticking it out so long. major kudos.
you're right of course, joshuaspolar is all over the place.
FSMGauss 1 year ago
Thank you FSM :-)
i couldn't agree more. I could continue debating this but as you just proved with your comment people can read this and make up their own minds.
to help them along P&t season 3 episode 2 family values will completely debunk Joshuaspolar arguments with evidence both rational and physical
sigh* you think id feel like we won something, but if he doesn't learn anything we walk away with nothing. Everybody loses.
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000 & iclaudius78
well it looks like you guys are gonna be great youtube friends.
I'm getting my information from the facts. It's not my opinion, it's looking at science and understanding the information.
If homosexuality were genetic, there would have to be dominance and recessiveness. Obviously heterosexuality is not dominant, so if a gay parent had a child, it should be gay (or at least bi). My point is that sexuality does not follow the gene pool, otherwise we could find it
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
FOR THE LAST TIME POST YOUR SOURCES FOR YOUR "FACTS"
If they are facts then they have peer reviewed science based studies. you claim to know these things as fact, you must have seen the evidence yourself, SHARE IT
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@iclaudius78
no man I'm not trying to argue.
I just have strong convictions about certain things, and when I see people trying to dismiss certain things as things that aren't true, it doesn't make sense to me. So I try and spread the information that I know to other people in the hope that it might cause them to question how 100% they are on their opinions. (like evolution and God and stuff - most people just don't know the full side to either story)
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Comment removed
iclaudius78 1 year ago
Everyone stop. You are all brillaint people know how I know this? Well, we were all the fastest sperm ;)
Rokyku 1 year ago
After all, evolution is just millions of years of 'mistakes' that have lead us to here. Humans are just the result of millions of particals deciding to go left, right or stay still. Depressing thought isnt it ? But as Descartes said, I think therefor I am. So stop believing and start thinking.
Speakersoxx 2 years ago
Other studies have shown that attractiveness is fairly universal, who you find attractive doesnt depend on the way youve been brought up. This to me means that sexual preferences must be there from birth, there is no chosing. Your brain is just looking for a genetic match. Sometimes your brain thinks that match is the same sexe as you. Some people call that a mistake, I call it evolution.
Speakersoxx 2 years ago
Other emotions, like the fear of pain, are so essential for survival that they need to be in place from birth. These are known as basic instincts. Most scientists agree that sexual preferences, vital for the survival and diversity of the species, is instilled at birth. Recent studies have shown women to prefer the naturel body scent of men who are geneticaly very different from them. This isnt something that can come from a certain way of upbringing so it has to be there from birth.
Speakersoxx 2 years ago
There has never been any emperic evidence of a gay gene, just because you found an internet source claiming it, doesn't make it true. Feelings, sexual and other, are simply a result of sensory imput triggering the release of chemicals to the brain. Some emotions, like a fear of foreigners (or gay people) are a result of conditioning in childhood, teaching the brain how to respond to input.
Speakersoxx 2 years ago
sigh* ok, theres an interview for the guy who found it and reports on further research of it. its not just one source, as i believe i said in my original post referring to it. Yes i only mentioned one source of first finding out about it, but i also mentioned further research. Look for yourself
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@joshuasbi-polar
This means you are as capable of "choosing" to be gay as Sir Elton John. So let me get this straight, sorry poor word choice, you're coming out to all of us that you are fully capable of choosing to be gay? You?
ewetyube 2 years ago
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and declare this argument terminated. Where is your God now?
gossieuk 2 years ago 2
joshuaspolar......
That is one of the most childish and feeble arguments I have ever heard, even by the pathetic standards of believers!!!
iclaudius78 2 years ago
@iclaudius78
okay then please tell me how consenting incestual relationships are wrong, yet homosexual sexual preferences are not
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
joshuaspolar
Are you being serious?? Do you honestly mean to equate homosexuality with incest? People are not born incestuous, they choose to engage in something they know is debasing their species. I sincerely hope you do not wish for a return to proscribing homosexuality. Come on, don't let your blind faith completely ruin your judgement.
iclaudius78 2 years ago
@iclaudius78
okay let's let your blind ignorance towards science ruin your judgment on morality.
Homosexuality is not "genetic," nor are people "born" that way. That's just a lie people spread so that they can excuse their behavior.
Homosexuality (by all terms) is a sexual preference, just like masochism, or liking older women; etc
People are not genetically dispositioned to those kinds of things. They are the result of going through childhood and socialization.
it is psychological
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@iclaudius78
incestual people engage in the debasing of the human species?
homosexuals choose to discontinue the human species! nature doesn't even allow them to procreate; clearly the act is wrong.
Not every offspring of incestual relationships are born with handicaps; some are completely normal. and if you take into consideration that if we all "evolved" from one common ancestral primate, then we are all distant family members!!
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
one last thing to say:
Ex: you fall in love with this girl. after being married, you finally find out she's your sister you never knew about. Do you immediately end your relationship? to further my point - what if the couple never has any children? they just love each other.
The argument for homos is that "they love each other, they deserve to be happy."
If this incestual couple loves each other, with no procreating, then why is this wrong? what makes it wrong?
*I don't approve of incest
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
My word, for a man who does not approve of incest you make quite the defence of it. I personally do not care if a man wants to have a sexual relationship with his mother, nor do I worry about anyone's sexual preferences. People like you, with a skewed sense of moral righteousness, let yourselves become blinded by a doctrinal hatred of homosexuality. Does it really impact upon your life?? Can you not just admit that people are born gay, and are well within their rights to be happy??
iclaudius78 2 years ago 2
Furthermore, I doubt the world's gay population are looking to extinguish the human race by lack of breeding. I am a 31 year old heterosexual man who is thankfully child free, and intend to remain so. Does that mean that you despise me as much as you despise homosexuals?? Maybe you should lend your support to the current bill before the Ugandan parliament calling for homosexuality to be outlawed, and AIDS sufferers executed. Sounds like your wet dream.
iclaudius78 2 years ago
Oh, and before you make any snide remarks, I am currently in a 9 year relationship (and she is a believing Presbyterian!!!). Far be it from me to say that I am ever so slightly more tolerant than a rabid bigot like yourself...
iclaudius78 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well if she is a believer in God then she should have the same (similar) opinions that I do (seeing as how they come from the Bible.)
and let's get some things straight-
a rabid bigot? no, calm down. I just don't agree, or "accept" everything that is thrown at me as true (like homosexuality being okay).
First off, it's NOT genetic. Only people who haven't gone to college think that way. take a psych class, take a genetics class; homosexuality is the result of social upbringing.
(cont'd)
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@joshuaspolar XD we have no idea if its bloody genetic or not, seeing as you obviously have the key to the human genome i suggest you decode its entire meaning to the rest of us, as last time i checked, we still do not know the complete meaning of every piece of human genetics.
payneypenguin 2 years ago
now you might be confusing homo- with effeminance. Effeminate people are usually genetic (result of unbalanced hormones, etc), but there are plenty effeminate men out there who are completely hetero. Genetics do not provoke sexual preferences; if they did, we'd be able to tell if someone's gay by their DNA, which we can't
Now as for incest, I haven't made a defense at all! I just copied/pasted the argument for homosexuality, and yet when it's used for incest, no one wants to hear. its not right
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@iclaudius78
and finally, I don't despise anyone!
I just don't like see seeing things that aren't true being spread like they are.
things like evolution and homosexuality - people just believe whatever they hear on TV and believe it.
A lot of things get distorted when you get it from a liberal distributor though.
as for your question; yes it does impact my life.
my kids are forced to see homosexuality as "right?" school books now have to have same gender couples?
equality isn't the right word
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
You're an intelligent person, that much is clear, but I have to stop you right there.... when you say something along the lines of "I just don't like see seeing things that aren't true being spread like they are." from the stance of a believing christian, then I don't see how you can seriously attack another's position. You believe that your kids are "forced to see homosexuals as right", yet you have no qualms about imposing your own outdated world view on them. Sounds a tad hypocritical.
iclaudius78 2 years ago 3
Might I add that there are more important things to be worrying about instead of obsessing over whether or not you see homosexuality as abhorrent or not. If only you could free yourself from the shackles of late Iron Age moralistic scribblings then maybe you can realise that your position is rather nasty. Stop worrying about what imaginary friends may think and just try to enjoy your life. I live in Ireland so I see how many people revere Church teaching. It is rapidly waning, which pleases me..
iclaudius78 2 years ago 3
... and long may it continue as the church is doing a great job of discrediting itself. Your position is unnervingly close to Ratzinger's detestation of homosexuality, and I am sure you don't take his pompous gibberish seriously. So I think you should ease up before your homophobia becomes extreme, which may lead to other poisonous viewpoints. Good luck!
iclaudius78 2 years ago 3
You don't want your kids to receive proper education or treat other people as equals. Marvellous.
I think you're contributing more to the justifiably vile image of your faith than any anti-religious activist ever could. Congratulations.
SexyMelon 2 years ago 19
@joshuaspolar to quote you "I just don't like see seeing things that aren't true being spread like they are."
ahh
better stop being reading the bible then...
payneypenguin 2 years ago 3
i dont know why you people think gay is a choice. i have a buddy who came out in highschool. he lost almost all of his friends, his parents freaked, and his life totally flipped upside down. he became the fag, a couple of us didn't disown him. everyone else made fun of him and he got knocked more then once (yes, by ex friends). he couldn't even go to his parents for support. you really think people choose that? what the hell makes you think anyone would willingly want this to happen?
qwerty42a000000 2 years ago 78
@qwerty42a000000
we don't think it's a physical, all-of-the-sudden choice, no, but people are not "born" gay.
One's sexuality is the result of their childhood and upbringing. It has a lot to do with sociology/psychology as well.
I know several gay people. one in particular has even gone back and forth! Surely she couldn't have been "born" either way as she is constantly choosing a new partner.
Everyone has sexual desires/thoughts; we choose how to act on those thoughts, but not "what" we think
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
you are aware the gay gene was discovered a few years ago right? i first learn of it from P&T, then on further research found out it oddly only occurs in gay men and not lesbian women. Don't take my word for it, and if you somehow cant find a source, ill find them for you gladly. oh, and your friend, have you ever heard of bi sexual?
qwerty42a000000 2 years ago
are you talking about the homosexuality "gene" in flies?
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
no, im talking about the gene in humans
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
I do not believe that a persons environment has any bearing on there sexuality. As a gay man who was brought up in a military family ( My dad was in 42 commando Royal Marines, my mother was in the QUARNNS ) although I went to a local primary and secondary school in Plymouth there was nothing exceptionally different about me from my peers, most of whom had civilian parents. I enjoyed sports, was social and popular, but the very first time I was attracted to someone it was a man.
RonnieJamesable 1 year ago 2
well to an extent I have to disagree.
When I was younger I used to HATE when the radio or any music was on. It just always bugged me a lot. My family loved music though, and after so many years of subconsciously hearing music in the background, I started to like it. Now I love.
But on the other hand, if my family destroyed all of our radios, I would have never started liking music.
Kind of a weak argument but the same psycho/social elements apply
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
lol, to all the people who think being gay is a choice .. stop choosing to be straight ;)
streetz23 1 year ago
that's ace. well done.
RonnieJamesable 1 year ago
well that's clever, because I definitely "choose" to be straight. It's not a matter of you find physically attractive, it's a matter of to whom you want to admit your feelings.
and I "want" a traditional family, with one man and one woman, the way nature intended.
And I'd like to pre-say that if nature "intended" for homosexuality, mankind would've died out a long time ago
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
@joshuapolar if you need to 'choose' to be straight, you're probably not entirly parallel to that philosiphy.
Also, there is homosexuality in nature, why do you assume that if nature intended people to be homosexual it would not intend OTHER people to be hetero at the SAME TIME.
gleehmee 1 year ago
I've tried to reason with him, and he won't have it.
RonnieJamesable 1 year ago
@RonnieJamesable he's remarkable commited though, a lot of what I percieve to be 'his type' try to run or just beg you to shut up, this guy just got himself stuck in a circle.
gleehmee 1 year ago
"my type"
well at least you're not generalizing.
That's like if I met a black guy who likes chicken, and then I said, "well people I meet 'like him' like watermelon and grape drink, so this guy probably does too"
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
@joshuaspolar I'm not generalizing much at all. I'm catagorising, it sort of goes in the other direction.
gleehmee 1 year ago
why would nature intend a process that is destructive to its own success?
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Sexual preference is a social construct. Men are made to believe they are attracted to women and vice versa by their society from birth to adulthood through culture (media, folk tales, etc). There are those who succumb and those who deviate because they haven't been fed such lies or they oversee the bigger picture of what it is being human.
streetz23 1 year ago
yeah that's true to a stretch. Humans are basically just balls of clay, and we are molded into whatever society makes us.
But putting aside all outside influences, women and men are anatomically different. Women and men need each other to reproduce, so even if society dictates which sexual preferences we have, nature itself intended for man to be with woman. There's no argument in that.
Nature intends for the survival of a species, not the dying off of. Mass homosexuality would contradict nature
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
You mean it would contradict the reproduction aspect of nature. Gay animals are found and i dont just mean humans. Now no one will argue that the purpose of sex is reproduction in the big picture, cause it really is. but to claim it goes against nature is an over statement, as sex also (in the smaller picture) is stress relief and gratification, both of which happen naturally with sex and don't require it to be heterosexual.
reading several of your posts im starting to think your a word smith
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000 there are actually many theories. I for one agree with the theory that 2 males can hunt more food and then get best mates. It is actually logical that way.
cruncher221 1 year ago
Comment removed
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
I'm far from a "word smith" thanks though
Your comment below:
Are you referring to a gay gene? there is none. Numerous cases of genetic twins where one is gay and the other straight have been analyzed.
Now for gay animals:
animals are not gay, they are horny.
My dog humps my stuffed animals, he's not attracted to them though
they lack the ability to determine right from wrong
Many animals also eat their own kind if they feel threatened or are hungry - that doesn't make it acceptable for humans
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
I grew up in a cattery (breeding pure breed cats) and one more then one occasion we had males that would mount other males but refused to breed with females. admittedly after 12 years and hundreds of cats this only happened... less then 10 times but still happened. also, for your comment that Gay comes from upbringing. My Parents are straight, i'm bi and have one bi sister. Now, my sister has 13 years on me and a different father. my mom is very against gays. if not genetic, why do i like guys?
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000
The simple fact is it can not be genetic.
There are multiple cases of twins where one is gay and the other is straight. If it were genetic, they would both be the same.
And there could not be the argument that maybe homosexuality follows a different genetic path - genetic twins have the same genes; clearly homosexuality does not fall into the "gene" category.
What I'm saying is that it is not genetic, nor a conscious choice. It is the subconscious response of our upbringing
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Being "genetically influenced" isn't the same as being "genetically determined". There are both genetic and social factors which add up to define if someone is gay, straight or bisexual.
oneeyednarn 1 year ago
@oneeyednarn
I don't see how you could still think that, when there are clearly not genetic factors involved.
If it were genetic, in any respect, than identical twins would have the same sexuality. That is not the case, so it can't be genetic. No matter how you look at it
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
As I said, "genetically influenced" does not mean "genetically determined". I never said there weren't non-genetic factors involved, of course there are. Genetic and non-genetic factors put together add up to make people what they are. It's called "nature by nurture".
oneeyednarn 1 year ago
I'm sorry but I don't understand your logic here.
Nature/Nurture are two different things.
I don't know if you're familiar with David Reimer? Basically, he was born a boy but his penis was burned off. Psychologists at the time were trying to prove that Nurture was more influential than Nature - that gender identity was sociological.
No 3rd party factors determined the outcome.
The experiment failed. Despite their efforts to make him female, he knew he was not. There's a documentary on it
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
OK, now you're confusing me, yesterday you were arguing against genetics, now you're arguing for it?
My point is: complex parts of the human brain/mind, sexuality being one of them, cannot be traced to one single cause, nature ot nurture alone. Both genetic and environmental factors put together add up to make people what they are. "Nature by nurture" has replaced the "nature vs. nurture" controversy of last century's psychology.
oneeyednarn 1 year ago
@oneeyednarn
no it has not replaced it. Really, neither theory is 100% accurate.
cases like Thomas Beattie prove Nurture is more influential, but cases like David Reimer eliminate the idea of Nurture all together.
The thing is, nature intends for us to be a certain way. We are free thinkers - we exhibit sentience. Nature says we are either guys who need girls, or girls who need guys. Our ability to think for ourselves allows us to deviate from that path. Deviation isn't always good though
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Also, please answer my question from my last post about why Im bi and how it fits with what you have stated. I think you must have somehow missed that part (even tho it was about half the message)
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
Street, you said:
"Men are made to believe they are attracted to women and vice versa by their society from birth to adulthood through culture"
seriously...
so men and women don't like each other for breeding purposes but because of society? then how did the first humans fuck without anyone before them to tell them to like each other?
And for the lie thing, by your logic animals can be gay because they lie to each other?
What is you rationality here?
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000 Well, actually animals do engage in homosexual activity!
Check out an article "Bonobo sex and Society" (you can even google it) its a good read, and I'm sure it'll spark some shock to you.
Human beings don't like each other for mere breeding purposes, its the emotional connection and bond they experience with one another.
Sure evolution relied on heterosexual relationships to pass on the generation, but we've reached a level that is beyond that.
streetz23 1 year ago
frankly now im wondering if i completely misunderstood your post. Sorry but to be honest i have a few drinks in me at the moment
i will look into what ya posted, thank you for offering the link :-) but its gonna have to wait till tomorrow cause i gotta leave for work soon (yes im heading in drunk, i hate that place)
IF i did misunderstand you im sorry for the response
(and gay animals has been a big part of my arguments here lol)
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000
oh that's actually a good point. I've heard Street's argument from other people so I'm sure he probably heard it in sociology class or something.
And okay, I really don't think I'm going all over the place, but whatever I'll stop talking and post a link
I still don't see why people can't just Google these things for themselves though. I mean I did and I found it, Like if you don't research for yourself you're only going to get 3rd party information anyways.
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
where is the proof you just said you found?
Your making the claim, you offer the evidence. Thats why you the one who has to look it up. Last chance or im just ignoring you from now on:
POST YOUR PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
can i stress peer reviewed enough? no, i cant. PEER REVIEWED
and wtf: you have heard that argument before so you assume its come from a sociology class?
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
yeah a sociology class.
I mean, I know I'VE heard from my sociology professor, because that's what the theory is based off of (sociological factors), so yeah, I do assume that's where it came from. People who study sociology.
and look really there's no point in debating on this anymore. Depending on what site you get your information from, it's going to be one-sided.
If it's from an atheistic author, it will oppose religious beliefs
or from a religious author, it will oppose liberal beliefs.
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
Part 2
2: Didnt you already say you saw this scientific evidence? You are being stupid. We are not being stupid for one simple reason: were going with the most likely odds. its the same argument as the whole god thing: sure, you can scientifically say there is no god, but that doesn't mean the 2 ideas are on even playing fields. you have to at that point use the evidence to explore probability and go with that. its
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
EDIT
sorry that was ment to read "you CANT scientifically prove there is no god" Not can
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
Part 4
so you heard it from your sociology class but instead of jumping up and saying "my prof told me" you decided to say that you have heard it from a few places so you think its from a sociology class or something.
now i think your just lying to me
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
think what you want, though I don't see why you would jump to a random conclusion such as that. First off, I was defending your claim about it not being sociological, then you questioned why I would say that.
It's not my fault if you don't believe my answer; that lies on you
In truth though I did hear it from my sociology professor
Even if I didn't, where else would the idea come from?
Think about - the theory brings up sociological factors; who knows about sociology better then sociologists?
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
not reading that either, you were busted in a lie. send me another message and i block you
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
well that's a good way to learn.
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
i don't learn from people i catch lying. Blocked
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
okay buddy
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
one last thing: it doesn't matter religious or not, im going for unbiased studied that have to be proven are at least withstand attack.
notice i keep stressing peer reviewed evidence? Unbiased is scientific. Science doesn't jump in looking to prove or disprove, it jumps in to see what there and reports back.
As you didn't provide evidence on your last chance, and as your clearly clueless, im done with you. i have addressed what are to be you final points, and im done with you
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
okay you want an unbiased study that is proven? Well good luck man, because I don't know if you realize this, but it has never been proven. So your own argument telling me to procure scientific evidence to support my claim is as impossible as proving that I like the color blue. It has not been proven, therefore I can't help you. We do have facts (i.e. twins who have different sexualities), but if that is not enough info for you to question yourself, then I have nothing else to say.
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
not reading that good bye
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
just googled it cause im getting tired of waiting for you. using the key words: "Social" "Influence" "Gay" and found nothing. NOTHING. what keywords did you use for your search you said you just made
qwerty42a000000 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000 Its such a shame there are so many stupid ignorant bigots around. :)
bigglego 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000 they cant accept that its not a choice because if it isnt then god is punishing them for nothing but of coarse, punishing us for the sins of eve seems to be quite pathetic also
blazereef 1 year ago
@qwerty42a000000 Youtube -
They Sold Their Souls For Rock And Roll
/watch?v=2OyP4ETNygo
SICKESTGAMER1 1 year ago
@edgemasterrobin
to fulfill the prophecies - that part makes perfect sense.
and okay yes word choice can get confusing when translating Hebrew to English, obviously.
but what He means by Him not destroying the laws; He has fulfilled them in that He never broke any of them. By him being perfect according to the laws, He is able to write a New Covenant, making it so that we don't have to follow such strict rules.
if you did read the whole Bible, I don't think you tried to understand it very well
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@edgemasterrobin
beastiality is immoral because of lack of consent?
then animals are immoral, and therefore their homosexual acts can't be considered as normal because they are immoral creatures. also, animals don't have the ability to think rationally- dogs hump their parents, stuffed animals, etc.
incest usually HAS consent. they live together, they fall in love. Who is to say that that is wrong, yet not homosexuality? If anything, incestual relationships are more normal than homo ones.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@edgemasterrobin
and just because it's love doesn't make it not sinful.
Have you heard of beastiality? Pedophilia? incest?
even on a non-religion basis, homosexuality is naturally wrong!
species were NOT intended to be homosexual, because homosexuals can't produce offspring.
and even more nature shows us that it is wrong by giving homosexuals the highest rate of STD's. If we were designed to be either homo or hetero, then homos wouldn't get such deadly STD's so much more easily
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@joshuaspolar And you fully disbelieve the fact even animals (who, along all else, should not get "the right to choose") still can be homosexual. Seeing as it's not a willing "choice", it's not "unnatural".
The simple fact if God did create the world, he already knew about homosexuality (i mean, he's supposed to be all-knowing). In fact, he created every living being KNOWING it would happen (if he didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. He wouldn't ask mortals to meddle in godly affairs...
Xgya2000 2 years ago
@Xgya2000
no that's not how God works
If God made a perfect world, where no one sinned or anything, then we would have no reason not to believe in some sort of "god" who created us
by allowing the devil to let evil/bad things happen, it makes it so that we have the ability to choose to believe in God.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@joshua
But you can't deny that "choice" does not have much to do with many things called "sin" in the great book.
That and the fact that slavery is totally condoned. And the fact that women are totally downgraded to simple child raising and obedience and silence.
And that small part saying we should stone disobedient children
Since killing is a sin, Christinianity itself endorses in war, and killing the "unfaithful" Not to mention the Crusades and witches to the stake for easing birth pain
Xgya2000 2 years ago 3
@Xgya2000
woah woah let's not get the acts supposedly "for" God confused with the acts "of" God.
The witch hunts and etc - done by confused, radical people, not God.
As for the other things you mentioned- many of those were written in the Old Testament of the Bible.
Now it's written that once Jesus came (New T), the old Jewish laws no longer applied, because with His perfect blood on the cross He was able to write the New Covenant for all to now abide by{perfect in that He never broke the laws
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
Alright, so IN the immortal and all-powerful God, OUT his preachers.
Fanatists will show up at every opportunity they have, creating their own cults if they can't find one suitable enough, so the best solution would be leaving God to do His things, and not preach Him
If he NEVER showed himself in the first place, Humanity by itself would be far better off. (add to that no other "fake" religion would have bases to rely on)
I wouldn't even have been able to MENTION those "errors" you spoke of.
Xgya2000 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Xgya2000
woah woah, let's not get carried away with the religion-hate.
People seem to forget the massive genocide of Jews and thousands of others during WWII.
And the reason for Hitler's annihilation? He believed evolution had produced his master, white race, and that blacks and others were inferior. So because of science, he came to the conclusion that "less evolved" peoples shouldn't be able to live.
Now I don't know the numbers, but for one time period I think beats religion
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
And the fact he mentioned religion in all his public speeches just because it moved the masses has not crossed your mind.
Religion indeed is a powerful tool that helps manipulate people, either in a good or bad way.
Science and evolution does not seek to manipulate, it just seeks truth, and lets people choose based on found truths.
I do not hate religion. I know some people need it. But it needs change
The only reason I ever was against religion is that it leads to manipulation and fanatism.
Xgya2000 2 years ago
you sir, are a moron. hitler didn't kill jews because he thought of them as genetically inferior. he killed them because he felt they weren't really germans, and because they amased an amazing amount of wealth while not being nationals in his mind. it's basic xenophobia/racism. it had nothing to do with genetics.
hitler always thought that his surviving of the many assasination atempts were providence... not to mention he was a catholic or christian or some shit like that
Muscari 2 years ago
and it looks like someone doesn't know what they're talking about
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
yeah, you. you're using a strawman argument there. might wanna pick up a book instead of religious propaganda
Muscari 2 years ago
well if you actually knew what a "strawman" was, in stead of just using it because all of your atheist friends are, then you wouldn't have said that.
As for picking up a book?
I've been studying German civilization, culture, and language for the past 6 years (high school / college level).
I got a 4 on the AP test and also took AP Euro.
So, I know enough to say that Hitler was not a true "Christian," and that he did indeed believe that Ayrans were the most highly evolved people.
ergo, racist
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
@edgemasterrobin
well let me say this - In a way I'm glad you know at least a verse in the Bible, but you haven't read much else.
That verse (it's one of the "Leviticus Laws") is in the Old Testament. (Also the Laws of Moses)- the laws before Jesus Christ even came in the picture.
When Jesus was born (the New Testament), he created the "New Covenant." (also basic Christianity).
Now the Old Test. was written for/by Jews, and when Jesus was born, He more or less "fixed" the laws and the ppl.
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
the old testament is the bible to, if you like it or not. and jezus did approve of these laws and did say to obey them. he din't fix anything
rasmAn2 2 years ago
LMAO!
morgannicgregor 2 years ago
The fact that the person having sex is "underage" isn't the issue. The problem is that they are probably being raped.
juliecranford 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ehhh i just don't get it.
is this really how non-religious people see us?
it's so skewed...
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
The thing is, most of us non-religious people don't hate religious people, however, we DO dislike religious extremists who try to force it onto others and view their OWN religion as the one and only truth. Religion itself is actually a really great idea, with excellent ground rules and morals to learn, but SOME people just take it tooooo far.
Love and Peace for all.
liv4themoments 2 years ago
well thank you for not calling me an idiot or something - if we could all act like that this world be a lot better off.
and I completely agree with you - I consider myself very religious, and I also wish those extremists out there would just give it a rest ( i happen to know one personally)
I don't believe in forcing people to do things, ever. Inviting them to church in a friendly way is great, but going door-door is not my thing-in all honesty that probably drives people away
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
But I'd also like to add that us religious people really don't like it when people just outright publicly mock all religion. It's not fair, and it's malicious.
I mean really, most of "us" don't go out making fun of people's jobs or styles or anything...so why do we deserve a lifetime of prejudice?
religion has its extremists, just as atheists have their extremists. Only thing is the atheist extremists don't get as negative attention as religious ones =/
joshuaspolar 2 years ago
religion has its extremists, just as atheists have their extremists. Only thing is the atheist extremists don't get as negative attention as religious ones =/
that's because we don't try to limit anyones freedom and don't kill people wile doing it.
that's why there are no atheist extremists, there are just defensive atheists. one can not be extreme about not believing in something.
rasmAn2 2 years ago