The APA states the following: "...Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."In 1975 APA issued a supporting statement that "homosexuality is not a mental disorder."
Basically, my statement is mostly correct. People are not born gay nor do they choose to be gay. They just are gay by chance. It doesn't imply that they have a mental disorder, by any means. It just means that clones of a gay person will not necessarily all be gay.
@nafaidni Yer kiddin? What about me. I was born gay. I'm gay and I know it. You're not gay, so you cannot possibly know anything about it. End of game, shmuck.
So if someone were to clone you, all your clones would be gay? You have some protein configuration that specifically causes you to be attracted to men? Because that's all that it comes down to; whether or not a DNA sequence codes for homosexuality.
Studies show that even among twins, who have the exact same DNA, concordance of homosexuality occurs at only a 7.7% rate for males and 5.5% for females. Therefore, it cannot be genetic and probably isn't congenital. End of story.
It's not like it matters, anyway. But videos, like "Is It a Choice" are being inaccurate when they make suggestions like being born with low testosterone makes one gay.
@cjay2 This doesn't change his point. Asserting you're born gay and you know it doesn't change the scientific evidence no more than a person asserting they chose to be gay or straight.
Jesus Christ, who is God in flesh CHOSE to come down and save humanity from hell. He gave us a choice. Because of that we has humanity have a choice to follow Christ, that means leaving OUR old lives or selves behind and going forward as a new creature in Jesus Christ. Jesus can and does changes OUR mind and HEARTS.Throughout the BIBLE, it speaks about marriages only between males and females. Every one is born with a spirit of sin. Acts 2:38 specifically commands us to repent and be baptized.
There is only one God in heaven, whose name is Jesus Christ. If there is a Trinity, why would God the Father speak against homosexuality, and His son Jesus allow it and allow them into heaven. Exodus 20:12 which is the Ten Commandments specifically commands that children to honor their mother and father. If Jesus is the Son of God why would he negate his father laws, morals, values, and commandments. Jesus (God in flesh) came to die for us, he Gave us the choice to follow him or suffer damnation
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
@bobmuffins I have answered this question: He has left evidence otherwise 80% of the worlds population wouldn't be theist! 2) Our salvation is based on faith not sight: even then it would be no guarantee that you would accept Gods grace!~ 3) Our conscious tell us that certain things are truly wrong, otherwise we wouldn't call certain mental conditions adherent behavior. You know that you couldn't rape someone and not feel guilty or ashamed of your actions at some point!
@Krydan2167 Your entire argument hinges on "god is real and he made morals"
Make he same argument without that assumption, as making an argument with a false assumption may seem logical, yet will result in a false result. If you can make the same argument without that assumption, you might have a point. Until then, no.
@bobmuffins No my main argument is that without God there truly are no real moral objective and we would have no true moral duties. I say that some thing like rape, incest, killing and eating a child is truly and really wrong. Therefore God exist!
@bobmuffins So Bob, when you can explain how a mindless and meaningless universe via an unguided process can produce a real moral foundation? Then explain to me why my conscience that tells me that I have done something wrong is nothing more than an illusion, then I will drop that as one of my arguments for God. But without God there are no true morals: My conscience tells me that somethings are truly wrong: Therefore God exist!
@bobmuffins I did read them: Please tell us where you presented a argument to support that a belief in God is illogical? All I saw was a link to a video: I am not debating them, I debating you. I am not doing your homework for you. If they made a point and you think it is a logical argument, then post away brother. But thus far you have done nothing but play the typical atheist song and dance routine. I have been doing this too long to let you get by with your Atheist Two Step!
@bobmuffins Oh so you want me to go watch your video then have to come back and explain to you how logically flawed each of their arguments are? If they've presented a good argument, then share it with us. But I have heard about every argument there is to hear on the subject, so I wont know which one it is that you think is so compelling. If such an argument exist, then feel free to engage me. But I am not doing your home work for you!
@bobmuffins Bob, I have watched hundreds of hours of real debates with some of the leading authorities on both sides of these arguments. Debates with professor of philosophy that have been studying these subjects for 30, 40 and 50 yrs. There is nothing in a 10 minute you-tube video that is gone to sway or challenge me. I have heard all the intellectual arguments from folks that have PhD's in mathematics, physics, biology philosophy etc.. So just present an argument if you have one!
@bobmuffins I tell you what Bob: Go to William Lang Craig 's official website and watch some of his debates, then look up and watch John Lennox take Richard Dawkins apart; Then watch Lennox take on Hitchens and spank him twice wherein Hitchens admitted that he wasn't prepared following the debate.: Then while you are at it, look up Stephen C Myers and watch him debate Peter Ward and embarrass him to the point Ward starts asking if others can take the stage to help him make his case.
Because BISEXUALS are the ONLY ones that can CHOOSE between the 2 sexes!
Im pretty sure some of the HETEROS wouldn't like to hear truth about their REAL sexuality and the only way they battle their real feelings is by grabbing a bible and become Homophobes.
REAL STRAIGHT PEOPLE are OK with gays cause their SECURE with their sexuality and dont feel threatn by gay people.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning
For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice.
Homosexual activists know the importance of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "gay" has helped homosexual activists push their dishonest agenda on unsuspecting people.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
@DarkosApprentice Your statement that human nature does not attract two people of
the same gender is ridiculious--of course it does, as millions upon millions of people would tesify. As a gay man, I know I was born this way--I didn't wake up one morning and say to myself, "Well, I think I'm going to be gay from now on!". Did you chose to be straight? I don't think so. Sexuality is not something one choses anymore than one can choose the color of one's eyes. Wake the fuck up, dude! .
Answer me this, can you procreate with two males or two females? no it takes a male and a female to create children. That should tell you right there that being gay is a choice.
@gat0rgirl13 That's not really a good argument, because, couldn't a rapist say that he had no control over his desire to rape? Would that mean he was born a rapist? Or, why would a pedophile choose to be ostracized by family as well risk prison? Not saying your position is wrong, but your argument is a weak argument.
@Krydan2167 (1/2) youre saying my argument is weak because it cant be applied to rapists and pedophiles? well it can.
The attraction is not our choice we are born with it (so being gay is not a choice). We cant control who we are attracted to, but we do have control over our actions. So a rapist's desire for a person is not a choice but acting on the desire is. No we would say he was born a rapist; he was a rapist the moment he raped because the act was a choice.
@gat0rgirl13 Then a homosexual can control not having sex with someone of the same sex right? They are no more born gay than a rapist or pedophile is born that way. Acting on urges or impulses is a choice as you say? So they are not gay until they act upon those urges; if not, explain the difference? And it is your subjective opinion that homosexuality is good or "not wrong" By what authority or on what foundation do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
@Krydan2167 (1/3) "They are no more born gay than a rapist or pedophile is born that way" homosexuals are born the way pedophiles are in that they never had a choice of who they were attracted to. the act of rape which can be attributed to a rapist may fall into heterosexual rape, homosexual rape, or child rape. so you arent born a rapist but you are born a homosexual or with the psychosexual disease pedophilia.
@gat0rgirl13 Yeah but rapist have a desire or have urges to have sex with a unwilling partners, just like a pedophile has a desire for a child, or a man might have a desire of a women or a man with a man etc... You haven't given one example or bit of evidence of how one is born with these desires, attractions, or urges. You honestly think an infant has such attractions or urges?
1-3“You honestly think an infant has such attractions or urges?”haha no the attractions come later but wiring of the brain is set. The only solid evidence i can give you that being gay is not a choice is from personal experience. as a heterosexual female i find men attractive. i have always found them attractive. i cant help it, it comes from within. the thought of sex with a woman is unappealing so id never do it. the same with homosexual men they cant help it
@gat0rgirl13 I have come to be attracted to women who I initially wasn't attracted to. I know guys who like heavy women, or skinny women, or Asian women etc... I know some white girls who wouldn't think of dating a white guy or on the flip side a black guy etc.. But none of that in anyway suggest that we were born that way. I don't think they are born gay no more than someone is born straight, or to like hot Asian babes etc... We somewhere along the way acquire these preferences.
@Krydan2167 "I have come to be attracted to women who I initially wasn't attracted to. I know guys who like heavy women, or skinny women, or Asian women etc... I know some white girls who wouldn't think of dating a white guy or on the flip side a black guy etc" yes but these people are all staying within the same sex.
"We somewhere along the way acquire these preferences." hmm just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one since you cannot prove this and i cannot disprove this
@Krydan2167 (2/3) "So they are not gay until they act upon those urges" no you can be a homosexual and have never had gay sex because homosexuality refers only to the attraction. “By what authority or on what foundation do you determine what is right and what is wrong?” the fact that gay sex is with two consenting adults. They are both ready and willing. So who are you to tell them they cant?
@gat0rgirl13 I never said they cant; of course they can! But why am I compelled to say that I agree with that choice? Again, who are you to say that it is normal, right or good and that everyone else must agree or accept your position? By what authority or on what foundation do you base such a objective or absolute statement of right and wrong?
2-3“who are you to say that it is normal, right or good and that everyone else must agree or accept your position?” im not saying it is good.. what is good anyway? (rhetorical question).. Im just saying it is not wrong and i say this bc two adults want to do it and it harms no one. Normal? Well this takes into account the majority of a population so who cares if its normal. No you dont ever have to agree with me or accept my position i just want you to know and understand it fully.
@gat0rgirl13 I am not arguing that they cant do it, only that it is a acquired preference that you can't compel or force others to accept. The problem that I see with many homosexuals, is they try to force their lifestyle or force others to accept their choices. But I see no reason that a Christian should be compelled to accept their lifestyle anymore than accepting premarital sex or infidelity as being as you say "not wrong" Why is infidelity between two adults wrong?
@Krydan2167 you should be accepting of them in that you should not treat them any different or discriminate against them. no ones forcing you to be gay.
infidelity is wrong bc you made a promise to be faithful therefore you shouldnt break that promise. christians dont have to engage in infidelity homosexuality or premarital sex if they do not want to however they shouldnt judge those who do. why are there laws against gay marriage but not infidelity and premarital sex?
@gat0rgirl13 Also, though AIDS is not strictly a homosexual disease it is a high risk factor, just as unprotected sex with multiple partners of the opposite sex can be a high risk factor in the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases. This has a great cost to the families of those infected as well as on society as a whole financially, emotionally etc... I believe we live on a different planets if you don't believe there is a problem in the homosexual community when it come to AIDS
@Krydan2167 this is a "freedom vs safety" problem. there will always be risks in every decision a person makes and it is up to them to decide if they want to take that chance. we must not infringe on that. the aids virus is a problem but it can be prevented by practicing safe sex (some churches condemn this). but there are hundreds of different std's out there and we cannot prohibit sex just because of this.
@gat0rgirl13 Yeah they can take that chance, and the Church and or individuals has a right to point out that those choices often have very negative consequences, including on society as a whole, who has to deal with the medical and financial burdens as the results of bad others bad choices. But you have no argument to say we must not infringe on bad choices without a foundation for morality, seeing that natural selection would favor survival over individual freedoms every time!
@Krydan2167 the can point it out but they shouldnt ban safe sex practices. they think condoms are worse than aids. as far as financial burdens well alot of things cause financial burdens but they are not outlawed.
"natural selection would favor survival over individual freedoms every time" no its rare but it does happen in species who cannot make decisions for themselves.
@gat0rgirl13 "They think?" That is only certain groups such as Catholics. But it is not just financial but a national health hazard that doesn't favor the survival or benefit of the masses only that gratification of the individual. I still see no rational naturalistic or atheistic defense of individual liberty over survival. An example of an argument for freedom over survival in nature was not given.
@Krydan2167 yes aids is hazardous to human survival but hetersexuals can transmit aids too yet they still engage in sex along with the hundreds of other stds that can be transmitted.
supporting homosexuality isnt apart from my value system its a part of it bc they can do what they want as long as no harm comes from it.
"argument for freedom over survival in nature" i consider humans a part of nature and you see it all the time bc of our ability to make cognitive decisions
@gat0rgirl13 If our values evolved to help us better survive, then survival of the species would supersede individual liberties. Why should the masses pay for or take the risk of allowing certain individuals to make bad decisions that threatens or puts a negative strain on society as a whole? Personal or individual freedom only makes sense if we have been endowed by our creator with such inalienable rights. It wouldn't be what makes us feel good, but what helps more of us to better survive!
@gat0rgirl13 Could you please explain how homosexuality or endorsing homosexuality helps society as a whole, or helps us better survive? If supporting homosexuality is apart of your value system, I see no survival benefit or naturalistic rational for such a defense. There is no procreating, or any societal benefit other than the personal gratification of the individual. The atheist has no foundation for arguing objective values, including individual liberties over the masses well being.
@Krydan2167 how can it not be beneficial? accepting everyone and allowing people to live a life they want can only benefit society as a whole. the society would be significantly more peaceful and individuals happier.
no procreation isnt involved but not every straight person has sex with the intention to procreate. qute the opposite. on a scientic level there is evidence that suggests younger brotheres are more likely to be gay. scientists speculate its to thwart rivalry over a mate
@gat0rgirl13 1) That is your subjective opinion that it could only benefit society. The only values an atheist can point to is their own subjective values or personal opinions. 2) You don't accept everyone's actions or values, we've already determined that 3) Would allowing alcoholics to drink and drive because they want to make life better for us just because it makes them happy? You are putting personal; gratification and what makes you feel good above what is best for society as a whole
@Krydan2167 1) as its your opinion that it wont. will god incinerate the us bc we pass gay marriage laws like he did with s&g2) of course i dont accept everyones actions. i dont accept murder and i dont accept people bullying gays or saying they cant marry. 3) how does drinking and driving make anybody happy? also drinking and driving can kill someone. theres a big difference. drinking and driving is prohibited for that reason and also bc you cant make rational decisions while drunk
@Krydan2167 im not putting personal gratification above society. i am just advocating for individual freedom which will in turn benefit society as a whole. how does allowing for gay marriage give me personal gratification
@gat0rgirl13 Not your personal gratification, theirs! You still haven't given an argument for how it benefits society, especially in any objective way. Just saying that it benefits society doesn't make it so! There is no bases via naturalism wherein you can argue what is or is not objectively or absolutely beneficial. What on the surface that may appear to be beneficial may have some negative butterfly effect on future societies; can you prove otherwise? Need to check in now: May be back later
@Krydan2167 i have given an argument, if we let people have the individual freedom to choose who they want to be with it can only bring peace. this wont cause a rise in aids if people are aware of safe sex practices. this is also why we need sex ed in school, optional of course.
"can you prove otherwise?" nope we're back to the "we can never prove anything" philosophy. just because we cant prove that by some small chance that it may cause harm later doesnt mean we should abandon it
@gat0rgirl13 That again is an subjective opinion wherein there is no foundation or reason for anybody to accept as being objectively true. I am not arguing that they shouldn't have freedoms, just that you have no objective rational for saying that such individual freedom can only lead to peace. The majority of people are aware of AIDS and other STDs and they still do not practice safe sex, especially within the homosexual community wherein AIDS is more prevalent. That is a fact!
@Krydan2167 so what if aids is more prevalent. you cant tell people what they can and cant do bc they might contract a diesease. what do you want for the homosexuals? do you want to tell them they cant have sex bc they might get aids?
@gat0rgirl13 Not sure what conversation you are having, or what point you are missing. My point was that from an atheistic view there is no foundation for defending individual rights, or any foundation for any objective moral values for that matter. The point is, if moral values arose solely to help us better survive as the naturalist maintains, that would not include such individual freedoms that have an opposite or negative effect on surviving.
@Krydan2167 oh sorry misunderstood what you meant. the only reason to defend them that i can think of is bc supporting individuals freedoms would in turn benefit yourself and the society... and on a scientific note it would prolong the species. i dont think individual freedoms have negative effects on survival if they did it would be bc we have the ability to reason and make decisions that goes against our desire to survive
what about your thoughts on homosexuals? you didnt give them
@gat0rgirl13 You are not giving an example of how individual right benefits society or helps us better survive. Just saying they do doesn't make it true. Example: Over eating and no exercise is an individual right with a negative effect on the individual as well as passing unhealthy traits and medical conditions off on to your offspring, which puts a burden on society. That proves that you just cant assume that individual freedom benefits society or even the individual..
@Krydan2167 it seems you want to pass laws that regulate what you can/can't eat and ban the production of certain foods? thats a totalitarian state, do you want that? totalitarian states are oppressive, they try to make everybody safe and fail miserably in the proccess. this how individual rights benefit society, the person gets what they want, overeats then develops a medical condition then society starts to realize overeating is wrong then society fixes itself without being told.
@gat0rgirl13 You didn't read the follow up to my position. I clearly said that I do not support such a state. But such atheistic world views lead to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of lives in the last century. Which is my argument against your blatant statement "We say what is morally right and wrong" Who does? If the Nazi's would have won and killed off all their opposition, would that have made their morals the correct set of values?
@Krydan2167 "atheistic world views" no such thing, atheists all have different opinions. my opinion that we say what is morally right and wrong is my opinion alone. i cannot speak for all atheists. hitler had a different view of what is right and wrong. i say we should take in people's different opinions weigh them and decide what works best for all. for example almost everyone would agree killing, stealing, and raping are wrong but the harder topics should be reasoned out...
@Krydan2167 ...[continued] reasoned out, not just declared right or wrong without discussion like religion does concerning the more controversial topics
@gat0rgirl13 Are you serious: How does society fix it, if people continue to overeat and pass those traits and unhealthy conditions on to their offspring? Americans today realize that gluttony is bad, but many millions continue to do it. How does society correct that, by force? It certainly isn't happening by choice! I agree that totalitarianism is wrong, and I have a solid foundation for holding that view. My question has been from the beginning, on what moral foundation do you base that on?
@Krydan2167 yes society will fix it. society has recognized aids is a problem. there are so many charities working to promote awareness and safe sex practices. also scientists have made signifacant breakthroughs with holding off aids after testing hiv positive. eventually they will find a cure and aids will be no more. the same with obesity ppl will become educated in healthy eating habits not forced to eat healthy. we just have to be patient
@gat0rgirl13 My main point was to show you that freedom sometimes has negative consequences. Which is in opposition to the naturalist that says we merely evolve traits that help us "better survive" There is no foundation or beneficial reason for an atheist to go out of their way to defend homosexuality.
@Krydan2167 i got your point and i told you a thousand times why i defend homosexuality and why it is better as a whole i also told you the negatives are temporary til we fix them.
i do not think there is evil i used it bc you do.. you always pick out the flaws in my arguments but have not addressed one my arguments, you never answer any of the questions i raise and just keep pushing yours so im done
@gat0rgirl13 You never once gave an example other than to say that society would be better off supporting homosexuals. And it is totally subjective that the negatives is temporary, we have no idea what kind of long term negative or positive effect any current conditions or actions may have on future societies. I did answer your questions, andoutlined in great detail why your logic is flawed.
@gat0rgirl13 I answered your questions about what I thought about homosexuals personally. I said I supported Civil Unions, but that marriage is a privilege not a right. Serving in the military isn't a right either, You cant serve if you are too fat, too short, too skinny, too near sighted etc... I have no problem with them serving, but serving is not a right, otherwise age, weight, health would not prevent some from volunteering their service.
@gat0rgirl13 I am not saying that gays shouldn't have rights, or that overweight lazy should be forced to eat right and workout. But I see no benefit to society as a whole by allowing such potentially negative behavior. You make statements like "it would prolong the species" But you give no example how?. I could argue that a higher risk a contracting AIDS is not beneficial, therefore I see no way it could possibly prolongs the species
@gat0rgirl13 I have nothing against homosexuals, no more than I have anything against heterosexuals engaging in premarital sex with multiple partners. But both have a higher risk of spreading unwanted diseases which in turn has a negative effect on society.
If supporting homosexuals makes you feel good about yourself. understand that an emotional reaction is no logical indication that it is beneficial to the survival of the human species.
@Krydan2167 i dont support homosexuals bc it makes me feel good i support them bc they should have the same rights as us. i could really care less if gay ppl have a higher risk of getting aids, they should still be able to have sex and do what they want as long as they dont infringe on others' rights, if they get aids well they knew the risks (this is a libertarian philosophy not an atheistic one) and society will eventually recognize the problem of aids then do all it can to fix it
@gat0rgirl13 You could care less if more people die of AIDS? Not sure you thought that line out very well! You don't care if they die, place others in a higher risk, or cost society billions of dollars to support their personal habits? Lastly there is no inalienable "Rights" wherein there are no objective moral values, and there are no true objective moral values apart from God. That is my point: How as an self proclaimed atheist can you dictate to others what is morally right?
@Krydan2167 i said i couldnt care less if their is higher risk among homosexuals, i dont want them to die. howeve if they were aware of the risks then its their fault.
you keep bringing up that it costs society billions of dollars but where money is spent somewhere its earned or put to good use (science).
"no true objective moral values apart from God" not true, you dont have any evidence. i cant point to a million instances of evil done in the name of god.
@gat0rgirl13 Just the fact that you said the word "evil" shows that you do not have a clear understanding of what "no God" means. There would be no evil! I do have evidence : without God, the universe and our existence is a mere product of random chance, with no true meaning or purpose. Values would have evolved to help us better survive, nothing else. Things would all be morally relative and a matter of personal opinion and have no true objective value. If I am wrong, show me the way!
@Krydan2167 im not dictacting whats morally right i want everyone to share their opinions of what they think is morally right and will decide together. i dont want religion to just say what is right or wrong without being able to question it
@gat0rgirl13 In a earlier post you said you came to atheism logically. I am not so sure you've logically thought through the ramifications of us being nothing more than the product of some mindless, purposeless, and meaningless cosmic accident. Again, if God does not exist, then true objective moral values do not exist, and I have no more reason to accept your world view or thought on individual liberty then that of a totalitarian government. Surviving at any cost would be my sole objective!
@Krydan2167 im an atheist in the sense that i reject all religion, im agnostic on the higher power concept bc i dont think ill never know the answer to that. i came to reject christianity with a few questions that got me in trouble with my theology teachers, they thought i was the devil or something just for asking questions. when you cant even ask questions something must be wrong. the church is totalitarian in that sense.also it claims to know the will of god, absurd.
@gat0rgirl13 You cant blame God, or Christianity because of the actions of your theology teacher. Further more your experience has lead you to paint all of Christianity with the same brush, which would be like me saying that all Democrats would cheat on their spouse if they were dying with cancer, just because John Edwards did.
@gat0rgirl13 I was simply showing where your arguments were flawed, even most educated atheist, naturalist, or humanist would agree that you have used quite a few flawed and often conflicting arguments. I wasn't putting you down, just trying to get you to find a better way to present your case. If you want to truly learn, or want to teach others your views, they have to be logical and consistent, and you have to notice when your opponent fails the consistency test
@gat0rgirl13 Lastly, homosexuals do have the right to have sex despite the higher risk of contracting AIDS, and rightly so. But you have no foundation on which to say that such individual liberty should absolutely exist. Again, the naturalist believes that we've merely evolved morals to help us better survive. My argument is that "YOU" have no argument to say that allowing gays to do as they will, helps us better survive. A purposeless, meaningless universe has no objective morals.
@gat0rgirl13 Lastly, if we simply evolved moral traits to better help us survive; explain from a atheistic point of view why we shouldn't abandon practices that has a negative effect on human evolution? You simply saying we shouldn't isn't an argument for why we shouldn't. You have no foundation on which to say that individual desires should supersede the well being of the masses; yet that seems to be the position you hold. I am saying that atheism has no basis for bracing individual liberty
@Krydan2167 my point of view isnt an atheistic point of view but a humanist point of view. individual desires dont supercede desires of the society but are a part of it. why does their need to be a foundation? why does a god have to tell us what is right and what is wrong? we can tell for ourselves
@gat0rgirl13 Nature cannot tell us that what Hitler and the Nazis did was wrong. They "the Nazis" told themselves that what they were doing was beneficial and for the greater good. We can tell ourselves? Are you serious: Homo sapiens told themselves in the last century alone that it was moral acceptable to slaughter nearly 300 million lives in the name of Fascism and Communism. Why do we need a foundation? Ask any family member of one of the 300 million mentioned above!
@Krydan2167 ask what religion the followers of hitler practiced, the ones who carried out the slaughterings, they were christian, where were their morals? religion doesnt give us our morals, again we do. dont tell me that before you found jesus you thought killing was acceptable. i dont need god to tell me killing is wrong i can figure it out for myself
@gat0rgirl13 Again you fail to understand the logical argument. I could kill in the name of Brad Pitt, but that doesn't make Brad Pitt guilty, nor is it an argument that he doesn't exist. I never said atheist couldn't do good things or Christians do bad things: I said that atheist have no foundation for moral values: You can't have moral laws without a lawgiver. My point was that just 60 some yrs ago mankind rationalized slaughtering millions
@Krydan2167 You are wrong about atheists "having not foundation for moral values." Our ethics come from our experiences. Many atheists practice "The Golden Rule." It does not take a "law giver" to understand murder, rape, and theft is not healthy for a community. Really, it does not take a belief in a god to know this.
@riverotter100 Did Hitlers ethics come from his experience? If so, what makes your ethics based on your experience anymore objectively true than Hitler ethics based on his experience? 2) Theft would be healthy for the family that was starving! Rape may not be advantageous, but to the atheist there is no moral foundation to say that it is objectively wrong or evil. Please tell us why we should trust your life's experience to tell us what is morally right or wrong?
@Krydan2167 I do not know where Hitler's ethics came from, but I do know that he was a psychopath. Meaning, he wasn't right in the head. He could not feel empathy. My ethics are my own, they have served me well through life. I did not have to walk all over someone else to get them. I agree if a family is starving, and they have to steal to eat, then I do not frown upon it. However, I frown upon the society who allows their people to starve.
@riverotter100 The point is that nature cannot, nor can society or life experience account for objective moral values. Hitler didn't act alone, but rather had the support of millions including tens of thousands of the social elite in one of the most advanced and educated nations on earth. You still haven't explained why anybody should accept your since of moral values, and on what foundation you base them.
@Krydan2167 About the "Rape may not be advantageous." Do you think it is right that the Christian god made young girls (virgins) become the spoils of war? Honestly? Would that be the right thing to do today?
I want to make this loud and clear. I am NOT suggesting what is good for me is good for you. You live your life as you see fit. As long as you are not trying to make me live that way or are hurting other people in the process, I don't care how you live your life.
@riverotter100 You misinterpret passages from the Bible and take them out of context to fit your own warped interpretation.. You haven't explained why hurting other people in the process is absolutely or objectively wrong? You can't; because to the atheist there are no true objective moral values, otherwise you would tell us where they come from, or why your life's experience is a good model for anyone else to base there opinions on.
@riverotter100 You entered this discussion, wherein the the other poster stated that society makes the rules and determines what is or is not morally wrong. I responded by saying that the Nazi's had led a whole society to believe that what they were doing was right. Which society has the right rule book? Who's life's experience can tell us what universal morals should be? On what foundation do you base them?
@Krydan2167 Society does not represent my ethics. My ethics are my own. However, I have to live by laws that are based on "morals" whether I like it or not.
Not too long in the distant past, society also made rules that were determined by "morals." It was perfectly fine to kill people because some diluted religious leaders wanted to burn people at the stake for being witches. This was in practice for about 150 years.
@riverotter100 Again it doesn't matter if they killed based on diluted religious leaders, or leaders such as those who slaughter hundreds of millions in the last century in the name of Communism. Regardless, your philosophy says that neither is absolutely or necessarily wrong: otherwise you'd answer my question and tell me where objective moral values comes from?
@riverotter100 Once again, I never compared you or any atheist or group with Hitler, because to do so would be pointless.It was in response to the claim by one of your fellow atheist that said society determines what is morally right. Which society? Or says that personal life experience does. Who's life experience? Understand now? Germany was a well educated elite society! How does societies determine what is objectively or necessarily moral true?
@Krydan2167 You are also wrong again about Hitler. Hitler was a Catholic as was most of this soldiers. He was killing people who worshiped differently.
Also, the Catholic Church never excommunicated him. Somehow, the Catholics rationalized the killing of millions.
Conservatively, Yahweh murdered 2.6 million people in the Holy Bible, This is not including all of the deaths from the flood. He was not bias as to who he killed either, as children and babies were brutally murdered too.
@riverotter100 1) Like I said a person can kill in the name of Brad Pitt, it doesn't make Brad Pitt guilty, nor is is evidence that he doesn't exist. 2) God'd judgement is not murder/ such a God would know that such evil societies that had devolved as low as eating their own; that such was a threat to all mankind. Judging such a evil society is certainly the prorogation of the creator.
@Krydan2167 1) Okay. Then why are you comparing atheists to Hitler then. You just contradicted yourself. 2) Umm...Gods judgement is death and eternal torture and Christians eat his flesh and drink his blood. That IS cannibalism. Yes, I think that is repulsive.
@riverotter100 I never compared atheist to Hitler: obviously you are just too ignorant to follow a logical argument. I said if ethics or morals come from life experiences, or society, then that would include the life experience of those with whom both you and I would consider immoral; such as Hitler. How does your life's experience make your morals anymore good or right than Hitlers?
@riverotter100 What makes racism evil or wrong. Does nature tell us that racism is wrong? I never said he was an Atheist, though he did get much of his ideology from Nietzsche, as well as Darwin's atheist cousin who began the topic of eugenics. That is a fact! In the end you saying your values is better is nothing more than your subjective opinion, seeing that you can't point to a source of universal moral values. You have no foundation that says your values are any better than anybody else's!
@riverotter100 You are correct that you don't have to believe in God: But your godless worldview does not allow for objective or true moral values. Atheist have no foundation or grounds on which to argue that their morals are necessarily good; seeing that without God moral value are illusory. A mindless, meaningless, and purposeless cosmic accident cannot allow for objective or necessarily true moral values.
@riverotter100 Again, I maintain that without God, thee is no true objective meaning or universal purpose or objective moral values: To the atheist we are nothing more than the product of a series of cosmic and biological accidents evolving solely to do whatever it takes to survive. I see no reason to believe that a mindless universe could produce an objective or moral code by which we should live our lives. Again atheist have no moral foundation!
@riverotter100 If you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was yet a child, knowing what you know now; would you being morally justified in killing him, to save the tens of millions that would later be slaughtered? God knows all, so he would know how these Canaanite tribes would continue to threaten all of society with their evil deeds. God alone can make such judgement and intervene at his own choosing.
@Krydan2167 If I went back in time, and change history, I am sure that there would be other ways of dealing with what is about to happen other then killing Hitler in his youth. All we would have to do is just go a little further back and keep his folks from reproducing. See, even I can come up with a better idea then your god.
@riverotter100 The point was God is not morally obligated or subject to your limited knowledge. Nor is God subject to your subjective personal opinions. He workds everything after his own will, not yours! Even if Hitler wouldn't have been born, perhaps one of his follow Nazis would have obtained power and not made the same mistakes and caused even greater atrocities. The point is: Your using faulty logic, that you've learned from idiots like the late Chris Hitchens
@Krydan2167 Actually, If I though your god was real, I would support seeing it put on trial for crimes against humanity. I would never worship such a tyrant. I do not give a rat's behind if you think that I cannot question this gods ethics. I do, and will. Your gods ethics were no better then Hitler's.
@riverotter100 You are deceived by your own vain imagination: No better? No better according to what? You have no foundation as an atheist for making objective statements about right and wrong or good and evil. Without God there is no true moral values, otherwise you would tell me where they come from and why your values are good? But you can't: because if the is no God, then any sense of morals is merely an illusion.
@Krydan2167 You seriously replied to that riverotter guy at least 8 times to say one thing:
"I don't understand child psychology, and morals MUST be magically born into our lives or something!"
If that's the case, why do different societies say different things are acceptable? Some middle-eastern societies say stoning women for going out without a man is acceptable. Did your god just shit the bed while making them and forgot to give them morals? Or do you admit it's NOT built into humans?
@bobmuffins First things first: Sometimes it takes 8 replies to get through to an idiot. Obviously it would take even more for you! 2ND: I never said that societies or individuals was given or born with a built in moral code. I said that a mindless, purposeless and meaningless universe cannot account for true objective morals. Absent God there are no objective moral values, thus stoning a women for such reasons would be a matter of opinion, not objectively wrong. That is what atheism teaches!
@bobmuffins But listen to what you are saying: You are saying that "Some societies say that stoning women for going out without a man is acceptable" Well, according to the atheist, that would be a matter of opinion as to if it was wrong or not, seeing that moral values are not absolute. So I see no reason for anybody to look to someone like you for moral guidance, seeing that you have no basis for true objective moral values.
@bobmuffins Lastly Bob, you are the 3rd person to take up this topic with me, and the 3rd person to try and twist my words to suggest that I am saying that one has to believe in God to do a good deed. I never said that: I asked, how do we know what is objectively and truly a good deed according to your atheistic world view? Please share with us how a meaningless and purposeless universe can produce objective moral values? Or will you continue to run in circles and refuse to answer?
@riverotter100 And Hitler was not killing people who worshiped differently: He was killing people he thought were less evolved. Read Mein Kamph, and you will clearly see Hitlers arguments against the Jews, and it was he believed they were inferior and a threat genetically to the future of the human race. Much of his mind set was influenced by Fredrick Nietzsche and his atheistic Ubberman or "superman/super-race doctrine. What the Doc: "Nietzsche and the Nazis" or Read Mein Kamph.
@Krydan2167 Again, you are comparing atheists to Hitler. Tell me, why did Hitler's army all wear buttons that said "God with us" in German?
Atheists do not believe in any gods. That is it. It is the only thing they have in common. If what you say is true, then it seems to me that Hitler was a racist, not an atheist. I do not think that he said there are no gods, now let's kill the Jews.
@riverotter100 First tell me why Hitler erected a statue to Nietzsche, and not a single one to Christ? But it doesn't matter if Hitler was an atheist or a religious zealot: Killing in the name of Brad Pitt doesn't make Brad Pitt guilty, nor is it an argument that he doesn't exist. The point is, the atheist has no foundation on which to say that Hitler was objectively wrong; after all he evolved those morals based on his life's experience according to you.
@Krydan2167 I am an atheist and I am saying that Hitler was WRONG. Killing millions of innocent people is not right, and it doesn't take a belief in a god to know this.
@riverotter100 It doesn't take a belief in God to believe that Hitler was wrong: But it takes the existence of God in order to believe that moral values are objectively true. A mindless, meaningless, and purposeless universe could not produce an objectively true moral code. That means that according to atheist ethics is a matter of opinion or morally relative. If objective moral values exist, then God exist!
@riverotter100 dude you are full of hate.. that thing about Hitler is in fact a lie. there is nothing for you. maybe you should read up on Maximilian Colbe. If I remember correctly the Vatican City, moron, is located within the bounds of the country ruled by none other than Mussolini, the vicious tyrant at the time - might have been difficult for them to pull much off in that volatile time period ya think? idiot
@tfc1059 I am full of hate? Funny coming from someone who cannot tell me that hate is in actuality objectively wrong! And watch the documentary Nietzsche and the Nazi's on see the connection and the influence he had on Hitler. Just what part did I lie about? Funny how you guys never quote, or present any evidence against my claims, nor do you ever answer where morals comes from and how they can be necessarily true in a meaningless and purposeless universe.
@gat0rgirl13 I am talking about the ontological argument, not the epistemology. Not can atheist do good things, but rather or not anything is truly good, or truly bad or evil. Nature nor Science can tell me if what Hitler did was necessarily bad, wrong, evil etc...Lastly, It also was the teachers, professors, and elites that marched in lock step with the Nazi's, whom were greatly influenced by the German atheist philosopher Frederick Nietzsche Look up "Nietzsche and the Nazi's" to learn more
@gat0rgirl13 It wasn't an argument: For it to have been an argument, at some point you would have had to presented a logical argument in support of your views. Rather you kept dodging, purposely taking my points out of context, then returning to your purely emotional knee jerk reactions. If you wish to talk logic, you should 1st do enough research to know what a logical argument looks like: Watching and repeating sad argument from idiots like Bill Maher doesn't qualify.
@gat0rgirl13 Atheist can't think they know anything other than what would better make them survive. There is no reason to believe that a purposeless and meaningless universe could produce logical absolutes. Our brains would evolve to believe a lie if it helped us better survive. I would argue that atheist may think they know everything, but their philosophy says that they cant truly or objectively know anything.
@Krydan2167 I do not know any atheists at this time who claim they "know everything" or "they know nothing."
For me, I know only what my life experiences have revealed to me. I do not claim to know "everything", because I don't. My life has "purpose." I lived long enough to reproduce, rear my young, and eventually I will die to make room for the new. The universe, well, it is simply magnificent. I love reading about the secrets we humans have already unlocked.
@riverotter100 1:1 Stephen Hawkins is an anti-realist who believes that in what he calls Model Dependent Reality. Read "The Grand Design" The fact that you think the universe is magnificent or that you've reared young doesn't prove that there is such a thing as objective meaning or purpose in life. That is merely your personal opinion, like Hitlers personal opinion that his life had meaning, or that his actions were beneficial for the human race.
@Krydan2167 You are making assumptions or not reading my post through. I know nothing about "The Grand Design." And I know very little about Stephen Hawkins. I am unable to comment on that.
If you read my post, you will notice, I stated "For me" which means it was an opinion. I merely gave you an honest point of view as an atheist. I was not trying to "prove" anything about the "meaning or purpose of life."
@riverotter100 That is what this discussion is about, whether or not atheist have any foundation for saying that there are some things that are absolutely and objectively wrong?
If not; then your subjective opinions concerning what is right and wrong holds absolutely no authority; therefore there is no bases for which anyone should accept your opinion on matters of ethics. I maintain, that if God does not exist, then objective true or universal moral values do not exist. If so explain?
@Krydan2167 First of all, I am not looking for "authority." I live according to what is best for myself, my family, and my community. Nothing more. I do not need a dictator to tell me when some thing is good or bad. I use my brain to figure that out on MY OWN. No gods needed.
@Krydan2167 Hitler was psychotic. I am not Hitler. Nor would I ever be. My reasoned logic does not include genocide of any form or manner. Which is one reason I do not support the monotheistic religions. The texts they worship are full of murder, rape, and pillage ordered by an all powerful god. I could even give you a comparison between Hitler's atrocities and the ones ordered by God. Both wanted to create perfection and both failed miserably. Both created murder, rape, and pillage.
@riverotter100 I can tell you are not a Biblical, Greek, or Hebrew scholar: so I have no reason to accept your amateur and obviously biased exegesis on a subject you know nothing about. Further more: You have no foundation on which to proclaim even if what you say is true, that what they "The Jews" did was objectively wrong. Atheist have no foundation on which to claim that any action is absolutely or objectively wrong.
@riverotter100 Yes, I could agree with your statement: But, without God such a statement is a matter of opinion and not based on any objectively true moral code. again, nature cannot account for producing a universal moral standard: even atheist Richard Dawkins says that any sense of moral goodness is nothing more than a biological adaptation to help us better survive, but are mere illusion nonetheless. Many atheist hold that objective moral values do not truly exist. If they do, how so?
@riverotter100 W I run into this with a lot of layman atheist such as yourself. But many educated and philosophical atheist readily admit that without a God wherein we were intentionally created with meaning and purpose, there is no true objective moral values. If true binding or objective moral values truly exist, then where do they come from? Without God, they do not truly exist; they are nothing more than a mere illusion and biological adaptation to help you better survive.
@Krydan2167 So then the only thing holding you and a serial rape-murderer or a bank thief apart is going to church?
Morals develop through being raised that way. I'm 99% certain if you raised a kid, teaching them "Killing for your own gain is perfectly okay", they would NEVER say "BUT THAT'S WRONG DADDY!!".
Your argument is honestly incredibly scary. You literally just admitted all that's dividing you from a murderer is going to church.
@bobmuffins No that is not what the argument is: The argument is that atheist cant say that rape is objectively wrong, seeing that they reject that moral values are absolute or concrete. I think it is incredibly scary for you to say that child rape is not advantages for society but that it is a matter of opinion as to if it is absolutely wrong! As a theist I can say that rape is absolutely objectively wrong!
@bobmuffins You are admitting that we are nothing more than the product of a series of cosmic and biological coincidences in a universe without no true intrinsic value, purpose or objective meaning. In reality you are no more special than a mosquito that is the product of the same cosmic lucky roll of the dice. You merely evolved certain traits that seem "just" or "right" as a means to help you better survive, but they are nothing but a delusion with no true objective purpose or meaning.
@bobmuffins If you have a solution to how a purposeless and meaningless universe can produce true meaning and purpose on which you base your ethics; lets here it? If you cant tell me where or how objective morals arose, or how we can determine if your sense of moral values is the right set of moral values; bring it on! But I maintain that you have no grounds on which to say that even rape or the murder of a child is absolutely or objectively wrong; and that is what is scary!
@bobmuffins Well I am glad that you admit that as an atheist such things as rape or child molestation, or even killing and eating your infant child is not necessarily or absolutely wrong. The atheist has no grounds on which to defend such things as human rights or even human decency seeing that such values are merely a delusion and a matter of one subjective opinion.
Does it seem absolutely insane to find those acceptable? Yes, because society as a whole has said "Wait, being murdered sucks! Let's make murder not allowed." If no one ever went "Being murdered kinda sucks", you wouldn't even think of suggesting that it's built into humans to think murder is wrong.
People aren't born gay and do not choose to be gay. They become gay.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni Prove it moron.
cjay2 1 week ago
@cjay2
Ask the American Psychology Association. They study these things a lot more in depth than either of us.
nafaidni 1 week ago
The APA states the following: "...Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."In 1975 APA issued a supporting statement that "homosexuality is not a mental disorder."
cjay2 1 week ago
@cjay2
Basically, my statement is mostly correct. People are not born gay nor do they choose to be gay. They just are gay by chance. It doesn't imply that they have a mental disorder, by any means. It just means that clones of a gay person will not necessarily all be gay.
nafaidni 1 week ago
@nafaidni Yer kiddin? What about me. I was born gay. I'm gay and I know it. You're not gay, so you cannot possibly know anything about it. End of game, shmuck.
cjay2 1 week ago
@cjay2
So if someone were to clone you, all your clones would be gay? You have some protein configuration that specifically causes you to be attracted to men? Because that's all that it comes down to; whether or not a DNA sequence codes for homosexuality.
Studies show that even among twins, who have the exact same DNA, concordance of homosexuality occurs at only a 7.7% rate for males and 5.5% for females. Therefore, it cannot be genetic and probably isn't congenital. End of story.
nafaidni 1 week ago
@cjay2
It's not like it matters, anyway. But videos, like "Is It a Choice" are being inaccurate when they make suggestions like being born with low testosterone makes one gay.
nafaidni 1 week ago
@cjay2 This doesn't change his point. Asserting you're born gay and you know it doesn't change the scientific evidence no more than a person asserting they chose to be gay or straight.
NihilSequitur 4 days ago
Jesus Christ, who is God in flesh CHOSE to come down and save humanity from hell. He gave us a choice. Because of that we has humanity have a choice to follow Christ, that means leaving OUR old lives or selves behind and going forward as a new creature in Jesus Christ. Jesus can and does changes OUR mind and HEARTS.Throughout the BIBLE, it speaks about marriages only between males and females. Every one is born with a spirit of sin. Acts 2:38 specifically commands us to repent and be baptized.
missoneGod 1 month ago
There is only one God in heaven, whose name is Jesus Christ. If there is a Trinity, why would God the Father speak against homosexuality, and His son Jesus allow it and allow them into heaven. Exodus 20:12 which is the Ten Commandments specifically commands that children to honor their mother and father. If Jesus is the Son of God why would he negate his father laws, morals, values, and commandments. Jesus (God in flesh) came to die for us, he Gave us the choice to follow him or suffer damnation
missoneGod 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
Comment removed
bobmuffins 1 month ago
@bobmuffins I have answered this question: He has left evidence otherwise 80% of the worlds population wouldn't be theist! 2) Our salvation is based on faith not sight: even then it would be no guarantee that you would accept Gods grace!~ 3) Our conscious tell us that certain things are truly wrong, otherwise we wouldn't call certain mental conditions adherent behavior. You know that you couldn't rape someone and not feel guilty or ashamed of your actions at some point!
Krydan2167 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krydan2167 You clearly still haven't watched the video I sent you.
bobmuffins 1 month ago
@Krydan2167 Your entire argument hinges on "god is real and he made morals"
Make he same argument without that assumption, as making an argument with a false assumption may seem logical, yet will result in a false result. If you can make the same argument without that assumption, you might have a point. Until then, no.
bobmuffins 1 month ago
@bobmuffins No my main argument is that without God there truly are no real moral objective and we would have no true moral duties. I say that some thing like rape, incest, killing and eating a child is truly and really wrong. Therefore God exist!
Krydan2167 1 month ago
@bobmuffins So Bob, when you can explain how a mindless and meaningless universe via an unguided process can produce a real moral foundation? Then explain to me why my conscience that tells me that I have done something wrong is nothing more than an illusion, then I will drop that as one of my arguments for God. But without God there are no true morals: My conscience tells me that somethings are truly wrong: Therefore God exist!
Krydan2167 1 month ago
@bobmuffins I did read them: Please tell us where you presented a argument to support that a belief in God is illogical? All I saw was a link to a video: I am not debating them, I debating you. I am not doing your homework for you. If they made a point and you think it is a logical argument, then post away brother. But thus far you have done nothing but play the typical atheist song and dance routine. I have been doing this too long to let you get by with your Atheist Two Step!
Krydan2167 1 month ago
@Krydan2167 THE VIDEO CONTAINS MY POINT YOU WANT ME TO TYPE THE SCRIPT AND STAGE INSTRUCTIONS FOR IT ON HERE OR SOME SHIT
GOD DAMN
bobmuffins 1 month ago
@bobmuffins Oh so you want me to go watch your video then have to come back and explain to you how logically flawed each of their arguments are? If they've presented a good argument, then share it with us. But I have heard about every argument there is to hear on the subject, so I wont know which one it is that you think is so compelling. If such an argument exist, then feel free to engage me. But I am not doing your home work for you!
Krydan2167 1 month ago
@Krydan2167 I can't share the argument. Why? Character limit. And it's just impractical to type out every argument here.
If you're not doing my homework for me, then I'm not doing yours for you. Go watch the fucking video, it's 10 minutes, I'm not typing it out here.
bobmuffins 1 month ago
@bobmuffins Bob, I have watched hundreds of hours of real debates with some of the leading authorities on both sides of these arguments. Debates with professor of philosophy that have been studying these subjects for 30, 40 and 50 yrs. There is nothing in a 10 minute you-tube video that is gone to sway or challenge me. I have heard all the intellectual arguments from folks that have PhD's in mathematics, physics, biology philosophy etc.. So just present an argument if you have one!
Krydan2167 1 month ago
@bobmuffins I tell you what Bob: Go to William Lang Craig 's official website and watch some of his debates, then look up and watch John Lennox take Richard Dawkins apart; Then watch Lennox take on Hitchens and spank him twice wherein Hitchens admitted that he wasn't prepared following the debate.: Then while you are at it, look up Stephen C Myers and watch him debate Peter Ward and embarrass him to the point Ward starts asking if others can take the stage to help him make his case.
Krydan2167 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE WHO SAY that being GAY IS A CHOICE
MEANS that THEYRE BISEXUAL!
Because BISEXUALS are the ONLY ones that can CHOOSE between the 2 sexes!
Im pretty sure some of the HETEROS wouldn't like to hear truth about their REAL sexuality and the only way they battle their real feelings is by grabbing a bible and become Homophobes.
REAL STRAIGHT PEOPLE are OK with gays cause their SECURE with their sexuality and dont feel threatn by gay people.
NuLaifMusic 1 month ago
Who are you to impose your Christian views on people who don't share your faith?
hersheybar11 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
MrBuster128 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
MrBuster128 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning
MrBuster128 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
MrBuster128 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice.
MrBuster128 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.
MrBuster128 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists know the importance of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "gay" has helped homosexual activists push their dishonest agenda on unsuspecting people.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
It's definitely a choice. Human nature does not attract two people of the same gender, sorry, that's just not how it works.
DarkosApprentice 2 months ago
@DarkosApprentice Your statement that human nature does not attract two people of
the same gender is ridiculious--of course it does, as millions upon millions of people would tesify. As a gay man, I know I was born this way--I didn't wake up one morning and say to myself, "Well, I think I'm going to be gay from now on!". Did you chose to be straight? I don't think so. Sexuality is not something one choses anymore than one can choose the color of one's eyes. Wake the fuck up, dude! .
rider012 2 months ago
@rider012
Answer me this, can you procreate with two males or two females? no it takes a male and a female to create children. That should tell you right there that being gay is a choice.
DarkosApprentice 2 months ago
@DarkosApprentice do you choose to find women (or men) attractive or is that innate? you cant choose who your attracted to.
also why would gay people choose to be bullied and choose to be ostracized from their families? obviously it aint a choice.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 That's not really a good argument, because, couldn't a rapist say that he had no control over his desire to rape? Would that mean he was born a rapist? Or, why would a pedophile choose to be ostracized by family as well risk prison? Not saying your position is wrong, but your argument is a weak argument.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 (1/2) youre saying my argument is weak because it cant be applied to rapists and pedophiles? well it can.
The attraction is not our choice we are born with it (so being gay is not a choice). We cant control who we are attracted to, but we do have control over our actions. So a rapist's desire for a person is not a choice but acting on the desire is. No we would say he was born a rapist; he was a rapist the moment he raped because the act was a choice.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Then a homosexual can control not having sex with someone of the same sex right? They are no more born gay than a rapist or pedophile is born that way. Acting on urges or impulses is a choice as you say? So they are not gay until they act upon those urges; if not, explain the difference? And it is your subjective opinion that homosexuality is good or "not wrong" By what authority or on what foundation do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 (1/3) "They are no more born gay than a rapist or pedophile is born that way" homosexuals are born the way pedophiles are in that they never had a choice of who they were attracted to. the act of rape which can be attributed to a rapist may fall into heterosexual rape, homosexual rape, or child rape. so you arent born a rapist but you are born a homosexual or with the psychosexual disease pedophilia.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Yeah but rapist have a desire or have urges to have sex with a unwilling partners, just like a pedophile has a desire for a child, or a man might have a desire of a women or a man with a man etc... You haven't given one example or bit of evidence of how one is born with these desires, attractions, or urges. You honestly think an infant has such attractions or urges?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
1-3“You honestly think an infant has such attractions or urges?”haha no the attractions come later but wiring of the brain is set. The only solid evidence i can give you that being gay is not a choice is from personal experience. as a heterosexual female i find men attractive. i have always found them attractive. i cant help it, it comes from within. the thought of sex with a woman is unappealing so id never do it. the same with homosexual men they cant help it
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I have come to be attracted to women who I initially wasn't attracted to. I know guys who like heavy women, or skinny women, or Asian women etc... I know some white girls who wouldn't think of dating a white guy or on the flip side a black guy etc.. But none of that in anyway suggest that we were born that way. I don't think they are born gay no more than someone is born straight, or to like hot Asian babes etc... We somewhere along the way acquire these preferences.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krydan2167 "I have come to be attracted to women who I initially wasn't attracted to. I know guys who like heavy women, or skinny women, or Asian women etc... I know some white girls who wouldn't think of dating a white guy or on the flip side a black guy etc" yes but these people are all staying within the same sex.
"We somewhere along the way acquire these preferences." hmm just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one since you cannot prove this and i cannot disprove this
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 (2/3) "So they are not gay until they act upon those urges" no you can be a homosexual and have never had gay sex because homosexuality refers only to the attraction. “By what authority or on what foundation do you determine what is right and what is wrong?” the fact that gay sex is with two consenting adults. They are both ready and willing. So who are you to tell them they cant?
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I never said they cant; of course they can! But why am I compelled to say that I agree with that choice? Again, who are you to say that it is normal, right or good and that everyone else must agree or accept your position? By what authority or on what foundation do you base such a objective or absolute statement of right and wrong?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
2-3“who are you to say that it is normal, right or good and that everyone else must agree or accept your position?” im not saying it is good.. what is good anyway? (rhetorical question).. Im just saying it is not wrong and i say this bc two adults want to do it and it harms no one. Normal? Well this takes into account the majority of a population so who cares if its normal. No you dont ever have to agree with me or accept my position i just want you to know and understand it fully.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I am not arguing that they cant do it, only that it is a acquired preference that you can't compel or force others to accept. The problem that I see with many homosexuals, is they try to force their lifestyle or force others to accept their choices. But I see no reason that a Christian should be compelled to accept their lifestyle anymore than accepting premarital sex or infidelity as being as you say "not wrong" Why is infidelity between two adults wrong?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 you should be accepting of them in that you should not treat them any different or discriminate against them. no ones forcing you to be gay.
infidelity is wrong bc you made a promise to be faithful therefore you shouldnt break that promise. christians dont have to engage in infidelity homosexuality or premarital sex if they do not want to however they shouldnt judge those who do. why are there laws against gay marriage but not infidelity and premarital sex?
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Also, though AIDS is not strictly a homosexual disease it is a high risk factor, just as unprotected sex with multiple partners of the opposite sex can be a high risk factor in the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases. This has a great cost to the families of those infected as well as on society as a whole financially, emotionally etc... I believe we live on a different planets if you don't believe there is a problem in the homosexual community when it come to AIDS
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 this is a "freedom vs safety" problem. there will always be risks in every decision a person makes and it is up to them to decide if they want to take that chance. we must not infringe on that. the aids virus is a problem but it can be prevented by practicing safe sex (some churches condemn this). but there are hundreds of different std's out there and we cannot prohibit sex just because of this.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Yeah they can take that chance, and the Church and or individuals has a right to point out that those choices often have very negative consequences, including on society as a whole, who has to deal with the medical and financial burdens as the results of bad others bad choices. But you have no argument to say we must not infringe on bad choices without a foundation for morality, seeing that natural selection would favor survival over individual freedoms every time!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 the can point it out but they shouldnt ban safe sex practices. they think condoms are worse than aids. as far as financial burdens well alot of things cause financial burdens but they are not outlawed.
"natural selection would favor survival over individual freedoms every time" no its rare but it does happen in species who cannot make decisions for themselves.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 "They think?" That is only certain groups such as Catholics. But it is not just financial but a national health hazard that doesn't favor the survival or benefit of the masses only that gratification of the individual. I still see no rational naturalistic or atheistic defense of individual liberty over survival. An example of an argument for freedom over survival in nature was not given.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 yes aids is hazardous to human survival but hetersexuals can transmit aids too yet they still engage in sex along with the hundreds of other stds that can be transmitted.
supporting homosexuality isnt apart from my value system its a part of it bc they can do what they want as long as no harm comes from it.
"argument for freedom over survival in nature" i consider humans a part of nature and you see it all the time bc of our ability to make cognitive decisions
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 If our values evolved to help us better survive, then survival of the species would supersede individual liberties. Why should the masses pay for or take the risk of allowing certain individuals to make bad decisions that threatens or puts a negative strain on society as a whole? Personal or individual freedom only makes sense if we have been endowed by our creator with such inalienable rights. It wouldn't be what makes us feel good, but what helps more of us to better survive!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Could you please explain how homosexuality or endorsing homosexuality helps society as a whole, or helps us better survive? If supporting homosexuality is apart of your value system, I see no survival benefit or naturalistic rational for such a defense. There is no procreating, or any societal benefit other than the personal gratification of the individual. The atheist has no foundation for arguing objective values, including individual liberties over the masses well being.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 how can it not be beneficial? accepting everyone and allowing people to live a life they want can only benefit society as a whole. the society would be significantly more peaceful and individuals happier.
no procreation isnt involved but not every straight person has sex with the intention to procreate. qute the opposite. on a scientic level there is evidence that suggests younger brotheres are more likely to be gay. scientists speculate its to thwart rivalry over a mate
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 1) That is your subjective opinion that it could only benefit society. The only values an atheist can point to is their own subjective values or personal opinions. 2) You don't accept everyone's actions or values, we've already determined that 3) Would allowing alcoholics to drink and drive because they want to make life better for us just because it makes them happy? You are putting personal; gratification and what makes you feel good above what is best for society as a whole
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 1) as its your opinion that it wont. will god incinerate the us bc we pass gay marriage laws like he did with s&g2) of course i dont accept everyones actions. i dont accept murder and i dont accept people bullying gays or saying they cant marry. 3) how does drinking and driving make anybody happy? also drinking and driving can kill someone. theres a big difference. drinking and driving is prohibited for that reason and also bc you cant make rational decisions while drunk
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Drinking and driving can kill, and so can spreading sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS via illicit sex.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 get a dd or dont drive, wear a condom or dont have sex. if not face the consequences
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 im not putting personal gratification above society. i am just advocating for individual freedom which will in turn benefit society as a whole. how does allowing for gay marriage give me personal gratification
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Not your personal gratification, theirs! You still haven't given an argument for how it benefits society, especially in any objective way. Just saying that it benefits society doesn't make it so! There is no bases via naturalism wherein you can argue what is or is not objectively or absolutely beneficial. What on the surface that may appear to be beneficial may have some negative butterfly effect on future societies; can you prove otherwise? Need to check in now: May be back later
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 i have given an argument, if we let people have the individual freedom to choose who they want to be with it can only bring peace. this wont cause a rise in aids if people are aware of safe sex practices. this is also why we need sex ed in school, optional of course.
"can you prove otherwise?" nope we're back to the "we can never prove anything" philosophy. just because we cant prove that by some small chance that it may cause harm later doesnt mean we should abandon it
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 That again is an subjective opinion wherein there is no foundation or reason for anybody to accept as being objectively true. I am not arguing that they shouldn't have freedoms, just that you have no objective rational for saying that such individual freedom can only lead to peace. The majority of people are aware of AIDS and other STDs and they still do not practice safe sex, especially within the homosexual community wherein AIDS is more prevalent. That is a fact!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 so what if aids is more prevalent. you cant tell people what they can and cant do bc they might contract a diesease. what do you want for the homosexuals? do you want to tell them they cant have sex bc they might get aids?
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Not sure what conversation you are having, or what point you are missing. My point was that from an atheistic view there is no foundation for defending individual rights, or any foundation for any objective moral values for that matter. The point is, if moral values arose solely to help us better survive as the naturalist maintains, that would not include such individual freedoms that have an opposite or negative effect on surviving.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 oh sorry misunderstood what you meant. the only reason to defend them that i can think of is bc supporting individuals freedoms would in turn benefit yourself and the society... and on a scientific note it would prolong the species. i dont think individual freedoms have negative effects on survival if they did it would be bc we have the ability to reason and make decisions that goes against our desire to survive
what about your thoughts on homosexuals? you didnt give them
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 You are not giving an example of how individual right benefits society or helps us better survive. Just saying they do doesn't make it true. Example: Over eating and no exercise is an individual right with a negative effect on the individual as well as passing unhealthy traits and medical conditions off on to your offspring, which puts a burden on society. That proves that you just cant assume that individual freedom benefits society or even the individual..
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 it seems you want to pass laws that regulate what you can/can't eat and ban the production of certain foods? thats a totalitarian state, do you want that? totalitarian states are oppressive, they try to make everybody safe and fail miserably in the proccess. this how individual rights benefit society, the person gets what they want, overeats then develops a medical condition then society starts to realize overeating is wrong then society fixes itself without being told.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 You didn't read the follow up to my position. I clearly said that I do not support such a state. But such atheistic world views lead to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of lives in the last century. Which is my argument against your blatant statement "We say what is morally right and wrong" Who does? If the Nazi's would have won and killed off all their opposition, would that have made their morals the correct set of values?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 "atheistic world views" no such thing, atheists all have different opinions. my opinion that we say what is morally right and wrong is my opinion alone. i cannot speak for all atheists. hitler had a different view of what is right and wrong. i say we should take in people's different opinions weigh them and decide what works best for all. for example almost everyone would agree killing, stealing, and raping are wrong but the harder topics should be reasoned out...
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 ...[continued] reasoned out, not just declared right or wrong without discussion like religion does concerning the more controversial topics
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Are you serious: How does society fix it, if people continue to overeat and pass those traits and unhealthy conditions on to their offspring? Americans today realize that gluttony is bad, but many millions continue to do it. How does society correct that, by force? It certainly isn't happening by choice! I agree that totalitarianism is wrong, and I have a solid foundation for holding that view. My question has been from the beginning, on what moral foundation do you base that on?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 yes society will fix it. society has recognized aids is a problem. there are so many charities working to promote awareness and safe sex practices. also scientists have made signifacant breakthroughs with holding off aids after testing hiv positive. eventually they will find a cure and aids will be no more. the same with obesity ppl will become educated in healthy eating habits not forced to eat healthy. we just have to be patient
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 My main point was to show you that freedom sometimes has negative consequences. Which is in opposition to the naturalist that says we merely evolve traits that help us "better survive" There is no foundation or beneficial reason for an atheist to go out of their way to defend homosexuality.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 i got your point and i told you a thousand times why i defend homosexuality and why it is better as a whole i also told you the negatives are temporary til we fix them.
i do not think there is evil i used it bc you do.. you always pick out the flaws in my arguments but have not addressed one my arguments, you never answer any of the questions i raise and just keep pushing yours so im done
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 You never once gave an example other than to say that society would be better off supporting homosexuals. And it is totally subjective that the negatives is temporary, we have no idea what kind of long term negative or positive effect any current conditions or actions may have on future societies. I did answer your questions, andoutlined in great detail why your logic is flawed.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I answered your questions about what I thought about homosexuals personally. I said I supported Civil Unions, but that marriage is a privilege not a right. Serving in the military isn't a right either, You cant serve if you are too fat, too short, too skinny, too near sighted etc... I have no problem with them serving, but serving is not a right, otherwise age, weight, health would not prevent some from volunteering their service.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I am not saying that gays shouldn't have rights, or that overweight lazy should be forced to eat right and workout. But I see no benefit to society as a whole by allowing such potentially negative behavior. You make statements like "it would prolong the species" But you give no example how?. I could argue that a higher risk a contracting AIDS is not beneficial, therefore I see no way it could possibly prolongs the species
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I have nothing against homosexuals, no more than I have anything against heterosexuals engaging in premarital sex with multiple partners. But both have a higher risk of spreading unwanted diseases which in turn has a negative effect on society.
If supporting homosexuals makes you feel good about yourself. understand that an emotional reaction is no logical indication that it is beneficial to the survival of the human species.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 i dont support homosexuals bc it makes me feel good i support them bc they should have the same rights as us. i could really care less if gay ppl have a higher risk of getting aids, they should still be able to have sex and do what they want as long as they dont infringe on others' rights, if they get aids well they knew the risks (this is a libertarian philosophy not an atheistic one) and society will eventually recognize the problem of aids then do all it can to fix it
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 You could care less if more people die of AIDS? Not sure you thought that line out very well! You don't care if they die, place others in a higher risk, or cost society billions of dollars to support their personal habits? Lastly there is no inalienable "Rights" wherein there are no objective moral values, and there are no true objective moral values apart from God. That is my point: How as an self proclaimed atheist can you dictate to others what is morally right?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 i said i couldnt care less if their is higher risk among homosexuals, i dont want them to die. howeve if they were aware of the risks then its their fault.
you keep bringing up that it costs society billions of dollars but where money is spent somewhere its earned or put to good use (science).
"no true objective moral values apart from God" not true, you dont have any evidence. i cant point to a million instances of evil done in the name of god.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Just the fact that you said the word "evil" shows that you do not have a clear understanding of what "no God" means. There would be no evil! I do have evidence : without God, the universe and our existence is a mere product of random chance, with no true meaning or purpose. Values would have evolved to help us better survive, nothing else. Things would all be morally relative and a matter of personal opinion and have no true objective value. If I am wrong, show me the way!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 im not dictacting whats morally right i want everyone to share their opinions of what they think is morally right and will decide together. i dont want religion to just say what is right or wrong without being able to question it
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 In a earlier post you said you came to atheism logically. I am not so sure you've logically thought through the ramifications of us being nothing more than the product of some mindless, purposeless, and meaningless cosmic accident. Again, if God does not exist, then true objective moral values do not exist, and I have no more reason to accept your world view or thought on individual liberty then that of a totalitarian government. Surviving at any cost would be my sole objective!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 im an atheist in the sense that i reject all religion, im agnostic on the higher power concept bc i dont think ill never know the answer to that. i came to reject christianity with a few questions that got me in trouble with my theology teachers, they thought i was the devil or something just for asking questions. when you cant even ask questions something must be wrong. the church is totalitarian in that sense.also it claims to know the will of god, absurd.
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 You cant blame God, or Christianity because of the actions of your theology teacher. Further more your experience has lead you to paint all of Christianity with the same brush, which would be like me saying that all Democrats would cheat on their spouse if they were dying with cancer, just because John Edwards did.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I was simply showing where your arguments were flawed, even most educated atheist, naturalist, or humanist would agree that you have used quite a few flawed and often conflicting arguments. I wasn't putting you down, just trying to get you to find a better way to present your case. If you want to truly learn, or want to teach others your views, they have to be logical and consistent, and you have to notice when your opponent fails the consistency test
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Lastly, homosexuals do have the right to have sex despite the higher risk of contracting AIDS, and rightly so. But you have no foundation on which to say that such individual liberty should absolutely exist. Again, the naturalist believes that we've merely evolved morals to help us better survive. My argument is that "YOU" have no argument to say that allowing gays to do as they will, helps us better survive. A purposeless, meaningless universe has no objective morals.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Lastly, if we simply evolved moral traits to better help us survive; explain from a atheistic point of view why we shouldn't abandon practices that has a negative effect on human evolution? You simply saying we shouldn't isn't an argument for why we shouldn't. You have no foundation on which to say that individual desires should supersede the well being of the masses; yet that seems to be the position you hold. I am saying that atheism has no basis for bracing individual liberty
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 my point of view isnt an atheistic point of view but a humanist point of view. individual desires dont supercede desires of the society but are a part of it. why does their need to be a foundation? why does a god have to tell us what is right and what is wrong? we can tell for ourselves
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Nature cannot tell us that what Hitler and the Nazis did was wrong. They "the Nazis" told themselves that what they were doing was beneficial and for the greater good. We can tell ourselves? Are you serious: Homo sapiens told themselves in the last century alone that it was moral acceptable to slaughter nearly 300 million lives in the name of Fascism and Communism. Why do we need a foundation? Ask any family member of one of the 300 million mentioned above!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 ask what religion the followers of hitler practiced, the ones who carried out the slaughterings, they were christian, where were their morals? religion doesnt give us our morals, again we do. dont tell me that before you found jesus you thought killing was acceptable. i dont need god to tell me killing is wrong i can figure it out for myself
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Again you fail to understand the logical argument. I could kill in the name of Brad Pitt, but that doesn't make Brad Pitt guilty, nor is it an argument that he doesn't exist. I never said atheist couldn't do good things or Christians do bad things: I said that atheist have no foundation for moral values: You can't have moral laws without a lawgiver. My point was that just 60 some yrs ago mankind rationalized slaughtering millions
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 You are wrong about atheists "having not foundation for moral values." Our ethics come from our experiences. Many atheists practice "The Golden Rule." It does not take a "law giver" to understand murder, rape, and theft is not healthy for a community. Really, it does not take a belief in a god to know this.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 Did Hitlers ethics come from his experience? If so, what makes your ethics based on your experience anymore objectively true than Hitler ethics based on his experience? 2) Theft would be healthy for the family that was starving! Rape may not be advantageous, but to the atheist there is no moral foundation to say that it is objectively wrong or evil. Please tell us why we should trust your life's experience to tell us what is morally right or wrong?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 I do not know where Hitler's ethics came from, but I do know that he was a psychopath. Meaning, he wasn't right in the head. He could not feel empathy. My ethics are my own, they have served me well through life. I did not have to walk all over someone else to get them. I agree if a family is starving, and they have to steal to eat, then I do not frown upon it. However, I frown upon the society who allows their people to starve.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 The point is that nature cannot, nor can society or life experience account for objective moral values. Hitler didn't act alone, but rather had the support of millions including tens of thousands of the social elite in one of the most advanced and educated nations on earth. You still haven't explained why anybody should accept your since of moral values, and on what foundation you base them.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 About the "Rape may not be advantageous." Do you think it is right that the Christian god made young girls (virgins) become the spoils of war? Honestly? Would that be the right thing to do today?
I want to make this loud and clear. I am NOT suggesting what is good for me is good for you. You live your life as you see fit. As long as you are not trying to make me live that way or are hurting other people in the process, I don't care how you live your life.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 You misinterpret passages from the Bible and take them out of context to fit your own warped interpretation.. You haven't explained why hurting other people in the process is absolutely or objectively wrong? You can't; because to the atheist there are no true objective moral values, otherwise you would tell us where they come from, or why your life's experience is a good model for anyone else to base there opinions on.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 My ethics are based on what is best for myself, my family, and my community and I do not need a god to do this.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 You entered this discussion, wherein the the other poster stated that society makes the rules and determines what is or is not morally wrong. I responded by saying that the Nazi's had led a whole society to believe that what they were doing was right. Which society has the right rule book? Who's life's experience can tell us what universal morals should be? On what foundation do you base them?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 Society does not represent my ethics. My ethics are my own. However, I have to live by laws that are based on "morals" whether I like it or not.
Not too long in the distant past, society also made rules that were determined by "morals." It was perfectly fine to kill people because some diluted religious leaders wanted to burn people at the stake for being witches. This was in practice for about 150 years.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 Again it doesn't matter if they killed based on diluted religious leaders, or leaders such as those who slaughter hundreds of millions in the last century in the name of Communism. Regardless, your philosophy says that neither is absolutely or necessarily wrong: otherwise you'd answer my question and tell me where objective moral values comes from?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@riverotter100 Once again, I never compared you or any atheist or group with Hitler, because to do so would be pointless.It was in response to the claim by one of your fellow atheist that said society determines what is morally right. Which society? Or says that personal life experience does. Who's life experience? Understand now? Germany was a well educated elite society! How does societies determine what is objectively or necessarily moral true?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 You are also wrong again about Hitler. Hitler was a Catholic as was most of this soldiers. He was killing people who worshiped differently.
Also, the Catholic Church never excommunicated him. Somehow, the Catholics rationalized the killing of millions.
Conservatively, Yahweh murdered 2.6 million people in the Holy Bible, This is not including all of the deaths from the flood. He was not bias as to who he killed either, as children and babies were brutally murdered too.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 1) Like I said a person can kill in the name of Brad Pitt, it doesn't make Brad Pitt guilty, nor is is evidence that he doesn't exist. 2) God'd judgement is not murder/ such a God would know that such evil societies that had devolved as low as eating their own; that such was a threat to all mankind. Judging such a evil society is certainly the prorogation of the creator.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 1) Okay. Then why are you comparing atheists to Hitler then. You just contradicted yourself. 2) Umm...Gods judgement is death and eternal torture and Christians eat his flesh and drink his blood. That IS cannibalism. Yes, I think that is repulsive.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 I never compared atheist to Hitler: obviously you are just too ignorant to follow a logical argument. I said if ethics or morals come from life experiences, or society, then that would include the life experience of those with whom both you and I would consider immoral; such as Hitler. How does your life's experience make your morals anymore good or right than Hitlers?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 You said Hitler's ideas were "atheistic." I say bullshit. They were racist.
Mine are better because I am not a racist and I do not think that wiping out an entire population of humans is a good idea either.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 What makes racism evil or wrong. Does nature tell us that racism is wrong? I never said he was an Atheist, though he did get much of his ideology from Nietzsche, as well as Darwin's atheist cousin who began the topic of eugenics. That is a fact! In the end you saying your values is better is nothing more than your subjective opinion, seeing that you can't point to a source of universal moral values. You have no foundation that says your values are any better than anybody else's!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 Oh, and I do not need to believe in a god to think that way.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 You are correct that you don't have to believe in God: But your godless worldview does not allow for objective or true moral values. Atheist have no foundation or grounds on which to argue that their morals are necessarily good; seeing that without God moral value are illusory. A mindless, meaningless, and purposeless cosmic accident cannot allow for objective or necessarily true moral values.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@riverotter100 Again, I maintain that without God, thee is no true objective meaning or universal purpose or objective moral values: To the atheist we are nothing more than the product of a series of cosmic and biological accidents evolving solely to do whatever it takes to survive. I see no reason to believe that a mindless universe could produce an objective or moral code by which we should live our lives. Again atheist have no moral foundation!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@riverotter100 If you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was yet a child, knowing what you know now; would you being morally justified in killing him, to save the tens of millions that would later be slaughtered? God knows all, so he would know how these Canaanite tribes would continue to threaten all of society with their evil deeds. God alone can make such judgement and intervene at his own choosing.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 If I went back in time, and change history, I am sure that there would be other ways of dealing with what is about to happen other then killing Hitler in his youth. All we would have to do is just go a little further back and keep his folks from reproducing. See, even I can come up with a better idea then your god.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 The point was God is not morally obligated or subject to your limited knowledge. Nor is God subject to your subjective personal opinions. He workds everything after his own will, not yours! Even if Hitler wouldn't have been born, perhaps one of his follow Nazis would have obtained power and not made the same mistakes and caused even greater atrocities. The point is: Your using faulty logic, that you've learned from idiots like the late Chris Hitchens
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 Actually, If I though your god was real, I would support seeing it put on trial for crimes against humanity. I would never worship such a tyrant. I do not give a rat's behind if you think that I cannot question this gods ethics. I do, and will. Your gods ethics were no better then Hitler's.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 You are deceived by your own vain imagination: No better? No better according to what? You have no foundation as an atheist for making objective statements about right and wrong or good and evil. Without God there is no true moral values, otherwise you would tell me where they come from and why your values are good? But you can't: because if the is no God, then any sense of morals is merely an illusion.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 You seriously replied to that riverotter guy at least 8 times to say one thing:
"I don't understand child psychology, and morals MUST be magically born into our lives or something!"
If that's the case, why do different societies say different things are acceptable? Some middle-eastern societies say stoning women for going out without a man is acceptable. Did your god just shit the bed while making them and forgot to give them morals? Or do you admit it's NOT built into humans?
bobmuffins 2 months ago
@bobmuffins First things first: Sometimes it takes 8 replies to get through to an idiot. Obviously it would take even more for you! 2ND: I never said that societies or individuals was given or born with a built in moral code. I said that a mindless, purposeless and meaningless universe cannot account for true objective morals. Absent God there are no objective moral values, thus stoning a women for such reasons would be a matter of opinion, not objectively wrong. That is what atheism teaches!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@bobmuffins But listen to what you are saying: You are saying that "Some societies say that stoning women for going out without a man is acceptable" Well, according to the atheist, that would be a matter of opinion as to if it was wrong or not, seeing that moral values are not absolute. So I see no reason for anybody to look to someone like you for moral guidance, seeing that you have no basis for true objective moral values.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@bobmuffins Lastly Bob, you are the 3rd person to take up this topic with me, and the 3rd person to try and twist my words to suggest that I am saying that one has to believe in God to do a good deed. I never said that: I asked, how do we know what is objectively and truly a good deed according to your atheistic world view? Please share with us how a meaningless and purposeless universe can produce objective moral values? Or will you continue to run in circles and refuse to answer?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@riverotter100 And Hitler was not killing people who worshiped differently: He was killing people he thought were less evolved. Read Mein Kamph, and you will clearly see Hitlers arguments against the Jews, and it was he believed they were inferior and a threat genetically to the future of the human race. Much of his mind set was influenced by Fredrick Nietzsche and his atheistic Ubberman or "superman/super-race doctrine. What the Doc: "Nietzsche and the Nazis" or Read Mein Kamph.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 Again, you are comparing atheists to Hitler. Tell me, why did Hitler's army all wear buttons that said "God with us" in German?
Atheists do not believe in any gods. That is it. It is the only thing they have in common. If what you say is true, then it seems to me that Hitler was a racist, not an atheist. I do not think that he said there are no gods, now let's kill the Jews.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 First tell me why Hitler erected a statue to Nietzsche, and not a single one to Christ? But it doesn't matter if Hitler was an atheist or a religious zealot: Killing in the name of Brad Pitt doesn't make Brad Pitt guilty, nor is it an argument that he doesn't exist. The point is, the atheist has no foundation on which to say that Hitler was objectively wrong; after all he evolved those morals based on his life's experience according to you.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 I am an atheist and I am saying that Hitler was WRONG. Killing millions of innocent people is not right, and it doesn't take a belief in a god to know this.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 It doesn't take a belief in God to believe that Hitler was wrong: But it takes the existence of God in order to believe that moral values are objectively true. A mindless, meaningless, and purposeless universe could not produce an objectively true moral code. That means that according to atheist ethics is a matter of opinion or morally relative. If objective moral values exist, then God exist!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@riverotter100 dude you are full of hate.. that thing about Hitler is in fact a lie. there is nothing for you. maybe you should read up on Maximilian Colbe. If I remember correctly the Vatican City, moron, is located within the bounds of the country ruled by none other than Mussolini, the vicious tyrant at the time - might have been difficult for them to pull much off in that volatile time period ya think? idiot
tfc1059 2 months ago
@tfc1059 I am full of hate? Funny coming from someone who cannot tell me that hate is in actuality objectively wrong! And watch the documentary Nietzsche and the Nazi's on see the connection and the influence he had on Hitler. Just what part did I lie about? Funny how you guys never quote, or present any evidence against my claims, nor do you ever answer where morals comes from and how they can be necessarily true in a meaningless and purposeless universe.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 I am talking about the ontological argument, not the epistemology. Not can atheist do good things, but rather or not anything is truly good, or truly bad or evil. Nature nor Science can tell me if what Hitler did was necessarily bad, wrong, evil etc...Lastly, It also was the teachers, professors, and elites that marched in lock step with the Nazi's, whom were greatly influenced by the German atheist philosopher Frederick Nietzsche Look up "Nietzsche and the Nazi's" to learn more
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167you bore me youre just arguing with yourself now
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 It wasn't an argument: For it to have been an argument, at some point you would have had to presented a logical argument in support of your views. Rather you kept dodging, purposely taking my points out of context, then returning to your purely emotional knee jerk reactions. If you wish to talk logic, you should 1st do enough research to know what a logical argument looks like: Watching and repeating sad argument from idiots like Bill Maher doesn't qualify.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 haha i thought it was only atheists that thought they knew everything. i stand corrected
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 Atheist can't think they know anything other than what would better make them survive. There is no reason to believe that a purposeless and meaningless universe could produce logical absolutes. Our brains would evolve to believe a lie if it helped us better survive. I would argue that atheist may think they know everything, but their philosophy says that they cant truly or objectively know anything.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 I do not know any atheists at this time who claim they "know everything" or "they know nothing."
For me, I know only what my life experiences have revealed to me. I do not claim to know "everything", because I don't. My life has "purpose." I lived long enough to reproduce, rear my young, and eventually I will die to make room for the new. The universe, well, it is simply magnificent. I love reading about the secrets we humans have already unlocked.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 1:1 Stephen Hawkins is an anti-realist who believes that in what he calls Model Dependent Reality. Read "The Grand Design" The fact that you think the universe is magnificent or that you've reared young doesn't prove that there is such a thing as objective meaning or purpose in life. That is merely your personal opinion, like Hitlers personal opinion that his life had meaning, or that his actions were beneficial for the human race.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 You are making assumptions or not reading my post through. I know nothing about "The Grand Design." And I know very little about Stephen Hawkins. I am unable to comment on that.
If you read my post, you will notice, I stated "For me" which means it was an opinion. I merely gave you an honest point of view as an atheist. I was not trying to "prove" anything about the "meaning or purpose of life."
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 That is what this discussion is about, whether or not atheist have any foundation for saying that there are some things that are absolutely and objectively wrong?
If not; then your subjective opinions concerning what is right and wrong holds absolutely no authority; therefore there is no bases for which anyone should accept your opinion on matters of ethics. I maintain, that if God does not exist, then objective true or universal moral values do not exist. If so explain?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 First of all, I am not looking for "authority." I live according to what is best for myself, my family, and my community. Nothing more. I do not need a dictator to tell me when some thing is good or bad. I use my brain to figure that out on MY OWN. No gods needed.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 Hitler was psychotic. I am not Hitler. Nor would I ever be. My reasoned logic does not include genocide of any form or manner. Which is one reason I do not support the monotheistic religions. The texts they worship are full of murder, rape, and pillage ordered by an all powerful god. I could even give you a comparison between Hitler's atrocities and the ones ordered by God. Both wanted to create perfection and both failed miserably. Both created murder, rape, and pillage.
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 I can tell you are not a Biblical, Greek, or Hebrew scholar: so I have no reason to accept your amateur and obviously biased exegesis on a subject you know nothing about. Further more: You have no foundation on which to proclaim even if what you say is true, that what they "The Jews" did was objectively wrong. Atheist have no foundation on which to claim that any action is absolutely or objectively wrong.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 You are right, I am not a biblical, greek, or hebrew scholar. So what.
Are you telling me if I said, "Drinking and driving is bad." that you could not agree because I am an atheist?
riverotter100 2 months ago
@riverotter100 Yes, I could agree with your statement: But, without God such a statement is a matter of opinion and not based on any objectively true moral code. again, nature cannot account for producing a universal moral standard: even atheist Richard Dawkins says that any sense of moral goodness is nothing more than a biological adaptation to help us better survive, but are mere illusion nonetheless. Many atheist hold that objective moral values do not truly exist. If they do, how so?
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@riverotter100 W I run into this with a lot of layman atheist such as yourself. But many educated and philosophical atheist readily admit that without a God wherein we were intentionally created with meaning and purpose, there is no true objective moral values. If true binding or objective moral values truly exist, then where do they come from? Without God, they do not truly exist; they are nothing more than a mere illusion and biological adaptation to help you better survive.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 So then the only thing holding you and a serial rape-murderer or a bank thief apart is going to church?
Morals develop through being raised that way. I'm 99% certain if you raised a kid, teaching them "Killing for your own gain is perfectly okay", they would NEVER say "BUT THAT'S WRONG DADDY!!".
Your argument is honestly incredibly scary. You literally just admitted all that's dividing you from a murderer is going to church.
bobmuffins 2 months ago
@bobmuffins No that is not what the argument is: The argument is that atheist cant say that rape is objectively wrong, seeing that they reject that moral values are absolute or concrete. I think it is incredibly scary for you to say that child rape is not advantages for society but that it is a matter of opinion as to if it is absolutely wrong! As a theist I can say that rape is absolutely objectively wrong!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@bobmuffins You are admitting that we are nothing more than the product of a series of cosmic and biological coincidences in a universe without no true intrinsic value, purpose or objective meaning. In reality you are no more special than a mosquito that is the product of the same cosmic lucky roll of the dice. You merely evolved certain traits that seem "just" or "right" as a means to help you better survive, but they are nothing but a delusion with no true objective purpose or meaning.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@bobmuffins If you have a solution to how a purposeless and meaningless universe can produce true meaning and purpose on which you base your ethics; lets here it? If you cant tell me where or how objective morals arose, or how we can determine if your sense of moral values is the right set of moral values; bring it on! But I maintain that you have no grounds on which to say that even rape or the murder of a child is absolutely or objectively wrong; and that is what is scary!
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 That's just the thing.
THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE MORALS.
All morals are 100% subjective.
bobmuffins 2 months ago
@bobmuffins Well I am glad that you admit that as an atheist such things as rape or child molestation, or even killing and eating your infant child is not necessarily or absolutely wrong. The atheist has no grounds on which to defend such things as human rights or even human decency seeing that such values are merely a delusion and a matter of one subjective opinion.
Krydan2167 2 months ago
@Krydan2167 That's correct.
Does it seem absolutely insane to find those acceptable? Yes, because society as a whole has said "Wait, being murdered sucks! Let's make murder not allowed." If no one ever went "Being murdered kinda sucks", you wouldn't even think of suggesting that it's built into humans to think murder is wrong.
bobmuffins 2 months ago