I'm waiting for Craig and his apologist kin to start arguing against the morality of asexual reproduction. "We have to put an end to binary fission, it's just not natural!"
Why is God so against Homosexuality in the old & new testament? Cause it literally threatened human civilization. If 100 years ago every living human being decided to live a purely homosexual lifestyle, would you have a problem with that? No....... Cause you wouldn't be here.
@djvdiddy Um. Do you have any evidence that an entire population can, or ever has, become gay,--I'll pretend to not know that gays could procreate--or did you just manufacture your "homosexual threat to civilization" out of thin air?
My opinion is not the ultimate truth. Neither is yours by the way.
But to my mind, the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occuring abnormality is something so apparant, as to call it "true" in practical terms.
You are right, though. I don't "know" in the strict sense. Technically, I don't know China exists.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But does a person who has a physical deformity really have ground for calling others hateful bigots merely for pointing it out?
Look buddy. I'm not the type to say that you are immoral simply for being homosexual. But homoesexuality is, at least to my mind, a naturally occuring abnormality.
If you don't like that, well, I'm sorry.
But the truth is the truth, pal.
Save your venom for those who truly hate you for what you are.
@29condorito Gay men and women can have children just like anybody else, so your argument doesn't make any sense. Maybe you mean to argue something like, "homosexuality decreases the likeliness of of passing genes on, therefore they are less evolutionarily fit." Of course, in light of recent studies that may not even be true (as homosexuality may increase sibling fecundity). But even if it were true, that argument would extend to ANY person who simply chooses not to have children.
@29condorito Painful? No, I'm just trying to clear up a misunderstanding you have. Unfortunately it seems you've absorbed none of it. For example, you say that the fact gay people have children is "sidestepping the issue." But, in reality, it completely destroys your claim that, "homosexuality is a biological dead end."
@antybu86 If one is truly born homosexual yet chooses to mate with the opposite sex to have children...then they have demonstrated heterosexual traits...not homosexual traits...which would not apply to 29condorito's comment. If one lives as a homosexual then reproduction is not possible...it is a scientific fact. Only a heterosexual act produces offspring. It is a self terminating lifestyle in regard to propagating the human species. Just a biological fact with no emotional bias.
@kenpca I have never had sex with a woman, but my partner and I have children via an egg donor and surrogate. Does this mean I'm heterosexual? I'm confused.
@amstarism No, but the process to reproduce "Children is based in hetreosexual activity. Even in a lab it is the male and female seed/sperm that produces a child. Same sex...unlike the comments in the movie Jurassic Park "life finds a way", in reality same sex unions cannot produce offspring via that biological union. Your body or that of your partner joined with the opposite sex in order to produce children....even though the act of sex was not present due to modern technology.
@kenpca True. So why does homosexuality represent a 'dead end' biologically? It sounds like you've picked a conclusion and tried to justify it, rather than coming to an opinion by honest enquiry. This approach assumes that because homosexual couples cannot 'naturally' have children, therefore they will not have children. This is demonstrably not true. A lesbian who puts a turkey baster in her vagina is no more heterosexual than me, who was even further detached when my children were conceived.
@antybu86 Explain how two men, or women, can have a baby together. By themselves. No surrogates, sperm donors, etc. If you can't then you see why homosexuality is truly a biological dead end. It just doesn't work. They can raise other peoples' children but cannot create any themselves.
@14brad 1. You're putting on arbitrary restrictions on reproduction. Fact is, surrogates, sperm banks, etc. are available, so homosexuality is definitely NOT a biological dead end in our society. 2. If recent research is right, homosexuality increases sibling fecundity. So genes are passed down through nieces/nephews. 3. Whether it is a biological dead end or not, it has NOTHING do with morally right or wrong.
@antybu86 No I'm not, sex is how you make babies. If sperm banks, surrogates, etc. weren't available how can you still say it's not a biological dead end? That's what a biological dead is. The only reason gays can have babies together is from a third party, which is not biologically natural. Seriously, explain how two gays can create a baby without a third party. It's beside the point that it might happen in nature too, because those certain animals die and pass on no offspring.
@antybu86 No I'm not, sex is how you make babies. If sperm banks, surrogates, etc. weren't available how can you still say it's not a biological dead end? That's what a biological dead is. The only reason gays can have babies together is from a third party, which is not biologically natural. Seriously, explain how two gays can create a baby without a third party. It's beside the point that it might happen in nature too, because those certain animals die and pass on no offspring.
@antybu86 No I'm not, sex is how you make babies. If sperm banks, surrogates, etc. weren't available how can you still say it's not a biological dead end? That's what a biological dead is. The only reason gays can have babies together is from a third party, which is not biologically natural. Seriously, explain how two gays can create a baby without a third party. It's beside the point that it might happen in nature too, because those certain animals die and pass on no offspring.
Repeatedly, we've observed that those damned religionists who are most opposed to LGBT sexual expression are themselves later discovered to be gay on the down low. What is it about supernaturalism that so clearly brings out hypocrisy? Could it be that religionists have no regard for verifiable evidence of any kind? If one is not rooted in evidence, hypocrisy seems perfectly acceptable.
Psychological problems are higher in gays because th occurence of being bullied and subjugated is highr also, it correlates between that, not being gay itself but the frequent predjudice as is the case for many minorities. The promiscuity level WLC mentions is only higher in gay men, and its not because theyre gay but because theyre men as men have much higher sex drives and in this insance there are no women to balance it out
The way WLC talks about birth defects I deduce that he thinks inherited traits are defects if they are unfavorable in society.
In our part of the world society is often prejudiced against dark skin and brown eyes. Does that mean that WLC thinks it is OK to make bigoted remarks about these inherited traits as birth defects also? Or was that too politically incorrect even for him?
WLC is a bigoted retard - but I do not know if that trait was a birth defect or if he had to work to acquire it.
But your personal mutations are what matter, not your siblings, not the percent of genes in common, as natural selection is concerned.
Now, that said, I'm strait and don't currently have solid plans to have children. I don't think gene propagation is a key to a good life. I'm just looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint. My brothers having kids doesn't mean much for my own genes, as far as I'm concerned. My family's genes, sure, but not mine personally.
@Ryakki There is no view of evolution which makes mutated genes more important. Since most mutations are completely neutral, it wouldn't matter... and since there are typical more negative mutations than positive mutations, it's generally a better strategy to pass along as few mutations as possible (though some small mutation rate is positive for the future survival of your genes).
Well, not just mutations, but alterations and new combinations. If they're not your genes, they're not your genes.
In this sense, glb's would have an extreme biological evolutionary disadvantage to likely hood of passing on their genes, which is what survival of the fittest is all about.
I don't think you could fairly call homosexuality a defect... but I think you could certainly call it negative adaptation in an evolutionary sense.
@Ryakki Again, there is no view of evolution which makes mutated/altered genes more important. A gene-centric view just means that genes, whether they are mutated or not, strive for replication. This is how we explain sterile worker bees. They don't copy their genes through offspring, they do it by helping their queen to copy them.
There really is no debate here. You should read up on the subject of kin altruism.
I understand kin altruism... I'm just looking at the individual level, while that's species level... that and I doubt being homosexual significantly increases sibling survival or procreation rate in humans.
Of course, evolution's larger function is survival of species, not individual. Especially in a highly social co-dependent animal like us. And a few "sterile" individuals do not threaten survival in any way, of the species... but they are certainly dead ends to genes lines.
We must remember that Dr. Craig's blog over homosexuality is a 'IF THEN' blog. It is not stating that Dr. Craig believes that people are born with homosexuality...
From the video, it seems to follow that Craig's views on the matter are culturally based, not religiously based. He says it's not a sin because it's genetic, but makes the controversial claim that it is a defect, and supports this claim with shaky pseudo-science that is questionable if not refuted. The argument Craig ends up making is from a cultural perspective of the science. Psychology, sociology, and genetic biology are scientific areas outside of his usual philosophical study of science.
@MrKerpelWatson As the title suggests, this video is on the topic of his (idiotic) views of homosexuality. If you're interested in a video about Craig's arguments, just look on my channel - I have plenty.
Dont watch the @shockofgod video he disables comments and blocks any atheists and claims victory every time.He cant even debate and only asks one question which is worded in a way that make him feel like he has won, too bad he doesnt understand the burden of proof and will never explain the meaning of it.
@m1chae15 I didn't get it anywhere. It's my understanding of appeal to emotion, which appeal to spite is a subset of. Appeal to emotions implies that that's all your argument consists of.
LOL depression and mental disorders are higher in homosexuals, wow, i wonder why? might it be the millions of nutters around the world, that hate and despise them, and in some countries proudly execute them... i dunno, that might fuck my head up too.
No, animals are not mute. Heck, even ants can communicate via chemicals. But they do not have language in the human sense.
Human language is a quite specific form of communication. In a language, the order of elements can be arranged into an infinite number of sentences and meanings. Even sound is not necessary for human language. Firstly, there are books. Secondly, deaf and mute people can use sign language which has the same qualities as spoken language.
@antybu86 "Well, how else is everybody supposed to know how much of a hypocrite he is?"
I suppose you're right, any atheist that leaves a comment will recieve a message from him full of nonsense and there will be no way to answer because of the immediate block.
@antybu86 There is someone here called "shockofshite" and they mirror a ton of Shocky's videos so people can respond and rate them. Though they haven't put up anything new for some time.
@saintpine One of the major criticisms against shockofgod and other religious youtubers is that they censor their comments. The freedom to voice an opinion without censorship is necessary for constructive discussions on any subject and while shockofgod may not value the opinions of his opponents users like antybu86 clearly does.
I'm glad someone pointed this out. I always make sure to point out that I'm not gay. Being gay's for queers. Man, I'm always bangin' chicks. They find me hot cuz I'm always workin' out to Richard Simmons videos and building muscle cuz I eat a lot of Polish sausage. I mean A Lot of Polish sausage, but I'm not gay. I'm always bangin' chicks. Being gay's for fags.
@swilson3d I have no idea what you mean by "nature's intended design." Nature is not conscious, so clearly it you can't mean "intended" in any literal way. Please clarify.
@antybu86 That's why I put intended in quotes. What I mean is that it is not intended in the same way that a man born without legs is not natures intended design.
@swilson3d As far as I can tell, you've only just restated your initial claim. Do you mean to say that a homosexual is not as "evolutionarily fit" as heterosexuals? If so, then I see a number of problems with this claim (namely that it's untrue in modern society). Do you mean that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature? If so, then I see a number of problems with that as well (again, namely that it's simply untrue).
Maybe restate your point without referring to "nature's intent."
Well, not to butt in... and certainly not to defend WLC or any religious point of view... being an anti-theist with glb friends... but perhaps what he means is that evolution favors survival of the genes, and homosexuality inhibits procreation? It does seem to be, in large part, an evolutionary dead end, unless you cheat and use artificial insemination or sleep with someone you're not sexually aroused by.
Of course, in modern society, spreading ideas seems more important than genes
@Ryakki There are two issues here. First, it's not an evolutionary dead end if, as recent research suggests, there's a correlation between homosexuality and increased kin fecundity. In other words, their genes are more likely passed on through their siblings.
Second, it doesn't really matter. In our modern society, there are plenty of other ways to pass on you genes making the argument irrelevant. Or doubly irrelevant since evolutionary success has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong."
I consider actions to be morally positive if they reduce suffering, morally negative if they increase it. Would genetically based behavior that strongly decreased the likely hood of procreation be something immoral in my view? No. I agree that "right" and "wrong" do not factor into it, at least in my opinion.
Now, purely on the science side... unless you're identical twins, your siblings genes are close to yours, but not yours. And sex is easier than a lab to make a baby. :P
@Ryakki Actually, you'd share about the same number of genes with your siblings as you do with you offspring. That's why in population genetics the coefficient of relatedness with your offspring is 50% and siblings are 50%. So if we're going by number of shared genes, your relatedness to your offspring is statistically identical to your relatedness of your siblings (or parents).
I think Dawkins talks about this at length in The Selfish Gene. You should check it out, it's a great book.
@swilson3d First, evolution and nature don't intend anything.
Second, homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species, while only one species has ever logged into YouTube under the name of swilson3d. It's quite clear that homosexuals are natural and that swilson3d is the unnatural defect in deep denial.
@onlylettersand0to9 Yes, homosexuality is natural in the way that everything in the universe is natural. Cancer is natural and has been observed in many species too.
@swilson3d actual, being Gay isn't a defect, it will aid positively by kin selection, thus making a certain % homosexuals in a genetic line even evolutionary favorable.
BTW: this study: "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Adams, Henry E.; Wright, Lester W.; Lohr, Bethany A. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 105(3), Aug 1996, 440-445."
Showed that "Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli."
@gilgameshismist It is well documented that some people show sexual arousal when they are nervous or uncomfortable and that effect has been noted in regard to this study. Further I'm not sure I see why you are pointing out this study.
@swilson3d your comment seems to be contradictory... ANYWAYS, there are so many theories about the origins of homosexuality its hard to too come to a firm conclusion :D
@swilson3d Genetic predisposition to homosexuality could be naturally selected for in a number of situations for social species.. possibly as a natural means of population control or maybe a means of maintaining social cohesion and decreasing competition for mates in situations where females are scarce. In either situation populations where a certain percentage was born with a homosexual predisposition may be more likely to thrive. I have no data, but its a reasonable hypothesis.
@antonc81 There was a study released, idk, about a year ago that demonstrates that as a female has more male children, there is a higher chance of each successive male being gay. (e.g., the first male child may have a 5% chance of being gay, which increases to 8% for the second, and so on and so on.) This supports your idea that homosexuality may serve as a means of population control.
@antonc81 So evolution is maybe working to control the population through homosexuality?
Yes, evolution is big on population control.
Look there's nothing morally wrong with being gay, I just don't understand why people are in denial about the fact that nature doesn't "intentionally" make animals that won't procreate.
@swilson3d Evolution is "big" on traits that allow the species to survive, full stop.
If there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality then natural processes (as to which we may speculate) put it there. If the cause isn't genetic, then it must be wholly a product of environment. Until decent data is forthcoming I can only deem both hypotheses possible but unsupported.
What I just don't understand is why people need to reduce a complex field of science to overly simplistic axioms.
@swilson3d Could it be that gay genes confer an advantage to the homosexual's siblings because he could be there to take care of them more than his straight siblings who would be out hunting? It doesn't confer any advantage in today's society, but perhaps such a gene could have been beneficial to the survival of our ancestor's genes.
All that the homosexual gene would have to do to survive was confer a reproductive advantage to 2 or more siblings and it would be beneficial.
@mime454 I don't know of any reason that a person couldn't be both caring and heterosexual. Side effects of homosexuality would need to be so beneficial as to overpower the negative aspects of not reproducing.
It would need to confer an advantage to far more than 2 siblings. There is nothing about being gay that I'm aware of that helps to defend the herd.
Even if we accept that nature has an "intent", your claim is still false. There is a mounting body of evidence showing that rates of homosexual behavior go up as population density does. So it may turn out that homosexuality is actually a form of population control.
The average lifespan of gay people is probably determined only by those individuals who have come out. Older gay people probably stayed in the closet until more recently, so it's really a very difficult statistic to determine with any real accuracy. Obviously he presents a perspective that is self serving and doesn't critically consider possible biases.
@MorganMarvinson think its pretty clear. firstly, WLC has made conclusions about homosexuality based on false evidence...second, WLC is compensating cause he is gay (this being a joke)...not sure how on earth to make that clearer
@IR17171717 It's obfuscation. The narrator acknowledged the truth of WLC's claim. Then goes on to try to minimize its impact. Nothing in the report denies ALL links between homosexuality and depression or morbidity.
@IR17171717 Every practicing homosexual should ask himself whether he expects to live a longer life and to be healthier than the average monogamous heterosexual.
@MorganMarvinson i'm sure many of them do. but i assure you, someone who's happy and gay, and healthy will tend to live longer than a hetrosexual. the stats WLC presented are based on poor evidence. and furthermore, many of them would choose to live half their lives in love rather than spending a whole life trying to condition out what would make them happy.
@IR17171717 Your point (let's see if we can recapitulate it succinctly) is that homosexuals are GLAD to have a shorter life for "love." WLC's point was that they tend to have a shorter life. You don't contradict the point; you just say they are happy to have a shorter life. Fine.
@MorganMarvinson no WLC was using that as a cumulative argument against homosexuality, combined with the argument its against nature and the arguement that it is a neurological defect. the arguer claims that WLC has based his arguement of homosexuals living shorter on the whole on false evidence. that was clear and yet you accused him of obfuscation. which was silly. and i didn't say they were glad to have a shorter life. i said that if given the choice between love and more years,
@MorganMarvinson god i hate it when people say that. i've clearly put forward to consistent point, kept to it and was right. so yeah ok pull out but don't act like i've been anything but sensible and to the point. like you've won something or decided you can't stand any more of my illogic or denial.
@IR17171717 "god I hate it when ..." First of all, you don't have to treat my like deity. Secondly, you have made up your mind and have your point of view. I have no need to press you more on this.
@MorganMarvinson WLC doesn't even identify the supposed factor(s) that somehow cause gay people to die younger. You do realize, that even if every gay person died at the age of 40, it wouldn't be proof that being gay results in a shorter life span. Let's say they all died, by coincidence, of various unrelated causes. Highly unlikely, but not IMPOSSIBLE. Craig, nor yourself, have identified the actual CAUSE of death. Until you do so, the argument has absolutely no weight.
@MorganMarvinson Now be a good boy for me and pay close attention please. The reason i gave your premise to be true is to point out to you EVEN if it is true your and WLC's conclusion is false. I'm surprised you missed that.
@MorganMarvinson Huh? Wtf are you on about? You're responses are just comical, please actually respond with something productive so I can actually have a conversation with you.
@ultimategoobah "so I can actually have a conversation with you" Was that a conversation? I'm sorry I didn't recognize "be a good boy for me" as being a component of a conversation.
My ever-so-brief point is that you say that even if the premise is true, the argument is false. Thus, you demonstrate that you wouldn't recognize it to be true regardless. How do we have a conversation about that?
@MorganMarvinson I'm sorry for that comment but really it was just playful so whatever. I am not saying the argument is false because the premise is apart of that. I am saying the conclusion is false, I provided why and you have yet to respond. Don't run from the actual conversation here.
@ultimategoobah Even if one cannot point to the explicit cause of shortness of life, if shorter lives are directly correlated with homosexuality, it cannot be excluded as a likely cause. Whether it is physiological or psycho-social, it matters not.
Don't blame me for responding as per your request.
@MorganMarvinson Also we do have something to talk about because you support a claim and i do not. Wow there's something to talk about right there. I say a conclusion you support is false, i want to hear your defense because maybe i'm understanding something incorrectly. I am wiling to listen but you just keep bullshitting me. Why would i be wasting my time if i didn't want to hear your thoughts?
@ultimategoobah "Why would i be wasting my time if i didn't want to hear your thoughts?" Oh, I don't know. Maybe because you have a vested interest in feeling secure that it isn't true...
@MorganMarvinson "Oh, I don't know. Maybe because you have a vested interest in feeling secure that it isn't true.."That doesn't explain why i would be bothering with you, i would be bothering with someone who actually agreed with my point if that was the case you fucking nitwit. It does make all the difference to you and craig if it psycho-social or not for what he's implying, he says very specific things nice try back peddling for him. I'm done with this,claim whatever you wish about me,bye
@MorganMarvinson I posted the initial comment. My brother posted the others. I am responding to
"no weight" And yet you premise your remark, assuming the thrust of the argument to be true. Curious indeed.
William lane craig states ECPLICITLY that asking someone to become a homosexual is the same as asking them to main line cocaine. You've been sitting here defending craig's argument, are you going to defend this item as well? This comment perfectly illuminates craigs implications, and pos.
To conclude my argument, homosexuality among consenting adults does not cause harm to anyone provided that they are not forcing anyone else to partake in their behaviour.
The instilling of religious beliefs in a child on the other hand is a form of brainwashing that requires them to accept outlandish claims about the universe and subscribe to a belief system that claims to be "the only way to heaven" with all other belief systems seen as wrong. Thats much more harmful then anything else...
@aristurtle1 "not cause harm to anyone provided that they are not forcing anyone else to partake" People don't have to only partake in things for them to be damagaing. I'm all for one choosing to be what they want to be...I believe in God & fully endorse the capacity by which He gave us...Free Will...& anyone is more than worthy of practicing that measure imparted on us.
I think teaching my child that only seeing the world through the lenses of science is poor upbringing too or that $ mean much.
These are the liabilities of religion: people like Craig going around basically believing that certain people will go to hell (all atheists, muslims, jews etc etc...)
The religious carry with them stone age stereotypes and drag them into the modern age and this is clear when we look at the middle east in terms of the treatment of women and anyone seen as other.
Please dont give me that bullshit that Christianity is all about love bullshit. I would say religion is a terrible form of tribalism.
@aristurtle1 "The religious carry with them stone age stereotypes "
??? nothing stone age or even bronze age about Christianity at all....definately the iron age!!!!
"I would say religion is a terrible form of tribalism." and gay is a terrible form of not understanding how tab A goes into slot B....NOT slot C?
Then you somehow are willing to condemn a man to sticking with his belief system yet are complaining because that belief sytem doesn't support a sexual orientation?
@hexusziggurat For thousands of years people have invented a variety of religions; all very different in their claims yet all claim to be the right one (with all others being false). This separates people into "tribes". It is often believed that those who do not accept Jesus as the saviour are going to hell. This creates a feeling of superiority where "others" can be treated as sub human (slavery, residential schools, crusades etc). What people do in their bedrooms does not affect others.
@aristurtle1 "What people do in their bedrooms does not affect others." I completely agree. I have friends that are gay....but they never hear me parading around saying how hetero i am. If its from the bedroom then KEEP it there.
"This creates a feeling of superiority where "others" can be treated as sub human" "CAN create" is more truthful...otherwise you're generalizing those who you condemn to gerneralize others. People are just as separated into tribes by gender/ethnicity/age etc on & on.
@hexusziggurat Do not downplay the fact that religion has been the single most powerful factor in allowing people to excuse horrible deeds (see previous examples). You walk around believing that me as well as every other non Christian will be judged and probably end up in hell because thats what your holy book tells you. I do not see anything good about indoctrinating a child into believing in outlandish claims about the universe, especially when the idea of eternal punishment is concerned.
@hexusziggurat also why dont you tell your gay "friends" how you thing that they partake in "a terrible form of not understanding how tab a goes into slot b".
Religion in general is worthy of much more ridicule and shame then any other lifestyle choice for the following reasons:
1. It convinces people that others go to hell
2. Slavery, residential schools, holocaust, crussades, colonizaiton of africa all done by the religious
3. Unprovable claims of afterlife, god, no mention of dinosaurs...
@aristurtle1 "I would say religion is a terrible form of tribalism." & gay is a terrible form of not understanding how tab A goes into slot B...NOT slot C?
do you see how i made it a QUESTION!!!!???? it's a simplistic parody of the statement you made equating religion to a "terrible" form tribalism as others would think its "terrible" to partake in homosexual behaviour. As i said AFTERwards what people do, their choice!
your points all preclude commonplace behaviour which isnt Christian!
You're an Atheist. Why do you care about genocide? When a cockroach destroys a colony of ants, do you care? Of course not. When a hamster or a polar bear eats their young, how is this any different than if I decide to eat a 2 year old human?
Besides, the Canaanites were horrible people. They would, for example, practice child sacrifice. If the Atheist wants to defend these people, go ahead, but don't say that Christians have a problem with morality.
"another idiot claiming atheism entail moral nihilism"
It does; in essence, moral nihilism and ethical relativism are the same, as Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out.
"try reading up on contemporary secular ethics"
Done that, and yes, their arguments are quite pathetic. I have yet for a single Atheist to answer me this simple question: Why shouldn't I murder people? (I would never do this, of course, but why is this wrong?)
Sympathy, empathy and a high chance of retaliation. There, simple.
But if you're claiming the only thing holding you back from killing people is your belief, then you will have to explain why people who DON'T share your beliefs generally don't do it either. You will also have to explain all the killings in NAME of your god, many of which are even recorded in the Bible.
"then you will have to explain why people who DON'T share your beliefs generally don't do it either"
No, I don't. Morality is a problem for the Atheist, not the Theist. Note: I'm not saying Atheists are immoral, but that not only is "moral" a meaningless word on your view, but there is no reason for you to be moral.
"You will also have to explain all the killings in NAME of your god"
"Morality is a problem for the Atheist, not the Theist. "
Not at all. Morality evolved, since it made sure societies could survive. Without morality as we know it, we wouldn't be around anymore. It's that simple.
"there is no reason for you to be moral."
Sure there is. Morality is social behavior, and the survival of human beings hinges on the fact that they are social animals.
"Does God approve of these killings?"
Yes. He often even commands them or commits them himself.
Alright, so there is nothing *really* wrong with murdering people, it's just unfashionable? If I do choose to murder people, than my view is no more right or wrong than anyone elses? Please tell me that you don't actually believe that.
"Morality is social behavior, and the survival of human beings hinges on the fact that they are social animals"
Why should I care about the survival of human beings?
"Why should I care about the survival of human beings?"
Because without other human beings your chances of survival are very slim. Human beings aren't very strong, fast equipped with claws or weapons, so they survive by using numbers.
If you starts murdering randomly, chances are you'll be either killed yourself or expelled from the group. In general, evolution in human beings favored empathy for other human beings.
"But then why should I care about the overall good of human society?"
Because it heightens your own chances of survival as well. And with that heightened chance, you are more likely to pass your genes on to your offspring, who in turn have a higher chance of surviving. Societies work VERY well for our species, which is the reason they are still around, and which is the reason our behavior evolved to form them.
"And so if I can avoid the social consequences of doing immoral (whatever that means) things, which indeed I can and people have"
The mere fact that there are people who do things we deem immoral, is in itself a good case against objective morality. Since if objective morality existed, ww wouldn't be able to help to be bound by it.
"The mere fact that there are people who do things we deem immoral..."
Um, no. Your conclusion does not follow. Just because we do something does not mean we think that it is right. If we act immoral, that doesn't mean we approve of the way we behave. It could mean that we just don't think that we are going to get caught.
"t could mean that we just don't think that we are going to get caught."
If people would act immorally every time they they can't be caught, society as we know it would crumble. But actually, like everything else in our bodies, morality is driven by chemicals. The mere thought of doing an immoral act makes your brain release those chemicals and makes you feel anxious about them.
...we all do wrong. Are suggesting that we are all sicopaths?
"If people would act immorally every time they they can't be caught, society as we know it would crumble"
That's my point: this would happen, but clearly we don't see this happening. We feel reluctant to do wrong, even when we know we won't be punished for it.
"morality is driven by chemicals"
So if I murder someone, I can blame it on a brain malfunction?
I'm waiting for Craig and his apologist kin to start arguing against the morality of asexual reproduction. "We have to put an end to binary fission, it's just not natural!"
SammyHales 2 days ago
Why is God so against Homosexuality in the old & new testament? Cause it literally threatened human civilization. If 100 years ago every living human being decided to live a purely homosexual lifestyle, would you have a problem with that? No....... Cause you wouldn't be here.
djvdiddy 3 days ago
@djvdiddy Um. Do you have any evidence that an entire population can, or ever has, become gay,--I'll pretend to not know that gays could procreate--or did you just manufacture your "homosexual threat to civilization" out of thin air?
SammyHales 2 days ago
Just looked him up on Wikki - no mention of wife or kids - therefore he is not gay.
1212JackJohnson 3 weeks ago
@minou356
Get help, would you?
You sound like you are one step away from a lunatic asylum.
I'm tired of dealing with you.
Go hate the world somewhere else.
see ya.
29condorito 3 weeks ago
@minou356
My opinion is not the ultimate truth. Neither is yours by the way.
But to my mind, the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occuring abnormality is something so apparant, as to call it "true" in practical terms.
You are right, though. I don't "know" in the strict sense. Technically, I don't know China exists.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But does a person who has a physical deformity really have ground for calling others hateful bigots merely for pointing it out?
29condorito 3 weeks ago
@29condorito
Does a cripple have a right to get angry at others for mentioning that he is cripple?
You emotion is better served (in my opinion) at being angry at those who call you a sinner merely for being cripple.
29condorito 3 weeks ago
@minou356
Look buddy. I'm not the type to say that you are immoral simply for being homosexual. But homoesexuality is, at least to my mind, a naturally occuring abnormality.
If you don't like that, well, I'm sorry.
But the truth is the truth, pal.
Save your venom for those who truly hate you for what you are.
29condorito 3 weeks ago
In general, I agree with Craig.
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring abnormality, akin to albinism, etc.
This may be painful for homosexuals to hear, but its just the truth.
Species have to breed. Homosexuality is a biological dead end.
There is no way on earth, you can call THAT functional.
Gays may not be sinners for being gays, but there IS something wrong with them.
29condorito 1 month ago
@29condorito Gay men and women can have children just like anybody else, so your argument doesn't make any sense. Maybe you mean to argue something like, "homosexuality decreases the likeliness of of passing genes on, therefore they are less evolutionarily fit." Of course, in light of recent studies that may not even be true (as homosexuality may increase sibling fecundity). But even if it were true, that argument would extend to ANY person who simply chooses not to have children.
antybu86 1 month ago 2
@antybu86
I can see why this might be painful for you, but reality is reality buddy.
Citing gays who have kids, or people who choose to not have children is sidestepping the issue.
You are entitled to your opinion, though.
29condorito 1 month ago
@29condorito Painful? No, I'm just trying to clear up a misunderstanding you have. Unfortunately it seems you've absorbed none of it. For example, you say that the fact gay people have children is "sidestepping the issue." But, in reality, it completely destroys your claim that, "homosexuality is a biological dead end."
antybu86 1 month ago
@antybu86 If one is truly born homosexual yet chooses to mate with the opposite sex to have children...then they have demonstrated heterosexual traits...not homosexual traits...which would not apply to 29condorito's comment. If one lives as a homosexual then reproduction is not possible...it is a scientific fact. Only a heterosexual act produces offspring. It is a self terminating lifestyle in regard to propagating the human species. Just a biological fact with no emotional bias.
kenpca 3 weeks ago
@kenpca I have never had sex with a woman, but my partner and I have children via an egg donor and surrogate. Does this mean I'm heterosexual? I'm confused.
amstarism 3 weeks ago
@amstarism No, but the process to reproduce "Children is based in hetreosexual activity. Even in a lab it is the male and female seed/sperm that produces a child. Same sex...unlike the comments in the movie Jurassic Park "life finds a way", in reality same sex unions cannot produce offspring via that biological union. Your body or that of your partner joined with the opposite sex in order to produce children....even though the act of sex was not present due to modern technology.
kenpca 3 weeks ago
@kenpca True. So why does homosexuality represent a 'dead end' biologically? It sounds like you've picked a conclusion and tried to justify it, rather than coming to an opinion by honest enquiry. This approach assumes that because homosexual couples cannot 'naturally' have children, therefore they will not have children. This is demonstrably not true. A lesbian who puts a turkey baster in her vagina is no more heterosexual than me, who was even further detached when my children were conceived.
amstarism 3 weeks ago
@amstarism ewwwww!
stickygumshoes 3 weeks ago
@antybu86 Explain how two men, or women, can have a baby together. By themselves. No surrogates, sperm donors, etc. If you can't then you see why homosexuality is truly a biological dead end. It just doesn't work. They can raise other peoples' children but cannot create any themselves.
14brad 3 days ago
@14brad 1. You're putting on arbitrary restrictions on reproduction. Fact is, surrogates, sperm banks, etc. are available, so homosexuality is definitely NOT a biological dead end in our society. 2. If recent research is right, homosexuality increases sibling fecundity. So genes are passed down through nieces/nephews. 3. Whether it is a biological dead end or not, it has NOTHING do with morally right or wrong.
antybu86 2 days ago
@antybu86 No I'm not, sex is how you make babies. If sperm banks, surrogates, etc. weren't available how can you still say it's not a biological dead end? That's what a biological dead is. The only reason gays can have babies together is from a third party, which is not biologically natural. Seriously, explain how two gays can create a baby without a third party. It's beside the point that it might happen in nature too, because those certain animals die and pass on no offspring.
14brad 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antybu86 No I'm not, sex is how you make babies. If sperm banks, surrogates, etc. weren't available how can you still say it's not a biological dead end? That's what a biological dead is. The only reason gays can have babies together is from a third party, which is not biologically natural. Seriously, explain how two gays can create a baby without a third party. It's beside the point that it might happen in nature too, because those certain animals die and pass on no offspring.
14brad 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antybu86 No I'm not, sex is how you make babies. If sperm banks, surrogates, etc. weren't available how can you still say it's not a biological dead end? That's what a biological dead is. The only reason gays can have babies together is from a third party, which is not biologically natural. Seriously, explain how two gays can create a baby without a third party. It's beside the point that it might happen in nature too, because those certain animals die and pass on no offspring.
14brad 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hands up everybody if you think Dr Craig has this particular "birth defect"
emailpobox666 1 month ago
Point well made, sir.
auritone 1 month ago
Repeatedly, we've observed that those damned religionists who are most opposed to LGBT sexual expression are themselves later discovered to be gay on the down low. What is it about supernaturalism that so clearly brings out hypocrisy? Could it be that religionists have no regard for verifiable evidence of any kind? If one is not rooted in evidence, hypocrisy seems perfectly acceptable.
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
his brain is defective
20jandrews 2 months ago
I'd like to talk to women (or men) this ass wipe has fucked and see how mentally screwed up they are.
yogurtking 2 months ago
I just listened to that podcast and vomited all over my keyboard.
yogurtking 2 months ago
What a silly video.
lexidart 2 months ago
Psychological problems are higher in gays because th occurence of being bullied and subjugated is highr also, it correlates between that, not being gay itself but the frequent predjudice as is the case for many minorities. The promiscuity level WLC mentions is only higher in gay men, and its not because theyre gay but because theyre men as men have much higher sex drives and in this insance there are no women to balance it out
moroney1 2 months ago
The majority of comments on this video are ridiculous...
106141214 2 months ago
@106141214 welcome to the atheist biased youtube dude
DeJay17Revolution 1 month ago
I wouldn't say he was gay. That would be an insult to the gay community.
HonestMan395 3 months ago
The way WLC talks about birth defects I deduce that he thinks inherited traits are defects if they are unfavorable in society.
In our part of the world society is often prejudiced against dark skin and brown eyes. Does that mean that WLC thinks it is OK to make bigoted remarks about these inherited traits as birth defects also? Or was that too politically incorrect even for him?
WLC is a bigoted retard - but I do not know if that trait was a birth defect or if he had to work to acquire it.
itsjustameme 3 months ago
But your personal mutations are what matter, not your siblings, not the percent of genes in common, as natural selection is concerned.
Now, that said, I'm strait and don't currently have solid plans to have children. I don't think gene propagation is a key to a good life. I'm just looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint. My brothers having kids doesn't mean much for my own genes, as far as I'm concerned. My family's genes, sure, but not mine personally.
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki There is no view of evolution which makes mutated genes more important. Since most mutations are completely neutral, it wouldn't matter... and since there are typical more negative mutations than positive mutations, it's generally a better strategy to pass along as few mutations as possible (though some small mutation rate is positive for the future survival of your genes).
antybu86 3 months ago
@antybu86
Well, not just mutations, but alterations and new combinations. If they're not your genes, they're not your genes.
In this sense, glb's would have an extreme biological evolutionary disadvantage to likely hood of passing on their genes, which is what survival of the fittest is all about.
I don't think you could fairly call homosexuality a defect... but I think you could certainly call it negative adaptation in an evolutionary sense.
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki Again, there is no view of evolution which makes mutated/altered genes more important. A gene-centric view just means that genes, whether they are mutated or not, strive for replication. This is how we explain sterile worker bees. They don't copy their genes through offspring, they do it by helping their queen to copy them.
There really is no debate here. You should read up on the subject of kin altruism.
antybu86 3 months ago
@Ryakki
I understand kin altruism... I'm just looking at the individual level, while that's species level... that and I doubt being homosexual significantly increases sibling survival or procreation rate in humans.
Of course, evolution's larger function is survival of species, not individual. Especially in a highly social co-dependent animal like us. And a few "sterile" individuals do not threaten survival in any way, of the species... but they are certainly dead ends to genes lines.
Ryakki 3 months ago
We must remember that Dr. Craig's blog over homosexuality is a 'IF THEN' blog. It is not stating that Dr. Craig believes that people are born with homosexuality...
jdogmillionairelab 2 months ago
Homosexuality is likely a form of demonic possession.
GraceVideoTreasures 3 months ago
To the person who made this video, everyone lives their own universe.
EndOfNumbers 3 months ago
From the video, it seems to follow that Craig's views on the matter are culturally based, not religiously based. He says it's not a sin because it's genetic, but makes the controversial claim that it is a defect, and supports this claim with shaky pseudo-science that is questionable if not refuted. The argument Craig ends up making is from a cultural perspective of the science. Psychology, sociology, and genetic biology are scientific areas outside of his usual philosophical study of science.
Satarack 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrKerpelWatson 3 months ago
@MrKerpelWatson As the title suggests, this video is on the topic of his (idiotic) views of homosexuality. If you're interested in a video about Craig's arguments, just look on my channel - I have plenty.
antybu86 3 months ago
@MrKerpelWatson What's weak is straw maning someone as if one video focused on one podcast is an attempt to refute his entire philosophy.
BlackWolf4830 3 months ago
Who cares? He is a crap.
josefino08 3 months ago
Dont watch the @shockofgod video he disables comments and blocks any atheists and claims victory every time.He cant even debate and only asks one question which is worded in a way that make him feel like he has won, too bad he doesnt understand the burden of proof and will never explain the meaning of it.
pandorachild 3 months ago
Yeah I stopped watching when you started the video with an Appeal to Spite fallacy.
Kurosawaisgod 3 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig Is Not A Playlist
@Kurosawaisgod Appeal to spite implies that the person is attempting to refute arguments through spite alone.
BlackWolf4830 3 months ago
@BlackWolf4830 Where did you get that, SPECIFICALLY?
m1chae15 3 months ago
@m1chae15 I didn't get it anywhere. It's my understanding of appeal to emotion, which appeal to spite is a subset of. Appeal to emotions implies that that's all your argument consists of.
BlackWolf4830 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlackWolf4830 "Appeal to spite implies that the person is attempting to refute arguments through spite ALONE." (emphasis mine)
That, the "...alone..." bit.
m1chae15 3 months ago
Comment removed
Kurosawaisgod 3 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig Is Not A Playlist
This has been flagged as spam show
amazing smut like u never ceases to amaze me, your reported. Congratulations!
kel123abc 4 months ago
Comment removed
kel123abc 4 months ago
Oh, I'd wager he's gay.
redtailfarm 4 months ago
So are homosexuals depressed and disordered because they are gay? or because society abuses them consistently because they are gay?
mordinvan 4 months ago
I think we should get a pool going on how long it is before he pulls a Ted Haggard.
htomerif 4 months ago
LOL depression and mental disorders are higher in homosexuals, wow, i wonder why? might it be the millions of nutters around the world, that hate and despise them, and in some countries proudly execute them... i dunno, that might fuck my head up too.
TheAtheistFuture 4 months ago
ughhh craig disgusts me, and it's even more annoying how christians think he's somehow brilliant. I don't see ANYTHING brilliant about this man
wHisperis001 4 months ago
450 animal species have been found showing homosexual behavior. Only one has been found showing homophobia
Alice89chan 4 months ago
@Alice89chan
The difference is humans have the ability to reason. We are also the only animal species to have language and to have invented computers.
pupsenok 4 months ago
@pupsenok The only one to have language... so the animals are mute
Alice89chan 4 months ago
@Alice89chan
No, animals are not mute. Heck, even ants can communicate via chemicals. But they do not have language in the human sense.
Human language is a quite specific form of communication. In a language, the order of elements can be arranged into an infinite number of sentences and meanings. Even sound is not necessary for human language. Firstly, there are books. Secondly, deaf and mute people can use sign language which has the same qualities as spoken language.
pupsenok 4 months ago
Dr. Craig's views on this subject are truly disgusting. He does look like David Lee Roth, however.
PlutoPowered 4 months ago 4
S.978 take a look and pass it on !!!
parsonman05 4 months ago
Lyfestile? WTF?!
mistacramer 4 months ago
Please don't allow shockofgod videos linked on your page, he doesn't allow atheists even to leave a simple comment on his videos.
saintpine 4 months ago 11
@saintpine Well, how else is everybody supposed to know how much of a hypocrite he is?
antybu86 4 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@antybu86 "Well, how else is everybody supposed to know how much of a hypocrite he is?"
I suppose you're right, any atheist that leaves a comment will recieve a message from him full of nonsense and there will be no way to answer because of the immediate block.
saintpine 4 months ago
@antybu86 There is someone here called "shockofshite" and they mirror a ton of Shocky's videos so people can respond and rate them. Though they haven't put up anything new for some time.
AmosTheTalented 4 months ago
@saintpine One of the major criticisms against shockofgod and other religious youtubers is that they censor their comments. The freedom to voice an opinion without censorship is necessary for constructive discussions on any subject and while shockofgod may not value the opinions of his opponents users like antybu86 clearly does.
MaestroAlvis 3 months ago
I'm glad someone pointed this out. I always make sure to point out that I'm not gay. Being gay's for queers. Man, I'm always bangin' chicks. They find me hot cuz I'm always workin' out to Richard Simmons videos and building muscle cuz I eat a lot of Polish sausage. I mean A Lot of Polish sausage, but I'm not gay. I'm always bangin' chicks. Being gay's for fags.
MultiPaulinator 4 months ago
I have always had a feeling that Dr Craig may have served a few chicken dinners out of his pants.
ThieleM 4 months ago
There is clearly a way that evolution "intended" and like it or not, gay is a defect. It doesn't fit into natures intended scheme.
It's not a sin, but I think some people are in denial about whether this is natures intended design.
swilson3d 4 months ago
@swilson3d I have no idea what you mean by "nature's intended design." Nature is not conscious, so clearly it you can't mean "intended" in any literal way. Please clarify.
antybu86 4 months ago 6
@antybu86 That's why I put intended in quotes. What I mean is that it is not intended in the same way that a man born without legs is not natures intended design.
swilson3d 4 months ago
@swilson3d As far as I can tell, you've only just restated your initial claim. Do you mean to say that a homosexual is not as "evolutionarily fit" as heterosexuals? If so, then I see a number of problems with this claim (namely that it's untrue in modern society). Do you mean that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature? If so, then I see a number of problems with that as well (again, namely that it's simply untrue).
Maybe restate your point without referring to "nature's intent."
antybu86 4 months ago 2
@antybu86
Well, not to butt in... and certainly not to defend WLC or any religious point of view... being an anti-theist with glb friends... but perhaps what he means is that evolution favors survival of the genes, and homosexuality inhibits procreation? It does seem to be, in large part, an evolutionary dead end, unless you cheat and use artificial insemination or sleep with someone you're not sexually aroused by.
Of course, in modern society, spreading ideas seems more important than genes
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki There are two issues here. First, it's not an evolutionary dead end if, as recent research suggests, there's a correlation between homosexuality and increased kin fecundity. In other words, their genes are more likely passed on through their siblings.
Second, it doesn't really matter. In our modern society, there are plenty of other ways to pass on you genes making the argument irrelevant. Or doubly irrelevant since evolutionary success has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong."
antybu86 3 months ago
@antybu86
I consider actions to be morally positive if they reduce suffering, morally negative if they increase it. Would genetically based behavior that strongly decreased the likely hood of procreation be something immoral in my view? No. I agree that "right" and "wrong" do not factor into it, at least in my opinion.
Now, purely on the science side... unless you're identical twins, your siblings genes are close to yours, but not yours. And sex is easier than a lab to make a baby. :P
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki Actually, you'd share about the same number of genes with your siblings as you do with you offspring. That's why in population genetics the coefficient of relatedness with your offspring is 50% and siblings are 50%. So if we're going by number of shared genes, your relatedness to your offspring is statistically identical to your relatedness of your siblings (or parents).
I think Dawkins talks about this at length in The Selfish Gene. You should check it out, it's a great book.
antybu86 3 months ago
@swilson3d First, evolution and nature don't intend anything.
Second, homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species, while only one species has ever logged into YouTube under the name of swilson3d. It's quite clear that homosexuals are natural and that swilson3d is the unnatural defect in deep denial.
onlylettersand0to9 4 months ago
@onlylettersand0to9 Yes, homosexuality is natural in the way that everything in the universe is natural. Cancer is natural and has been observed in many species too.
swilson3d 4 months ago
@swilson3d actual, being Gay isn't a defect, it will aid positively by kin selection, thus making a certain % homosexuals in a genetic line even evolutionary favorable.
BTW: this study: "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Adams, Henry E.; Wright, Lester W.; Lohr, Bethany A. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 105(3), Aug 1996, 440-445."
Showed that "Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli."
Full article on psychologytoday dt com
gilgameshismist 4 months ago 2
@gilgameshismist classic :)
scottpastry 4 months ago
@gilgameshismist It is well documented that some people show sexual arousal when they are nervous or uncomfortable and that effect has been noted in regard to this study. Further I'm not sure I see why you are pointing out this study.
swilson3d 4 months ago
@swilson3d your comment seems to be contradictory... ANYWAYS, there are so many theories about the origins of homosexuality its hard to too come to a firm conclusion :D
TheZenGato 4 months ago
@swilson3d Genetic predisposition to homosexuality could be naturally selected for in a number of situations for social species.. possibly as a natural means of population control or maybe a means of maintaining social cohesion and decreasing competition for mates in situations where females are scarce. In either situation populations where a certain percentage was born with a homosexual predisposition may be more likely to thrive. I have no data, but its a reasonable hypothesis.
antonc81 4 months ago
@antonc81 There was a study released, idk, about a year ago that demonstrates that as a female has more male children, there is a higher chance of each successive male being gay. (e.g., the first male child may have a 5% chance of being gay, which increases to 8% for the second, and so on and so on.) This supports your idea that homosexuality may serve as a means of population control.
starryeyedrealist 4 months ago
@antonc81 So evolution is maybe working to control the population through homosexuality?
Yes, evolution is big on population control.
Look there's nothing morally wrong with being gay, I just don't understand why people are in denial about the fact that nature doesn't "intentionally" make animals that won't procreate.
swilson3d 4 months ago
@swilson3d Evolution is "big" on traits that allow the species to survive, full stop.
If there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality then natural processes (as to which we may speculate) put it there. If the cause isn't genetic, then it must be wholly a product of environment. Until decent data is forthcoming I can only deem both hypotheses possible but unsupported.
What I just don't understand is why people need to reduce a complex field of science to overly simplistic axioms.
antonc81 4 months ago
@swilson3d Could it be that gay genes confer an advantage to the homosexual's siblings because he could be there to take care of them more than his straight siblings who would be out hunting? It doesn't confer any advantage in today's society, but perhaps such a gene could have been beneficial to the survival of our ancestor's genes.
All that the homosexual gene would have to do to survive was confer a reproductive advantage to 2 or more siblings and it would be beneficial.
mime454 4 months ago
@mime454 I don't know of any reason that a person couldn't be both caring and heterosexual. Side effects of homosexuality would need to be so beneficial as to overpower the negative aspects of not reproducing.
It would need to confer an advantage to far more than 2 siblings. There is nothing about being gay that I'm aware of that helps to defend the herd.
At least you're engaging in constructive dialog.
swilson3d 4 months ago
@swilson3d
Even if we accept that nature has an "intent", your claim is still false. There is a mounting body of evidence showing that rates of homosexual behavior go up as population density does. So it may turn out that homosexuality is actually a form of population control.
mtheory85 4 months ago
Oh great, now I want to listen to the village people, my future recommendations are on you conscience.
For future reference, how do I 'embark' on a homosexual lifestyle? Sounds involved.
Craydon 4 months ago
The average lifespan of gay people is probably determined only by those individuals who have come out. Older gay people probably stayed in the closet until more recently, so it's really a very difficult statistic to determine with any real accuracy. Obviously he presents a perspective that is self serving and doesn't critically consider possible biases.
MrSamuelSpade 4 months ago
Is Craig Gay? No idea. Don't care.
Is this yet more evidence (as if any were needed after the on-going Hawking - Penrose episode) that he's a shameless quote-miner and fraud? Yes.
gefan3 4 months ago
i love the pic of the two girls
judicum 4 months ago
William Lane Craig is such an idiot...
Task5003 4 months ago 13
@Task5003 no
Kep0v 2 months ago
WLC is a homosexual. How do I know? I'm looking at him.
fdasherv 4 months ago
And was there an actual point to this video besides obfuscation?
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson think its pretty clear. firstly, WLC has made conclusions about homosexuality based on false evidence...second, WLC is compensating cause he is gay (this being a joke)...not sure how on earth to make that clearer
IR17171717 4 months ago
@IR17171717 It's obfuscation. The narrator acknowledged the truth of WLC's claim. Then goes on to try to minimize its impact. Nothing in the report denies ALL links between homosexuality and depression or morbidity.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson it denies that WLC's sources on making the positive assertion that it does, to the extent he says it does, are plausible.
IR17171717 4 months ago
@IR17171717 Every practicing homosexual should ask himself whether he expects to live a longer life and to be healthier than the average monogamous heterosexual.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson i'm sure many of them do. but i assure you, someone who's happy and gay, and healthy will tend to live longer than a hetrosexual. the stats WLC presented are based on poor evidence. and furthermore, many of them would choose to live half their lives in love rather than spending a whole life trying to condition out what would make them happy.
IR17171717 4 months ago
@IR17171717 "... many of them would choose to live half their lives ..." With that comment, you gave the argument away.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson see i actually did not. would Romeo of traded a longer life for Juliet?
IR17171717 4 months ago
@IR17171717 Your point (let's see if we can recapitulate it succinctly) is that homosexuals are GLAD to have a shorter life for "love." WLC's point was that they tend to have a shorter life. You don't contradict the point; you just say they are happy to have a shorter life. Fine.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson no WLC was using that as a cumulative argument against homosexuality, combined with the argument its against nature and the arguement that it is a neurological defect. the arguer claims that WLC has based his arguement of homosexuals living shorter on the whole on false evidence. that was clear and yet you accused him of obfuscation. which was silly. and i didn't say they were glad to have a shorter life. i said that if given the choice between love and more years,
IR17171717 4 months ago
@IR17171717 I have no need to press you more on this.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson god i hate it when people say that. i've clearly put forward to consistent point, kept to it and was right. so yeah ok pull out but don't act like i've been anything but sensible and to the point. like you've won something or decided you can't stand any more of my illogic or denial.
IR17171717 4 months ago
@IR17171717 "god I hate it when ..." First of all, you don't have to treat my like deity. Secondly, you have made up your mind and have your point of view. I have no need to press you more on this.
I hope your life is long and happy.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson WLC doesn't even identify the supposed factor(s) that somehow cause gay people to die younger. You do realize, that even if every gay person died at the age of 40, it wouldn't be proof that being gay results in a shorter life span. Let's say they all died, by coincidence, of various unrelated causes. Highly unlikely, but not IMPOSSIBLE. Craig, nor yourself, have identified the actual CAUSE of death. Until you do so, the argument has absolutely no weight.
ultimategoobah 4 months ago
@ultimategoobah "no weight" And yet you premise your remark, assuming the thrust of the argument to be true. Curious indeed.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Now be a good boy for me and pay close attention please. The reason i gave your premise to be true is to point out to you EVEN if it is true your and WLC's conclusion is false. I'm surprised you missed that.
ultimategoobah 4 months ago
@ultimategoobah Can't be true even if the premise is true. Hmm.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Huh? Wtf are you on about? You're responses are just comical, please actually respond with something productive so I can actually have a conversation with you.
ultimategoobah 4 months ago
@ultimategoobah "so I can actually have a conversation with you" Was that a conversation? I'm sorry I didn't recognize "be a good boy for me" as being a component of a conversation.
My ever-so-brief point is that you say that even if the premise is true, the argument is false. Thus, you demonstrate that you wouldn't recognize it to be true regardless. How do we have a conversation about that?
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I'm sorry for that comment but really it was just playful so whatever. I am not saying the argument is false because the premise is apart of that. I am saying the conclusion is false, I provided why and you have yet to respond. Don't run from the actual conversation here.
ultimategoobah 4 months ago
@ultimategoobah Even if one cannot point to the explicit cause of shortness of life, if shorter lives are directly correlated with homosexuality, it cannot be excluded as a likely cause. Whether it is physiological or psycho-social, it matters not.
Don't blame me for responding as per your request.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Also we do have something to talk about because you support a claim and i do not. Wow there's something to talk about right there. I say a conclusion you support is false, i want to hear your defense because maybe i'm understanding something incorrectly. I am wiling to listen but you just keep bullshitting me. Why would i be wasting my time if i didn't want to hear your thoughts?
ultimategoobah 4 months ago
@ultimategoobah "Why would i be wasting my time if i didn't want to hear your thoughts?" Oh, I don't know. Maybe because you have a vested interest in feeling secure that it isn't true...
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Oh, I don't know. Maybe because you have a vested interest in feeling secure that it isn't true.."That doesn't explain why i would be bothering with you, i would be bothering with someone who actually agreed with my point if that was the case you fucking nitwit. It does make all the difference to you and craig if it psycho-social or not for what he's implying, he says very specific things nice try back peddling for him. I'm done with this,claim whatever you wish about me,bye
ultimategoobah 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I posted the initial comment. My brother posted the others. I am responding to
"no weight" And yet you premise your remark, assuming the thrust of the argument to be true. Curious indeed.
William lane craig states ECPLICITLY that asking someone to become a homosexual is the same as asking them to main line cocaine. You've been sitting here defending craig's argument, are you going to defend this item as well? This comment perfectly illuminates craigs implications, and pos.
ultimategoobah 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson many would choose love. don't twist what i'm saying, i've been very consistent
IR17171717 4 months ago
i meant a hetrosexual that is not happy or healthy btw.
IR17171717 4 months ago
To conclude my argument, homosexuality among consenting adults does not cause harm to anyone provided that they are not forcing anyone else to partake in their behaviour.
The instilling of religious beliefs in a child on the other hand is a form of brainwashing that requires them to accept outlandish claims about the universe and subscribe to a belief system that claims to be "the only way to heaven" with all other belief systems seen as wrong. Thats much more harmful then anything else...
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 "not cause harm to anyone provided that they are not forcing anyone else to partake" People don't have to only partake in things for them to be damagaing. I'm all for one choosing to be what they want to be...I believe in God & fully endorse the capacity by which He gave us...Free Will...& anyone is more than worthy of practicing that measure imparted on us.
I think teaching my child that only seeing the world through the lenses of science is poor upbringing too or that $ mean much.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
Not? I think I'll have to disagree.
kizzaht 5 months ago
seriously, what a dummass
hexum7 5 months ago
Yes he is
hexum7 5 months ago
how is it physically destructive? lol
CheekyVimto08 5 months ago
Comment removed
cupwithhandles 5 months ago
These are the liabilities of religion: people like Craig going around basically believing that certain people will go to hell (all atheists, muslims, jews etc etc...)
The religious carry with them stone age stereotypes and drag them into the modern age and this is clear when we look at the middle east in terms of the treatment of women and anyone seen as other.
Please dont give me that bullshit that Christianity is all about love bullshit. I would say religion is a terrible form of tribalism.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aristurtle1
"Please dont give me that bullshit that Christianity is all about love bullshit"
Well, it is. As sinners, we seldom act the way we should. For more information, read the Bible.
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 "The religious carry with them stone age stereotypes "
??? nothing stone age or even bronze age about Christianity at all....definately the iron age!!!!
"I would say religion is a terrible form of tribalism." and gay is a terrible form of not understanding how tab A goes into slot B....NOT slot C?
Then you somehow are willing to condemn a man to sticking with his belief system yet are complaining because that belief sytem doesn't support a sexual orientation?
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat For thousands of years people have invented a variety of religions; all very different in their claims yet all claim to be the right one (with all others being false). This separates people into "tribes". It is often believed that those who do not accept Jesus as the saviour are going to hell. This creates a feeling of superiority where "others" can be treated as sub human (slavery, residential schools, crusades etc). What people do in their bedrooms does not affect others.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 "What people do in their bedrooms does not affect others." I completely agree. I have friends that are gay....but they never hear me parading around saying how hetero i am. If its from the bedroom then KEEP it there.
"This creates a feeling of superiority where "others" can be treated as sub human" "CAN create" is more truthful...otherwise you're generalizing those who you condemn to gerneralize others. People are just as separated into tribes by gender/ethnicity/age etc on & on.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat Do not downplay the fact that religion has been the single most powerful factor in allowing people to excuse horrible deeds (see previous examples). You walk around believing that me as well as every other non Christian will be judged and probably end up in hell because thats what your holy book tells you. I do not see anything good about indoctrinating a child into believing in outlandish claims about the universe, especially when the idea of eternal punishment is concerned.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat also why dont you tell your gay "friends" how you thing that they partake in "a terrible form of not understanding how tab a goes into slot b".
Religion in general is worthy of much more ridicule and shame then any other lifestyle choice for the following reasons:
1. It convinces people that others go to hell
2. Slavery, residential schools, holocaust, crussades, colonizaiton of africa all done by the religious
3. Unprovable claims of afterlife, god, no mention of dinosaurs...
aristurtle1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aristurtle1 "I would say religion is a terrible form of tribalism." & gay is a terrible form of not understanding how tab A goes into slot B...NOT slot C?
do you see how i made it a QUESTION!!!!???? it's a simplistic parody of the statement you made equating religion to a "terrible" form tribalism as others would think its "terrible" to partake in homosexual behaviour. As i said AFTERwards what people do, their choice!
your points all preclude commonplace behaviour which isnt Christian!
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
I suppose the Village People always could have used another member. :)
SciBishop 5 months ago
Besides, look at the actual text: God does not command the mass-murder of the Canaanites. He simply commands to drive them out of the land.
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
0:20
You're an Atheist. Why do you care about genocide? When a cockroach destroys a colony of ants, do you care? Of course not. When a hamster or a polar bear eats their young, how is this any different than if I decide to eat a 2 year old human?
Besides, the Canaanites were horrible people. They would, for example, practice child sacrifice. If the Atheist wants to defend these people, go ahead, but don't say that Christians have a problem with morality.
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON LOL. another idiot claiming atheism entail moral nihilism. try reading up on contemporary secular ethics.
christian total fail.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Drgamedood
"another idiot claiming atheism entail moral nihilism"
It does; in essence, moral nihilism and ethical relativism are the same, as Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out.
"try reading up on contemporary secular ethics"
Done that, and yes, their arguments are quite pathetic. I have yet for a single Atheist to answer me this simple question: Why shouldn't I murder people? (I would never do this, of course, but why is this wrong?)
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
"Why shouldn't I murder people?"
Sympathy, empathy and a high chance of retaliation. There, simple.
But if you're claiming the only thing holding you back from killing people is your belief, then you will have to explain why people who DON'T share your beliefs generally don't do it either. You will also have to explain all the killings in NAME of your god, many of which are even recorded in the Bible.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"then you will have to explain why people who DON'T share your beliefs generally don't do it either"
No, I don't. Morality is a problem for the Atheist, not the Theist. Note: I'm not saying Atheists are immoral, but that not only is "moral" a meaningless word on your view, but there is no reason for you to be moral.
"You will also have to explain all the killings in NAME of your god"
Does God approve of these killings?
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
"Morality is a problem for the Atheist, not the Theist. "
Not at all. Morality evolved, since it made sure societies could survive. Without morality as we know it, we wouldn't be around anymore. It's that simple.
"there is no reason for you to be moral."
Sure there is. Morality is social behavior, and the survival of human beings hinges on the fact that they are social animals.
"Does God approve of these killings?"
Yes. He often even commands them or commits them himself.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Morality evolved"
Alright, so there is nothing *really* wrong with murdering people, it's just unfashionable? If I do choose to murder people, than my view is no more right or wrong than anyone elses? Please tell me that you don't actually believe that.
"Morality is social behavior, and the survival of human beings hinges on the fact that they are social animals"
Why should I care about the survival of human beings?
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
"Why should I care about the survival of human beings?"
Because without other human beings your chances of survival are very slim. Human beings aren't very strong, fast equipped with claws or weapons, so they survive by using numbers.
If you starts murdering randomly, chances are you'll be either killed yourself or expelled from the group. In general, evolution in human beings favored empathy for other human beings.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Because without other human beings your chances of survival are very slim"
Alright. So you have established that human society is quite delicate. But then why should I care about the overall good of human society?
"If you starts murdering randomly, chances are you'll be either killed yourself or expelled from the group"
And so if I can avoid the social consequences of doing immoral (whatever that means) things, which indeed I can and people have, then there...
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON
"But then why should I care about the overall good of human society?"
Because it heightens your own chances of survival as well. And with that heightened chance, you are more likely to pass your genes on to your offspring, who in turn have a higher chance of surviving. Societies work VERY well for our species, which is the reason they are still around, and which is the reason our behavior evolved to form them.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
"And so if I can avoid the social consequences of doing immoral (whatever that means) things, which indeed I can and people have"
The mere fact that there are people who do things we deem immoral, is in itself a good case against objective morality. Since if objective morality existed, ww wouldn't be able to help to be bound by it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"The mere fact that there are people who do things we deem immoral..."
Um, no. Your conclusion does not follow. Just because we do something does not mean we think that it is right. If we act immoral, that doesn't mean we approve of the way we behave. It could mean that we just don't think that we are going to get caught.
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
"t could mean that we just don't think that we are going to get caught."
If people would act immorally every time they they can't be caught, society as we know it would crumble. But actually, like everything else in our bodies, morality is driven by chemicals. The mere thought of doing an immoral act makes your brain release those chemicals and makes you feel anxious about them.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
...we all do wrong. Are suggesting that we are all sicopaths?
"If people would act immorally every time they they can't be caught, society as we know it would crumble"
That's my point: this would happen, but clearly we don't see this happening. We feel reluctant to do wrong, even when we know we won't be punished for it.
"morality is driven by chemicals"
So if I murder someone, I can blame it on a brain malfunction?
THEEVANTHETOON 5 months ago