INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

SkepticThinker · May 14, 2013

1robin said:
You have shown why someone may value a life. That does nothing to make the taking of that life wrong. It is also the greatest example of a subjective concept imaginable. If value determines fault what if no one (even the victim) values the life taken.

No, I explained why human life is valuable. That is one of the most objective values I can think of and not subject to personal preference. If we didn’t value human life, above all, then humans would have died out long ago. See above.

1robin said:
Is that the divine command theory. If so it is not a problem but I loose track of secular fallacies and dilemma's that aren't actually either.

Plato put it this way:
“Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?”
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Bertrand Russell put it this way:

“If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.”
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

1robin said:
Because it requires a transcendent standard to validate our preferences as actual truths.

Says you. And I did not ever say that morality is subject to mere personal preference.

1robin said:
Even paganistic, secular, etc empires have recognized the difference between actions against contrived ethics and against "natural" law. Tell me this. If the Nazi's would have won WW2 and killed off all opposition would the Holocaust be moral? They used the exact methods you did to determine a different but equally valid conclusion. You are confusing ontology with epistemology.

No. I don’t think that people would suddenly feel that murdering people en masse was good. I don’t know that the Nazis were doing what they felt was moral. I think many were following orders (sounds a lot like religion to me) and many were brainwashed. Incidentally, they tried the old “We were just following orders” nonsense during the Nuremburg trials and the rest of the free world recognized that nonsense for what it was.

Then we have cases where some members of the Nazi party risked their own lives to save the lives of Jews; Oskar Schindler comes to mind. So no, I don’t feel like everyone would just accept that the holocaust was moral.

I don’t know how you can pose this question to me with a straight face anyway. God commanded genocide in the Bible, so it must be good, right? If you don’t think genocide is good, then how would you be making that determination? How about I pose it to you in the same way you posed the Hitler scenario to me:
If the Israelites had won all the wars over the promised lands and killed off all opposition, would everyone believe that killing all those people had been moral, and would it follow that genocide would be considered moral?
Or for a different example: Was dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good moral action? Why do we consider it so?

1robin said:
We use our brains to perceive a moral dimension that only exists if God does. The same way we do with math. You can say 2 + 2 = 5 but it is no more valid than saying killing an unborn is ok. You are using our brains to determine a moral dimension that does not exist without him and cannot create moral truth (only declare it).

We use our brains to perceive a moral dimension that exists regardless of whether or not god exists. All we have to go on in determining any moral truths are our faculties, reality as we know it, genetics, emotions, experiences, environment and possibly more I can’t think of at the moment. Like it or not, that’s where our morals come from.

SkepticThinker · May 14, 2013

1robin said:
First let me say I apologize as I think I have skipped some of your posts. You may be typing too fast to notice but I just do not have time to keep up. As for this, which is more condemning given that we can first even agree that killing babies is wrong.

If there are 100 people on Earth and 90 of them are Christians and 10 are atheists and if there were 60 abortions by the Christians and 9 by the atheists. That means 66% of Christians have killed babies and 90% of atheists have. Which rate is more condemning of the world view? Even un-calibrated it is clear however let me warn you statistics are pliable things. I took three semesters in them and that was all I learned. What effect of the secularization of even Christian morals is there? What portion of those that answer surveys as believers actually believe? With Christians but not Scotsman there is an absolute line of demarcation as to identity. Is an act against a moral code an indictment of those morals? Etc....

None of the Christians should be getting abortions, if your claims are accurate.

1robin · May 14, 2013

SkepticThinker said:
None of the Christians should be getting abortions, if your claims are accurate.

What kind of argumentation is that? No one is allowed to be facetious after 3:30pm. Christianity is composed of people who know what to do but admit they fail miserably at it. Secularism is composed of people who are exceptional at having no idea what should be done and doing it with all their might. The central core of Christianity is that we should do X. We will fail to always do X, and therefore need forgiveness, Nothing is more humble or obvious that this. The core of secularism is if X is not broken fix it until it is. Nothing is anyones fault unless they believe in anything theological, because morality is relative and ambiguous. No forgiveness, theology, jails, shame, repentance, or logic needed in that situation. BTW with God there will eventually be a restoration and restitution for the buckets of blood we rationalise and an eternity where no injustice remains. Secularism (especially atheism) is the abandonment of hope. Even if I did not believe I would try to. That is a good one to call it a day on. Have a good one.

SkepticThinker · May 14, 2013

1robin said:
What kind of argumentation is that? No one is allowed to be facetious after 3:30pm. Christianity is composed of people who know what to do but admit they fail miserably at it. Secularism is composed of people who are exceptional at having no idea what should be done and doing it with all their might. The central core of Christianity is that we should do X. We will fail to always do X, and therefore need forgiveness, Nothing is more humble or obvious that this. The core of secularism is if X is not broken fix it until it is. Nothing is anyones fault unless they believe in anything theological, because morality is relative and ambiguous. No forgiveness, theology, jails, shame, repentance, or logic needed in that situation. BTW with God there will eventually be a restoration and restitution for the buckets of blood we rationalise and an eternity where no injustice remains. Secularism (especially atheism) is the abandonment of hope. Even if I did not believe I would try to. That is a good one to call it a day on. Have a good one.

Your assertion is that Christianity is morally superior to secular value systems and that if we lived in a what you view as the Christian world of the 1950s there would be far less abortion and a whole host of other things you think are immoral. If that's true, then what are Christians doing getting abortions in such high numbers? You can't blame secularism for that.

Nevermind all this other apologetics nonsense where you declare that atheists have no hope and feel no responsibility toward their fellow man, etc., etc., etc. That's garbage and I think I've more than demonstrated as much. Don't give me this humility stuff either, there's nothing humble about your position.

Skeptisch · May 14, 2013

Dan4reason said:
My question to you is, would you be able to remove your attraction to the opposite sex without some kind of medication or surgery?

One wonders how old Robin was when s/he decided to be straight, or gay.:hugkiss:

JustWondering · May 14, 2013

1robin said:
Secularism (especially atheism) is the abandonment of hope. Even if I did not believe I would try to. That is a good one to call it a day on. Have a good one.

Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Atheism is not the abandonment of hope, for me it is the acceptance of reality. I don't believe in your god because I WANT to but because I CANNOT believe in him. For instance, do you WANT to disbelieve Scientology or do you disbelieve because it simply doesn't resonant or make sense to you? Do you think Scietologists believe you have abandoned hope because you do not embrace Scientology?

Dan4reason · May 14, 2013

My response is pretty long so you can skip over the parts that are not directly to the point. I had a lot to say on this topic.

1robin said:
I am not quite sure what you believe this proves. Sounds like biology had nothing to do with it. She simply desired something and gained a taste for it. In fact this seems to prove my claims.

Actually her case is considered to be unusual and is an example of a heterosexual performing homosexual acts with someone because of an emotional attachment to that person. however, most homosexuals have a strong sexual urge. Sometimes heterosexuals perform homosexual acts because they just want to or because they don't see they have a chance of getting a suitable partner from the opposite sex. What these examples show is that the people who switched from homosexuality to heterosexuality are not necessarily biologically driven homosexuals.

Again this consistent with is being a preference and a desire not some biological necessity.

You are trying to separate the desire from the biological necessity. Could you explain what you mean by these terms so there is no confusion?

The way I see it, the sexual desire is not just some mental thing, but is very very strong and very physical if you know what I mean. It is so strong in fact, that going without sex of a lifetime is quite difficult. The desire does not exist in us simply because one day we wanted to desire the opposite sex. It occurs biologically beyond our control at puberty. You cannot change your desire any more than you can make yourself dislike food. I hope this is all obvious to you. As I see it, the biology creates the desire.

Another thing that is interesting is that some people don't have any sexual desire at all and are asexual. We have found that levels of sexual desire exist on a continuum with most people grouped very close together and with a minority being outliers. The same goes for sexual orientation. Most people are almost completely strait, but some may be 75% strait and 25% gay, or 90% gay and 10% strait, or 100% gay.

You could not possibly know this even if true. What homosexual scale is there to measure this by?

We know that heterosexual desire is physical and biological. We know that sexual desire is physical. So when homosexuals report the same kind of physical desire except for the opposite sex, we know this is biological. Also exclusive homosexuals report not having a sexual desire for the opposite sex. This in itself shows something biological is going on.

The scale used is the Kinsey Scale.

Let's for the sake or argumentation say no.

I believe God can do all things but just for fun let's go with your claim. By this logic we should determine theft, drug abuse, and any other crime that anyone, anywhere never lost the desire to commit, as now morally correct. In fact we are well on our way to doing so as secularism advances less and less is wrong. Having a desire to do something is not the same as it being right to do. In my case I served on board Navy combat ships for months and you had better believe that my desires had to be held in check. In fact thousands of people have denied themselves all sexuality for the sake of God.

First off, homosexuality is different from crime in that it is most often not harmful to yourself or to other individuals when done safely and responsibly. When it comes to desire there are different kinds of desires that vary in strength and how strongly they are linked to biology verses being linked to environmental factors. The desire for sex is one of the most fundamental biologically desires out there and is simply not comparable to more minor desires (e.g. desire for cherries).

I admit that it is biologically dependent but then so is murder. If I have a thought of any kind or a desire to practice any wicked thing I can choose to act or not act upon it. It is a wonder at the myriad ways that non-theists have of making right no longer right and wrong no longer wrong.

Let me ask what I ask constantly and not once have I been given a valid answer. prove that murdering everything that lives is actually wrong without God or the transcendent. Not prove you prefer it, not prove it is a common notion, nor that it is consistent with human optimality but rather that there is anything actually wrong with it.

The desire for murder is far weaker than the sex drive at least for most people. Also it is far more environmentally based. For most killers, with the right therapy and attitude, they can get over their desire. However the sex drive cannot be removed without surgery, and many a monk can attest to that. Another point mentioned before is that the desire to kill does harm while homosexuality when done safely doesn't.

lewisnotmiller · May 14, 2013

1robin said:
What kind of argumentation is that? No one is allowed to be facetious after 3:30pm. Christianity is composed of people who know what to do but admit they fail miserably at it. Secularism is composed of people who are exceptional at having no idea what should be done and doing it with all their might. The central core of Christianity is that we should do X. We will fail to always do X, and therefore need forgiveness, Nothing is more humble or obvious that this. The core of secularism is if X is not broken fix it until it is. Nothing is anyones fault unless they believe in anything theological, because morality is relative and ambiguous. No forgiveness, theology, jails, shame, repentance, or logic needed in that situation. BTW with God there will eventually be a restoration and restitution for the buckets of blood we rationalise and an eternity where no injustice remains. Secularism (especially atheism) is the abandonment of hope. Even if I did not believe I would try to. That is a good one to call it a day on. Have a good one.

Actually makes me sad that I can be so completely and thoroughly misunderstood.

1robin · May 17, 2013

lewisnotmiller said:
Actually makes me sad that I can be so completely and thoroughly misunderstood.

That was not even a reply to you.

1robin · May 17, 2013

SkepticThinker said:
No, I explained why human life is valuable. That is one of the most objective values I can think of and not subject to personal preference. If we didnt value human life, above all, then humans would have died out long ago. See above.

Thats absurd of course it depends on personal preference. If we did not exist it cease to exist as well. Something is getting lost in translation here. The fact that we value life is an objective fact. The idea that our life actually has value is about the most subjective concept possible. The fact remains no matter what we value it is irrelevant to any actual value it has. I can believe my dollar bill to be worth ten but it isn't. Actually our money is all but worthless but that is another issue. Human value life the same way a certain island nation values currency. They carved several ton stone blocks out and gave them values. Are they actually worth anything objectively?

Plato put it this way:
Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

If God killed every form on life in existence on what basis would you declare it wrong? It is a non-sensical statement.

Euthyphro: Certainly.
Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?
Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.
Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

That does not represent any dilemma the God I believe is has. What is right is determined by what is consistent with God's nature. It is a mistake to think of God sitting around inventing what is good. He is what is good. Even if it was a dilemma who cares? We are perfectly accountable to God whether he invented morals or is morality. It makes little difference to us in any practical way.

Bertrand Russell put it this way:
If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

This in an example of people thinking a concept into meaninglessness. It is much ado about nothing even if it was true.

Says you. And I did not ever say that morality is subject to mere personal preference.

There is no possible way that morality could be anything other than this if God did not exist. It is an absolute and is obvious in every way. Name one moral precept that is not a preference without God.

No. I dont think that people would suddenly feel that murdering people en masse was good. I dont know that the Nazis were doing what they felt was moral. I think many were following orders (sounds a lot like religion to me) and many were brainwashed. Incidentally, they tried the old We were just following orders nonsense during the Nuremburg trials and the rest of the free world recognized that nonsense for what it was.

Let me illustrate this way. Prove the Nazi's were wrong. They used the exact mechanism and methods you suggest yet arrived at a different conclusion. In your view there is no method of deciding who is right, even defining what right is exactly, or justifying whatever right is preferred to be.

Then we have cases where some members of the Nazi party risked their own lives to save the lives of Jews; Oskar Schindler comes to mind. So no, I dont feel like everyone would just accept that the holocaust was moral.

I do not think you got the point or the entire concept here. You claim we all sit around and ponder what is good. Then we record our conclusions as law. What if the majority were Nazi's and believed the holocaust good. I thought I made that apparent by stating that they had killed off all who disagree. You simply ignored that. If everyone on Earth thought killing a pet dog was no worse than killing a fly would it therefore not be?

I dont know how you can pose this question to me with a straight face anyway. God commanded genocide in the Bible, so it must be good, right?

God is the one concept that can know if genocide is justified. Your side will simultaneously claim that not wiping out the Nazis is proof God is evil and wiping out a generation worse than them is also proof he is evil even when he died to save us all. Incoherence like that is supposed to be a indication your philosophy is untenable. GK Chesterton said that was why he lost faith in atheism; it is completely self-refuting and self-contradictory. When you are known worldwide as he was as "the apostle of common sense" then you may declare him wrong with credibility. Continued below:

1robin · May 17, 2013

If you don’t think genocide is good, then how would you be making that determination?

It may be good. If God killed all the Nazis and saved 50 million or anyone that voted for abortion rights and saved 1 billion on what scale could he be indicted? There is in fact no scale at all without God. Your side gives medals (mine to) to people who kill many to save others, why is it wrong when God does it, or wrong when he does not, or wrong when he does anything what so ever? Because preference determines your reality.

How about I pose it to you in the same way you posed the Hitler scenario to me:
If the Israelites had won all the wars over the promised lands and killed off all opposition, would everyone believe that killing all those people had been moral, and would it follow that genocide would be considered moral?

Let's say that did happen, by what standard they can be condemned if God ordered it. If God did not exists what standard is even available to attempt it. It's a self-defeating proposition. My example at least was theoretically conceivable. In fact there is an example like this (the flood). On what basis can you condemn the God that did that? What basis is even potentially available to attempt it? Not to mention the issue was never what would people believe, it was what is right.

Or for a different example: Was dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good moral action? Why do we consider it so?

I would not contend me on military history. Several things make the decision justifiable.
1. The estimated casualties were over 500,000 on our side alone for a conventional assault. Far worse for Japan.
2. We only had enough fissionable material for two Bombs. The effect had to be a maximum.
I in fact dare you to contend the justification for these actions. It was not optimal, it was justified.

We use our brains to perceive a moral dimension that exists regardless of whether or not god exists.

That is absolutely impossible. Natural law never has nor ever will indicate what should be. Atoms do not care. This is also a mind brain issue.

1robin · May 17, 2013

SkepticThinker said:
Your assertion is that Christianity is morally superior to secular value systems and that if we lived in a what you view as the Christian world of the 1950s there would be far less abortion and a whole host of other things you think are immoral. If that's true, then what are Christians doing getting abortions in such high numbers? You can't blame secularism for that.

It is an absolute fact that secularism has compromised general morality and that has affected Christians. Once again you have ontology and epistemological confusion. Again you are having optimality confusion. To say I have Christian values does not say that I am either perfect or that I always do what I believe. This was simply a nonstarter, and the fact that abortion rates are higher in secular circles proves without doubt my claim is correct. As to what they are doing, the answer is screwing up.

Never mind all this other apologetics nonsense where you declare that atheists have no hope and feel no responsibility toward their fellow man, etc., etc., etc.

That was not apologetic that was a personal observation. It probably could have been stated better but the general sentiment is valid. The exclusion of God is a universal loss in hope, not that some transient, temporal, relatively insignificant hope can't be maintained.

1robin · May 17, 2013

JustWondering said:
Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Atheism is not the abandonment of hope, for me it is the acceptance of reality.

That was not the purpose or intention of my statement. Nor was it a conclusion from my statement. I simply said that only with God is any ultimate hope even possible and is something I would hope was true even if it turned out not to be. That had nothing to do with what is true of evidence for it. I know God is real because I have experienced him.

I don't believe in your god because I WANT to but because I CANNOT believe in him. For instance, do you WANT to disbelieve Scientology or do you disbelieve because it simply doesn't resonant or make sense to you? Do you think Scientologists believe you have abandoned hope because you do not embrace Scientology?

You are getting two independent issues all mixed up.

1. What is true?
2. What is worthy of hope?

I was not attempting to equate them.

1robin · May 17, 2013

Dan4reason said:
Actually her case is considered to be unusual and is an example of a heterosexual performing homosexual acts with someone because of an emotional attachment to that person. however, most homosexuals have a strong sexual urge. Sometimes heterosexuals perform homosexual acts because they just want to or because they don't see they have a chance of getting a suitable partner from the opposite sex. What these examples show is that the people who switched from homosexuality to heterosexuality are not necessarily biologically driven homosexuals.

You keep posting proofs for my claims. I am confused what it is you are claiming.

You are trying to separate the desire from the biological necessity. Could you explain what you mean by these terms so there is no confusion?

I want a Lamborghini, that is not biological it is a function of mind, not brain. I think homosexuality is the same thing. I also believe it can come in the form of temptation from Satan.

The way I see it, the sexual desire is not just some mental thing, but is very very strong and very physical if you know what I mean. It is so strong in fact, that going without sex of a lifetime is quite difficult. The desire does not exist in us simply because one day we wanted to desire the opposite sex. It occurs biologically beyond our control at puberty. You cannot change your desire any more than you can make yourself dislike food. I hope this is all obvious to you. As I see it, the biology creates the desire.

I actually have changed my mind about foods, cars, music and every other thing I prefer to at least some extent. Even if you were right the sin is not in being tempted but in acting on the temptation. Temptation acted on also increases it's hold. The Bible says that if you rebel hard enough God will reluctantly abandon you to your desires so that the calamity it produces serves as a warning. We have regressed morally to the point we do not even change our behavior when it is killing us. The claim that it is strong would apply to murder, drug abuse, or even peer pressure.

Another thing that is interesting is that some people don't have any sexual desire at all and are asexual. We have found that levels of sexual desire exist on a continuum with most people grouped very close together and with a minority being outliers. The same goes for sexual orientation. Most people are almost completely strait, but some may be 75% strait and 25% gay, or 90% gay and 10% strait, or 100% gay.

What kind of test is used for this?

We know that heterosexual desire is physical and biological.

I agree and add spiritual and mental and even subject to outside influence.

We know that sexual desire is physical.

We know that is a component.

So when homosexuals report the same kind of physical desire except for the opposite sex, we know this is biological.

Are you telling me that this is the evidence you speak of?

Also exclusive homosexuals report not having a sexual desire for the opposite sex. This in itself shows something biological is going on.

Like many spiritual issues the practice can change the physical nature of our biology. As a councilor I was often taught about the physical results of a spiritual problem.

The scale used is the Kinsey Scale.

A scale is only as good as it's mechanism. What I read about this one seems very arbitrary. I was looking for biological proof of a claim not a subjective scale. This sound more like if I asked what makes things have weight and you said pounds. That is a measure but not proof.

First off, homosexuality is different from crime in that it is most often not harmful to yourself or to other individuals when done safely and responsibly.

So it is only the results that make something wrong? Is attempted murder right because I am a bad shot? If I steal something no one notices was it ok? What if an alien race decides that we are now their food source. That is good for them the same way our morality is bad for cows. With God I can eat the cows and fight the aliens you cannot and be justified by your views. You would and do so but you can't justify it. In fact prove killing all forms of life in existence is actually wrong if God does not exist.

When it comes to desire there are different kinds of desires that vary in strength and how strongly they are linked to biology verses being linked to environmental factors. The desire for sex is one of the most fundamental biologically desires out there and is simply not comparable to more minor desires (e.g. desire for cherries).

The strength of desire is not the determiner of moral permissibility. You may want crack more than oxygen but it is still wrong.

The desire for murder is far weaker than the sex drive at least for most people. Also it is far more environmentally based. For most killers, with the right therapy and attitude, they can get over their desire. However the sex drive cannot be removed without surgery, and many a monk can attest to that. Another point mentioned before is that the desire to kill does harm while homosexuality when done safely doesn't.

The amount of harm is independent of the damage as I have stated however there is no method by which homosexuality is harmless in general. AS I have said there are thousands that claims they were cured from any and all homosexual desire, why did you simply dismiss this? There are far far more monks who have maintained their vows than violated them. However God never demanded they take them to begin with so that is not really applicable. There was even a monk who lived on top of a poll for years. Pretty stupid but funny. Men do not lose their desire for other women (and it is without a doubt biologically valid) when they get married but most do not act on it, and it is not morally acceptable. I am not sure because they want to is a valid excuse.

SeraphimsCherub · May 17, 2013

HE just IS...the ALL PRESENT(((NOW)))

SkepticThinker · May 17, 2013

1robin said:
It is an absolute fact that secularism has compromised general morality and that has affected Christians. Once again you have ontology and epistemological confusion. Again you are having optimality confusion. To say I have Christian values does not say that I am either perfect or that I always do what I believe. This was simply a nonstarter, and the fact that abortion rates are higher in secular circles proves without doubt my claim is correct. As to what they are doing, the answer is screwing up.

BS.
Your contention is that if we returned to the Christian-dominated days of the 1950’s everything would be a whole lot better and overall morality would be stronger. So how can you turn around and tell me that Christians are really no better than anyone else? How do those 2 things fit together to support your argument?

Abortion rates are not higher in secular circles. Remember when we discussed the US versus the rest of the more secular, industrialized world?

1robin said:
That was not apologetic that was a personal observation. It probably could have been stated better but the general sentiment is valid. The exclusion of God is a universal loss in hope, not that some transient, temporal, relatively insignificant hope can't be maintained.

I don’t know where you’re observing this, but it’s garbage. To me, it’s just one of those silly arguments some Christians try to make in order to prop up their religious beliefs.

If you suddenly found out there was no god, would you suddenly find yourself hopeless, and not responsible to your fellow human beings?

SkepticThinker · May 17, 2013

1robin said:
I want a Lamborghini, that is not biological it is a function of mind, not brain. I think homosexuality is the same thing. I also believe it can come in the form of temptation from Satan.

Then you're just wrong. Read some studies on biology, gender and sexuality.

Agnostic75 · May 17, 2013

1robin said:
The amount of harm is independent of the damage as I have stated however there is no method by which homosexuality is harmless in general. As I have said there are thousands that claims they were cured from any and all homosexual desire, why did you simply dismiss this? There are far more monks who have maintained their vows than violated them. However God never demanded they take them to begin with so that is not really applicable. There was even a monk who lived on top of a poll for years. Pretty stupid but funny. Men do not lose their desire for other women (and it is without a doubt biologically valid) when they get married but most do not act on it, and it is not morally acceptable. I am not sure because they want to is a valid excuse.

1robin said:
You keep posting proofs for my claims. I am confused what it is you are claiming.
I want a Lamborghini, that is not biological it is a function of mind, not brain. I think homosexuality is the same thing.

I was not going to make any more posts in this this thread, but I noticed that you said some things about homosexuality, which is a topic that you have demonstrated you are poorly prepared to debate. The proof is my post #688 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-69.html that you conveniently refused to reply to.

What I just quoted that you said in this thread is easy to refute, but I think that the thread on homosexuality is a better place to discuss the topic of homosexuality. It would be nice if you would reply to my post #688 in that thread. And, if you wish, can copy and paste what you said in this thread to that thread, and I can reply to it there.

You made numerous illogical, and misinformed arguments in that thread. My post #688 did not include nearly all of them. In addition, you refused to reply to many arguments that are not in my post #688. Further, parts of your post #304 were deplorable, false, and demeaning to homosexuals.

I am well aware of the many excuses that some people use when they know that they are at a disadvantage, such as "you are rude," "I have already replied to that before," or "your arguments are so incoherent that I cannot understand them." The truth is, you never replied previously to much of my post #688, I was not rude, and although some of my arguments may not have been excellent, many were, especially the ones that you refused to reply to. In addition, as anyone who reads my post #688 would see, it is not incoherent, and it is very easy to understand. So, whatever
excuses you have for not replying to my post #688 are not legitimate, including one excuse you gave that you were busy. Well, you were not too busy to reply to other people's posts after my post #688, and you are not too busy now to discuss homosexuality in this thread.

Agnostic75 · May 17, 2013

1robin said:
It is an absolute fact that secularism has compromised general morality and that has affected Christians. Once again you [SkepticThinker] have ontology and epistemological confusion. Again you are having optimality confusion. To say I have Christian values does not say that I am either perfect or that I always do what I believe. This was simply a nonstarter, and the fact that abortion rates are higher in secular circles proves without doubt my claim is correct. As to what they are doing, the answer is screwing up.

Why would Christian values be the best solution to poor morality?

What is wrong with deist values? I think that deism makes much more sense than any other religion does. Presidents James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were all deists. Madison is often called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution," and had a good deal to do with the Bill of Rights, and was a very strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

Are you suggesting that Christian values should be legislated? If not, how do you propose to get people to follow them? Who would be in the best position to interpret Christian values since there are many versions of Christianity regarding certain issues. Millions of Christians accept divorce, but millions do not. Millions of Christians accept women pastors, but millions of Christians do not. Millions of Christians approve of the death penalty, but millions do not. Many Christians do not object to allowing openly homosexuals people to become church members, but many do not. Millions of Christians want creationism to be taught in public schools, but millions do not.

I could mention many more issues, but if you are proposing that Christianity should dominate the U.S. to the exclusion of all other worldviews, you are violating the kind of country that James Madison thought he was helping to set up, not to mention many court precedents regarding the separation of church and state.

As far as government is concerned, secularism makes much more sense than a marriage of church and state does. As far as individual morality is concerned, how specifically do you propose to change individual morality regarding people who morals you disapprove of? Many of the most moral, kind, and productive people in the world are not Christians. The world, and the U.S., are continuing to become more diverse, and it seems that you are trying to get your religious beliefs to be predominant in the U.S. In a democracy, all groups of people have the right to practice their own world, and even many Christians in the U.S. support the separation of church and state.

You used the word "compromised." Who has generally compromised gay rights in the world? Consider the following:

LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The least gay rights are in the red, and orange countries. Most of them are predominantly Muslim, or predominantly conservative Christian, and many people in many of those countries live in poverty, and have poor education. In general countries that accept gay people the most are more prosperous, people have more money, and have better education.

Who has compromised the further acceptance of macro evolution the most in the U.S.? According to an article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation, it is women, people who have no high school diploma, and people who make less than $20,000 a year.

Who is mostly responsible for divorce in the U.S.? Well, a study by the Barna Research Group, which is a Christian organization, showed that Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. In addition, in Denmark, heterosexuals have a higher divorce rate than atheists do.

Skeptisch · May 17, 2013

Agnostic75, the esteemed member of the Baptist Church community is intellectually bankrupt. His faith will never let him admit that there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, the same way heterosexuality is not. In the end we are simply born with one or the other and fifty shades in between.
You and others who try to reason with that red breasted bird are very much appreciated. You have plugged his feathers and exposed his hypocrisy and many a casual reader thank you for it. There is a good chance Robin will come back until his skeleton is exposed but dont expect him to answer your numbered arguments in post #688 in an intellectually honest fashion because -

it would destroy his supernatural dream world. :magic:

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
Carl Sagan

INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Christian/Baptist

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Jerk

Facts not Faith

Grand Hat

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

New Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member