Homosexuality and religious.

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the antitheists of faith. Faith involved people deciding some idea is true despite a lack of evidence, and even contrary to evidence. the motive isn't truth.

With logic and reason the person intends to discern truth via evidence, even if the conclusion is that a conclusion can be reached due to a lack of evidence. This doesn't mean people are necesarily skilled, but the intention is there, and the learning curve available to the thinker.

So you didn't spot the contradictions in the text?

 

[F1fan]

So you didn't spot the contradictions in the text?

Your text which is off topic?

Faith is unreliable and appeals to logical fallacies. This is why theists use faith.

Reason is reliable as it follows the rules of logic and evidence. This is why theists avoid reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your text which is off topic?

Faith is unreliable and appeals to logical fallacies. This is why theists use faith.

Reason is reliable as it follows the rules of logic and evidence. This is why theists avoid reason.

But that still has a limit, because of subjectivity in the end.
That is what is going on here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

 

[samtonga43]

That is very untrue statement CG.

In fact the investigation really just begins when one signs that card. Enough was known when signing that card, to have Faith, that what we will seek, we will find.

Regards Tony

Why does one have to sign a card?

 

[samtonga43]

Because God says so, and that is the only reason we need.

You believe God says so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Like those people in some of the other religions that changed their views about homosexuality, they are going to have to go against the "infallibility" of their prophet and their Scriptures.

No, we don't have to change our views just to keep up with what is considered acceptable in modern society.

 

[Trailblazer]

gay people can and do reproduce having heterosexual sex

 

[Trailblazer]

BUE is the forum.

Yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

The adherents don't have to have gay sex, or any sex if that's what they want, just leave others alone to enjoy their sex lives.

That's what we do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most people would be bright enough to join the dots themselves.

or dumb enough to connect what is not connected.

 

[Trailblazer]

but what's hilarious is how unhealthily preoccupied they are by the pleasures others derive from sex.

Who is preoccupied? I never would have even been thinking about sex if this thread had not been started.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's true. Gay people aren't, as a rule, infertile. And just because they don't like heterosexual sex doesn't mean they can't do it. I have a friend in New Zealand who had sex with a surrogate(his husband's sister) so he and his husband could adopt a genetically related kid, and avoid the expense of working with a clinic.

Not a big fan of feeling like your kids need to be genetic relations to you but I digress. Even if somehow magically the entire human race became gay tomorrow, the human race wouldn't be then doomed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since homosexuality has been demonstrated to occur in multiple species, the prospect is very dubious.

What is natural for animals is not natural for humans since humans are different from animals.
Humans have a spiritual nature and an animal nature and free will to choose between those two natures.
To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man's station.

 

[Trailblazer]

Homophobia is a deeply hateful prejudice.

Who is really hateful?
Sure sounds like projection to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, we don't have to change our views just to keep up with what is considered acceptable in modern society.

So it is acceptable as per natural as a part of observable nature that homosexual people can have children. You can learn that though basic science and you accept that according to your beliefs, don't you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is natural for animals is not natural for humans since humans are different from animals.
Humans have a spiritual nature and an animal nature and free will to choose between those two natures.
To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man's station.

You are conflating the natural world and your opinion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What is natural for animals is not natural for humans since humans are different from animals.
Humans have a spiritual nature and an animal nature and free will to choose between those two natures.
To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man's station.

Beast of the fields are also kind, nurturing, playful, hard workers, resilient and a number of good qualities.

But I agree with the idea that naturalist fallacies aren't helpful, even if I disagree with you on either point that humans aren't animals or that the human animal is exclusively spiritual.

What matters on judging behavior is if and how much harm it's doing, not whether it's natural or unnatural.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith involved people deciding some idea is true despite a lack of evidence, and even contrary to evidence.

There is no lack of evidence, only lack of the kind of evidence you require.
Belief is not contrary to the evidence since the evidence indicates that there is a God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are conflating the natural world and your opinion.

It is not an opinion, it is a belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not an opinion, it is a belief.

The same with free will or is that a fact?