Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

[sjt18]

I have a closed mind because I reject viewing the world through the pages of a particular several thousand year old book. Okay.

No. You are closed minded because you dismiss it without genuinely considering it and acknowledging its merits.

You have not even attempted to shoot holes in it... you have just dismissed it with a wave of your hand because you don't like the implications.

I have a closed mind because I think it is silly to assume there is a God who wants us all to believe and worship in him under pain of eternal torture, but loves us, but also creates an elaborate universe whose every system points to it being billions of years old and self-forging, but is actually only a few thousand years old and just made to look older.

No. You are closed minded specifically because this is what you KNOW concerning the debate. Again, there is nothing in your statement that suggests you have opened your mind to the arguments for and against the positions.

You write in a mocking, condescending tone not because you have a superior knowledge of the discussion but because you don't want to have an understanding of the other side. If we had a creation debate, I am 99% sure I could argue your side better than you could. I have taken the time to understand in general both sides of the argument... then made an informed choice. You sadly show no sign of having done that.

You know, for that "classic antique" look. -- and does not actually physically reveal himself to us. Alright.

God has revealed Himself to man. You do not have to believe it but once again being dismissive doesn't serve as proof for your ideal or against mine.

I have a closed mind because I think hating and discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation is wrong, and think it's utterly ridiculous that someone would feel that they are justified in their discrimination because of what some old book written thousands of years before half a world away had something bad to say on the subject. Whatever.

You self identify yourself as closed minded because you believe that disagreement on a moral basis is equivalent to hatred. You are closed minded because you very obviously have not taken the time to consider or understand the views of those you condemn... you ARE behaving like the bigot you are pronouncing others to be.

That is what we call "projection."

Yes... it really and truly is. You have a hateful, antagonistic and ignorant attitude toward Christians and the Bible then because they disagree with homosexuals determine that it must be because they feel toward them what you feel toward Christians.

Quite an amazing confession by you.

 

[IPorange]

You can as well... and you can't either. So IOW's they cannot believe whatever they want and you CAN discriminate against them and force them to comply with your standard of beliefs, right?

I have no problem whatsoever with a homosexual or a sympathetic company saying there's no place with them for someone who holds moral convictions contrary to theirs. I disagree but respect the right of companies to offer benefits to homosexual partners.

I do have a problem with people like you demanding thta those with different convictions cannot do what they believe is right.

Really? Teach us teacher. This ought to be "fun". Tell us how we ought to interpret Romans 1... it isn't really open to interpretation very much. It isn't ambiguous. Both in the normal reading AND in the context of the time it was written... it declares homosexuality to be immoral and the net result of man's vain rejection of God and godliness.

Ah, truth is to be measured and rejected on the basis of how long it has been believed and in spite of the contributions it has made to civilization?

Fantastical? If you would like to get into it, I have asked a question many times of those who believe in naturalism/evolution... a question of simple, straightforward logic. The only well-reasoned answer I have ever gotten is "I don't know but believe there is an answer".




There are people who hate homosexuals and commit acts of violence against them. There a vile anti-Christians like Westboro Baptist who shame genuine Bible believing Christians.

That said, you are absolutely, positively wrong. There is nothing inherently "hateful" about disagreeing with someone. I challenge you to find and document wholesale abuse of homosexuals at the hands of conservative Christians.

There is nothing any more evil about opposing a belief/behavior and discouraging its acceptance if you believe that it does terrible harm to people than if you were discouraging someone from playing chicken with city buses. Sometimes the most loving thing you can possibly do is disagree with someone and oppose them. Making someone angry is not the measure of whether you are acting lovingly toward them or not.

You can believe what you like but it is alien to the actual facts to believe that homosexuality is a harmless behavior. The medical evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

I'm not advocating forcing anyone to stop believing in their mumbo jumbo, only that they quit forcing their borrowed nomadic tribe moralities on other people.

I'm pretty sure affairs of the state were supposed to be affairs of the state in the Bible. The treatment of other human beings would fall under that category. If you want to believe whatever nonsense about people rejecting God by being who they are, go for it. Just don't discriminate against them.

If you honestly think it is hard to find something hateful about gays from Christians, I think you are in for a rude awakening one day.


Your belief system isn't that old, you've just decided to measure the existence of the universe by it's text.

I'll bite on your question, but expect to be called out if it is a question your world view can't logically answer either.

I'd also like to hear the "medical evidence" of the horrors of homosexuality, as opposed to heterosexual acts.

 

[IPorange]

If we had a creation debate, I am 99% sure I could argue your side better than you could. I have taken the time to understand in general both sides of the argument... then made an informed choice. You sadly show no sign of having done that.

You must not read the political forum much.

 

[CountVolcula]

Outrage!!!!!!

Is that what you were looking for?

 

[sjt18]

ah yes the old "i just want you to know you are going to hell, but hey i love ya" argument.

Yes. Warning someone that they are about to drive off of a cliff is NOT hateful. The most loving thing you can do for someone standing in the path of a runaway train is to yell "MOVE!".

and are you refering to aids in your last statement?

HIV, syphilus, other blood borne pathogens, and virulent forms of staph spread at high rates among homosexuals. This is partly due to the nature of the sex acts themselves and partly due to high promiscuity among homosexuals (especially gays).

 

[sjt18]

You must not read the political forum much.

No. I haven't... and your statement STILL revealed ignorance of the most fundamental part of a supernatural view of origins.

 

[IPorange]

No. I haven't... and your statement STILL revealed ignorance of the most fundamental part of a supernatural view of origins.

Whatever you say, bub. It must because I have never had the privilege of conversing with you, the great definer of all Christian beliefs. So what is my "revealed ignorance" then?



I love it how Christians act like the rest of us have come from an utter vacuum of Christian ideas and teachings. Any ignorance of the general American public about Christianity's teachings is more a reflection on the religion's members than anything. Christianity has been practically the only show in town for America's entire existence. We're a captive audience.

 

[sjt18]

I'm not advocating forcing anyone to stop believing in their mumbo jumbo, only that they quit forcing their borrowed nomadic tribe moralities on other people.

That's not what you said. You said that a business owner must be forced to accept your view.

You are not being intellectually honest or consistent.

I'm pretty sure affairs of the state were supposed to be affairs of the state in the Bible. The treatment of other human beings would fall under that category.

That simplistic answer once again suggests that you have a very shallow knowledge of what you so aggressively oppose. That is almost always an indication of someone who has arbitrarily precluded a possible ideal or answer.

If you want to believe whatever nonsense about people rejecting God by being who they are, go for it. Just don't discriminate against them.

So the net result there is exactly what we started this with. I can believe what I want but my actions must be governed by what you believe. You just cannot bring yourself to be genuinely tolerant, can you?

Tolerance IS NOT agreement or even assent. Tolerance is when two parties continue to disagree without trying to impose on one another or dominate each other.

If you honestly think it is hard to find something hateful about gays from Christians, I think you are in for a rude awakening one day.

I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption that I know more conservative, fundamental Christians than you do. I can all but guarantee that I've had more frank, unguarded conversations with many of them than you have. Seldom over the course of many years have their words carried the contempt that yours have in this brief conversation.

Matthew 7:5

However thank you for admitting that you cannot answer my challenge or perhaps are scared to try.

Your belief system isn't that old, you've just decided to measure the existence of the universe by it's text.

Your apparent system of belief isn't new, just recycled... and you have likewise chosen to measure the existence of the universe by its tenets.

BTW, I have embraced what you just said... by no means am I running from the idea that I have presuppositions derived from a worldview that ultimately depends on matters of faith. You on the other hand are.

I'll bite on your question, but expect to be called out if it is a question your world view can't logically answer either.

Cause and effect is a universal law. It is a law that naturalists/materialists often relish in and use to mock supernatural points of view.

So assuming you believe the Big Bang theory of cosmology and therefore the universe did have a beginning... What was the prime cause? In reality, you believe ultimately... and put your faith in a causeless effect... which is a logical fallacy.

To the supernaturalist, God transcends the natural reality and makes a perfectly logical prime cause. To the pure monist, the universe is a continuum of oneness so it really doesn't matter. But to the honest naturalist who must depend so heavily and so often on arguments of cause/effect... this question is catastrophic.

I'd also like to hear the "medical evidence" of the horrors of homosexuality, as opposed to heterosexual acts.

Homosexuality and Gonorrhea - Conservapedia

If you don't like the source, just follow their references before dismissing them "closed mindedly".

None other than form Surgeon General C Everett Coup said that the human anus was not designed for sex and that a whole host of health problems stem from misusing it sexually.

 

[sjt18]

Whatever you say, bub. It must because I have never had the privilege of conversing with you, the great definer of all Christian beliefs. So what is my "revealed ignorance" then?

That you cannot rationally discuss the specifics behind the view you so vehemently object to. Instead, you engage in the kind of argumentative tactics you use in this statement.

As they say, when you can't win a debate, start an argument, right?

I love it how Christians act like the rest of us have come from an utter vacuum of Christian ideas and teachings.

Another dishonest debate tactic. I didn't say that. I said you were ignorant... that you lacked the depth to rationally criticize what you oppose. You still haven't proven otherwise.

Any ignorance of the general American public about Christianity's teachings is more a reflection on the religion's members than anything.

True to a great degree. Christians of earlier times very wrongly acquiesced their seat at the table when it came to molding the political and educational establishments in the US.

After the shock of the 60's and 70's, Christians began to try to regain that lost influence. Conflict has been the predictable result.

OTOH, today's self-identified Christians are shamefully illiterate when it comes to the Bible that their religion is supposedly built on. Barna suggests that something less than 20% of professing Christians have a biblically consistent worldview based on responses to fundamental, defining questions.

I would agree completely that far to many Christians fail to know why they believe what they believe... and in large measure that is why so many compromise on issues of morality or take unbiblical, "unloving" tacts in engaging the world concering morality.

Christianity has been practically the only show in town for America's entire existence. We're a captive audience.

Not at all. The educational, media, and political establishments for the last 80 years at least have been dominated by humanists/materialists.

Prior to the beginning of the 20th century, it would have been clearly accurate to say that America's shared mores were derived from Christianity. Since that time, the Christian influence has progressively eroded while the secular influence has risen.

 

[IPorange]

That's not what you said. You said that a business owner must be forced to accept your view.

You are not being intellectually honest or consistent.

That simplistic answer once again suggests that you have a very shallow knowledge of what you so aggressively oppose. That is almost always an indication of someone who has arbitrarily precluded a possible ideal or answer. So the net result there is exactly what we started this with. I can believe what I want but my actions must be governed by what you believe. You just cannot bring yourself to be genuinely tolerant, can you?

Tolerance IS NOT agreement or even assent. Tolerance is when two parties continue to disagree without trying to impose on one another or dominate each other. I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption that I know more conservative, fundamental Christians than you do. I can all but guarantee that I've had more frank, unguarded conversations with many of them than you have. Seldom over the course of many years have their words carried the contempt that yours have in this brief conversation.

Matthew 7:5

However thank you for admitting that you cannot answer my challenge or perhaps are scared to try.


Your apparent system of belief isn't new, just recycled... and you have likewise chosen to measure the existence of the universe by its tenets.

BTW, I have embraced what you just said... by no means am I running from the idea that I have presuppositions derived from a worldview that ultimately depends on matters of faith. You on the other hand are.

Cause and effect is a universal law. It is a law that naturalists/materialists often relish in and use to mock supernatural points of view.

So assuming you believe the Big Bang theory of cosmology and therefore the universe did have a beginning... What was the prime cause? In reality, you believe ultimately... and put your faith in a causeless effect... which is a logical fallacy.

To the supernaturalist, God transcends the natural reality and makes a perfectly logical prime cause. To the pure monist, the universe is a continuum of oneness so it really doesn't matter. But to the honest naturalist who must depend so heavily and so often on arguments of cause/effect... this question is catastrophic.



Homosexuality and Gonorrhea - Conservapedia

If you don't like the source, just follow their references before dismissing them "closed mindedly".

None other than form Surgeon General C Everett Coup said that the human anus was not designed for sex and that a whole host of health problems stem from misusing it sexually.

The format of your posts makes it very hard to reply to you.

I am being intellectually honest, but you can keep trying to marginalize my dissenting opinion if it makes you feel better. I'm saying he has to treat everyone the same, regardless of what he believes. If he supplies benefits for the significant others of employees, he should do it for all them regardless of their orientation. That isn't that complicated. All because you disagree and think you should be able to arbitrarily treat people based on how well they are morally aligned to your own beliefs doesn't make ME intellectually dishonest. I know that makes you feel better to make me out to be the bully, but it's weak. I'm sorry it offends you that I won't "tolerate" your discrimination. Discrimination is against the spirit of this country and against the law.

You don't know me from any other person you have never met, so I am not sure how you can reasonably assume anything. Given that the places I have lived and grown up in have always been overwhelmingly conservative, and that I was raised in a very conservative home, I would say it's safe to assume you have greatly miscalculated in your assumptions about me and my life experiences. The source of the "contempt in this brief conversation" is actually the many experiences speaking to conservative Christians and their smug circular logic.

exhibit A of said logic:
I asked what your question was and you never offered it. Now you smugly say I have " admitted" to not being able to answer your question, or being "afraid" to- A question you NEVER ASKED. Wow.

The "afraid" part is actually exhibit B:

You smugly think that somehow I, deep down inside, actually think you're RIGHT, and am in self-denial about it. Also, it attempts to emasculate me- again, an attempt to marginalize my disagreement with you. Keep it up, it's funny how you keep talking about how "simple" and "ignorant" I must be.

I never made any claims about the oldness or the newness of my belief system. Some point to the "old time religion" business as being part of the legitimacy of the Judeo-Christian belief system. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't really THAT old, unless you are a Judeo-Christian. But one would have to believe that their tradition goes back to near the beginning if you believe it, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense, right? Why would the world and humans be around for tens of thousands of years before the Adam and Eve story was first recorded, and the One God concept became realized? The modern Christian concept of the age of the Earth being only 6,000 years old is really a cage. If that is true, then why are there older relics, older belief systems, and all those matters archeology, not even considering the natural world? If that isn't true, why would God be absent for tens of thousands of years of human prehistory, and then suddenly show up?

In summary, the young Earthers are the ones who are being intellectually dishonest, and if one isn't a young Earther, then there are still some serious questions they should be asking themselves.

So assuming you believe the Big Bang theory of cosmology and therefore the universe did have a beginning... What was the prime cause? In reality, you believe ultimately... and put your faith in a causeless effect... which is a logical fallacy.

So, you hope to put me in a "gotcha" position by saying I also have to have "faith" in my beliefs, and bring up the origin of the Big Bang Theory.

First, let me address it scientifically: The Big Bang Theory is not a logical fallacy. You are speaking of cause and effect as being only a linear relationship, when we KNOW time isn't linear. Even in Christian faith, it is said that God is omnipotent and omniscient, which means you have "faith" in the non-linear nature of time, so I won't bother going into any discussion of physics and relativity. With time being non-linear, it means there is no "first" cause, but rather a closed circle of events- a never ending sequence of "big bangs" and eventual universal collapses, repeating over and over. So no, I don't have faith in a logical fallacy. And there will always be margins to humanity's knowledge.

But let's say I did. You are equating saying there is an invisible all powerful being that made everything because an old tradition said so, to believing in the conclusions of observations made about the natural world and it's processes. How is that equal? I won't bore us with the ole "Invisible Spaghetti Monster" bit, but it is a relevant response.

To the supernaturalist, God transcends the natural reality and makes a perfectly logical prime cause. To the pure monist, the universe is a continuum of oneness so it really doesn't matter. But to the honest naturalist who must depend so heavily and so often on arguments of cause/effect... this question is catastrophic.

I bet that brought the house down when the pastor delivered that last line.

There is nothing logical about a faith-based belief, by definition, so God is not a perfectly logical prime cause. What he is, is a perfect catch-all explanation based on no reasoning or fact. "Why is the sky blue? God made it that way. " That's nice. We could go around doing that all day. But we wouldn't really be learning anything at all, would we? Whether God made the sky blue or not, the sky is blue because the molecules in the atmosphere scatter the blue light from the sun much more effectively than the reds, yellows, and other colors due to the wave length of the energy waves and the size of the particles that make up the atmosphere.

See the difference? One is just a faith-based concept. One is a tested scientific fact. Even if we had no idea what triggered the Big Bang, getting to the point where we have evidence that that was the event that started the universe is a lot more logical and rigorous than saying, "God made the universe."


You do know that many heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse, right? Even married ones!

Also, how many lesbians engage in anal intercourse, do you think? I am betting a very tiny amount. So are gay women okay then?

Human sexuality is by it's nature prone to the spread of disease, homosexual or not.

And it's ironic that you brought up gonorrhea, one of the diseases that decimated the new world and wiped out 90 % of the natives. It was brought over by heterosexual European Christians.

 

[IPorange]

That you cannot rationally discuss the specifics behind the view you so vehemently object to. Instead, you engage in the kind of argumentative tactics you use in this statement.

I have discussed the specifics many times on this forum. This thread isn't the only one on the board. You are amazingly quick to assume things.

As they say, when you can't win a debate, start an argument, right?
Win a debate? what, you think someone is going to change their mind because of a thread on a messageboard? In any event, I wouldn't call this an argument.
Another dishonest debate tactic. I didn't say that. I said you were ignorant... that you lacked the depth to rationally criticize what you oppose. You still haven't proven otherwise.
Minus 2 points for Griffondore, I guess. Keep calling me "dishonest." It's really working for you. And I don't have to prove anything to you, btw.
True to a great degree. Christians of earlier times very wrongly acquiesced their seat at the table when it came to molding the political and educational establishments in the US.

After the shock of the 60's and 70's, Christians began to try to regain that lost influence. Conflict has been the predictable result.

OTOH, today's self-identified Christians are shamefully illiterate when it comes to the Bible that their religion is supposedly built on. Barna suggests that something less than 20% of professing Christians have a biblically consistent worldview based on responses to fundamental, defining questions.

I would agree completely that far to many Christians fail to know why they believe what they believe... and in large measure that is why so many compromise on issues of morality or take unbiblical, "unloving" tacts in engaging the world concering morality. Not at all. The educational, media, and political establishments for the last 80 years at least have been dominated by humanists/materialists.

Prior to the beginning of the 20th century, it would have been clearly accurate to say that America's shared mores were derived from Christianity. Since that time, the Christian influence has progressively eroded while the secular influence has risen.

.

 

[ridethelightening]

A christian argument breaks out and ip is right in the middle of it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

Sorry if I am formatting wrong. I'm just using the quote response function.

I have not read all of your posts here. There have been specific challenges here and you have been dismissive rather than engaging. If you want to argue then just let me know and I'll put you on ignore. If you want to have an honest and open exchange of ideas then we can do that.

If you want to engage me, you can. If you use dishonest tactics, I'll call you on it. If you don't like that then either stop engaging me or stop using the tactics. Pretty simple.

FTR, I am not marginalizing your opinion and in case you haven't seen polls of popular attitudes lately... yours is not the dissenting opinion.

I'm saying he has to treat everyone the same, regardless of what he believes. If he supplies benefits for the significant others of employees, he should do it for all them regardless of their orientation. That isn't that complicated.

I know exactly what you are saying. You have been crystal clear on that point. You think you have the moral authority to tell someone else to do something based on your standard of right and wrong. You think that your standard is superior to that of the other person giving you the right to demand they treat everyone the same... of course you aren't treating them the same. You are showing no respect for their moral convictions or property rights whatsoever. You are expressing a highly "intolerant" view.

The business owner thinks homosexuality is wrong and that he should not support it through the privilege of employment or benefits. You have decided based on YOUR moral standard that he is wrong and must comply with what you think is right.

You demand that person subjugate their rights and freedoms to your sense of right and wrong.

You have been nothing if not clear that you believe you should be able to tell others what to do when it comes to issues of morality.

 

[IPorange]

We're running in circles. I'm sorry your right to bigotry based on faith is being oppressed.

Why not also withhold benefits from employees that have cheated on their spouses, filed for a divorce, had a child out of wedlock, etc?

 

[sjt18]

First, let me address it scientifically:

then predictably you don't.

The Big Bang Theory is not a logical fallacy. You are speaking of cause and effect as being only a linear relationship, when we KNOW time isn't linear. Even in Christian faith, it is said that God is omnipotent and omniscient, which means you have "faith" in the non-linear nature of time, so I won't bother going into any discussion of physics and relativity.

Actually that is not true. Christians believe that God exists outside of the natural measurement of time and actually created "time".

Pretty interesting what you did there though. Through "faith" you declared that time itself is transcendant beyond what we would normally consider "natural".

Good answer. I'm not buying because you still haven't explained why a body at rest/equillibrium suddenly began to expand into the universe as we know it... without a cause. But you did give it a good shot.

With time being non-linear, it means there is no "first" cause, but rather a closed circle of events- a never ending sequence of "big bangs" and eventual universal collapses, repeating over and over.

Pure, unadulterated conjecture. No one who is a serious thinker even among the true atheists suggest this notion is based on anything but faith. There is absolutely no direct or indirect physical proof for it.

So no, I don't have faith in a logical fallacy. And there will always be margins to humanity's knowledge.

You believe in something that can never be proven, disproven, or examined by any sensual means... IOW's, you have "faith" in a product of human imagination. At a minimum, that disqualifies your argument against religion on that particular basis.

But let's say I did. You are equating saying there is an invisible all powerful being that made everything because an old tradition said so, to believing in the conclusions of observations made about the natural world and it's processes. How is that equal? I won't bore us with the ole "Invisible Spaghetti Monster" bit, but it is a relevant response.

 

[IPorange]

Whatever happened to intellectual honesty? You just dismiss what I say because other atheists didn't answer it the way I did?

The crux of the Big Bang is that the "big bang" portion occurs because of the energy of the "big crunch" reaches a critical point. Rinse and repeat. Google brane cosmology and string theory. There is mathematical evidence supporting this. If it is unadulterated conjecture, what the hell is theology?

Don't get pissed because your fallacy trap didn't work.


"No serious thinker..." blah blah blah. Such arrogance. Ya, there are no serious thinkers who disagree with your notions. Nice.

Keep arguing against what you wanted/expected me to say, and dismissing what I actually say. It's all brilliant.

 

[sjt18]

We're running in circles. I'm sorry your right to bigotry based on faith is being oppressed.

I'm sorry you are demanding a right to bigotry and cannot see the contradiction in your position. You think you are qualified to tell others what to do morally while rejecting both the notion that they should be able to or that they should be left alone to do what they think is right.

I know you think you win points and give you position merit by calling those who disagree with you "bigots"... but you have given far more evidence of bigotry. You express outright hatred for Christians.

I neither hate nor mistreat homosexuals. In fact, the ones I know would more than likely tell you that I show them more respect and "love" than the avg person does. I simply disagree with their morality.

Why not also withhold benefits from employees that have cheated on their spouses, filed for a divorce, had a child out of wedlock, etc?

I might not agree but I believe that a person has a right to offer or deny privileges based on their core beliefs. I believe that people have an absolute right NOT to associate with people whose beliefs contradict their own. I believe people, including private business owners, have a RIGHT to not support ideals and behaviors they find objectionable.

So yes. If it were someone's conviction that they should not employee those people, it should be their right not to. The people chose those behaviors... there is absolutely no justification for saying there cannot/should not be consequences.

You have not asked... but I don't think it is the best "Christian" approach to not employee these people or homosexuals. I do however respect the rights of others to disagree with me.

 

[IPorange]

I get that you think it is ironic to be "intolerant of intolerance," but the irony is only in the semantics.

At least you are consistent in your stance on allowing people to discriminate based on morality. I find it disgusting and un-American, though.

 

[sjt18]

Whatever happened to intellectual honesty? You just dismiss what I say because other atheists didn't answer it the way I did?

No. I just complimented you for taking a good swing at it.

I've heard that perpetual motion machine argument before... when you find me a perpetual motion machine in nature that you can prove started itself and sustains itself... I'll be more impressed.

The crux of the Big Bang is that the "big bang" portion occurs because of the energy of the "big crunch" reaches a critical point. Rinse and repeat. Google brane cosmology and string theory. There is mathematical evidence supporting this.

I am very familiar with the arguments AND where the interpretations of observations transition into "modeling". Saying there is mathematical evidence is the equivalent of saying "if" a bunch of times then declaring it is a mathematical possibility... IOW's, you have just described an act of "faith".

Conjecture btw is neither inherently bad or false. Mathematical modeling is conjecture by its very nature. Could be true. Could be false. Could be proveable. Could be beyond our capacity to test... when it is this... it becomes a matter of faith.

If it is unadulterated conjecture, what the hell is theology?

Faith. I believe Christianity to be an intelligent faith, a reasonable faith, a self-consistent faith. I believe there are significant historical testimonies to support the claims of Christianity and in particular the life and person of Jesus Christ.

But at the end, one must choose to believe... just like you have done with naturalism and Big Bang cosmology. In the very best case, you are believing what someone you trust has told you.

Don't get pissed because your fallacy trap didn't work.

I'm not. You have not bothered me in the least... Your manner of response doesn't suggest I have anything to be angry about. You have not and apparently cannot defend your positions without being inconsistent.

"No serious thinker..." blah blah blah. Such arrogance. Ya, there are no serious thinkers who disagree with your notions. Nice.

Never said that... back to the dishonest debate tactics I see... poisoning the well anyone?

Keep arguing against what you wanted/expected me to say, and dismissing what I actually say. It's all brilliant.

Please point out where I have done that and I will either apologize or correct the statement.

 

[sjt18]

I get that you think it is ironic to be "intolerant of intolerance," but the irony is only in the semantics.

You are intolerant of a religious point of view and moral position while demanding deferrence to your own. You can call it whatever you like but the net sum is that you believe you have a right to impose your view of things on someone else who is minding their own business.

You have established well that you are intolerant and unrepentently so.

At least you are consistent in your stance on allowing people to discriminate based on morality. I find it disgusting and un-American, though.

And I full well support your prerogative to believe that... so long as YOU LEAVE ME ALONE.

But that is not what you consistently propose. You propose that you be allowed to discriminate based on YOUR morality. You believe it is wrong for someone to not associate with a homosexual in various ways because of a moral aversion to their chosen behaviors. That IS a moral stand you are making there. You ARE discriminating against people who disagree with you by forcing them to do something against their will.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You are intolerant of a religious point of view and moral position while demanding deferrence to your own. You can call it whatever you like but the net sum is that you believe you have a right to impose your view of things on someone else who is minding their own business.

You have established well that you are intolerant and unrepentently so.



And I full well support your prerogative to believe that... so long as YOU LEAVE ME ALONE.

But that is not what you consistently propose. You propose that you be allowed to discriminate based on YOUR morality. You believe it is wrong for someone to not extend a privilege to a homosexual that has been extended to someone else on the basis of the homosexuals chosen course of behavior. That IS a moral stand you are making there. You ARE discriminating against people who disagree with you.

Very entertaining. You're on the side imposing asymmetrical priviliges yet someone else is intolerent of your POV because they say it's asymmetrical in its application and thereby discriminatory.

Good one. Why didnt we think sooner to justify discriminators by calling opposition discriminators for discriminating against our discrimination? Hell, we'd still have slavery and could justify it based our opinion being slandered. Awesome.

Cool how you made him the intolerant one in that too ten claimed moral high ground. Didn't work in the least, but was clever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

You're fun.

There is nothing logical about a faith-based belief,

Since you have one... does that mean it isn't logical?

by definition, so God is not a perfectly logical prime cause.

Of course He is. But the "proof" of God lies in the same realm as your "mathematical evidence". If, if, if, if,... then God. The difference between us is that I am not denying the faith component of what I believe.

What he is, is a perfect catch-all explanation based on no reasoning or fact. "Why is the sky blue? God made it that way. "

You used an interesting word there: "why". If I have guessed right on about where you line up belief wise... your position has no answer to any "why" question. Why questions are answered by volition.

That's nice. We could go around doing that all day. But we wouldn't really be learning anything at all, would we?

I don't know... I'm learning. At a minimum, I'm learning about you.

Whether God made the sky blue or not, the sky is blue because the molecules in the atmosphere scatter the blue light from the sun much more effectively than the reds, yellows, and other colors due to the wave length of the energy waves and the size of the particles that make up the atmosphere.

You just gave a "how" answer to a "why" question.

 

[lawgator1]

You are intolerant of a religious point of view and moral position while demanding deferrence to your own. You can call it whatever you like but the net sum is that you believe you have a right to impose your view of things on someone else who is minding their own business.

You have established well that you are intolerant and unrepentently so.



And I full well support your prerogative to believe that... so long as YOU LEAVE ME ALONE.

But that is not what you consistently propose. You propose that you be allowed to discriminate based on YOUR morality. You believe it is wrong for someone to not associate with a homosexual in various ways because of a moral aversion to their chosen behaviors. That IS a moral stand you are making there. You ARE discriminating against people who disagree with you by forcing them to do something against their will.

 

[IPorange]

No one who is a serious thinker even among the true atheists suggest this notion is based on anything but faith.

Looks like you said it to me.


You are using the term "faith" very loosely. I hardly think the faith it requires to believe in a divine being is equal to faith that if I flip a coin fifty times, there is a 50/50 chance of it being heads or tails either time.

Mathematics and probability are not faith.

Your criticism of the Big Bang theory based on entropy (you mentioned needing to see a perpetual motion machine, implying that the Big Bang Theory breaks the second law of thermodynamics) is thought to be invalid by many physicists.

The universe constitutes EVERYTHING. There is no "outside the system" or "other system" for energy to escape or transfer to on that scale, there is no drag or resistance on the system. Because energy can neither be created NOR destroyed, all energy continues in the universe, with the net system having a constant state of entropy. As the universe expands, background radiation energy seems to decrease as it is the same amount of energy over a wider space. if the universe contracts, energy would seem to increase as more energy was compressed into a smaller area. The net energy would be the same, however. Voila, there is your perpetual energy machine: you are living in it.

 

[sjt18]

Very entertaining. You're on the side imposing asymmetrical priviliges yet someone else is intolerent of your POV because they say it's asymmetrical in its application and thereby discriminatory.

Nope. I am saying that neither you nor I have the right to answer this particular question for each other or someone else.

Tolerance isn't accepting my pov and applying it to everyone. Tolerance is allowing each of us to have and act on our pov without gov't interference. If someone's business disagrees with your pov, punish them through boycotts. Use your free speech rights to convince others to avoid them. Start a business and put them out of business... but don't trample their right to disagree with you.

Good one. Why didnt we think sooner to justify discriminators by calling opposition discriminators for discriminating against our discrimination?

You are, by definition, discriminating against a pov. You may feel justified because you think they discriminated unjustly first... but you are suggesting discrimination.

Hell, we'd still have slavery and could justify it based our opinion being slandered. Awesome.

Wow. Why am I not surprised that someone else resorts to this type of tactic? That straw man simply has no merit.

Race is a benign characteristic not subject to personal choices at all.

I have not proposed anything like enslavement of homosexuals or even subjugation of their rights.

You on the other hand have suggested that if someone disagrees with you about what they should do on their property and with their choices of associates... they should be punished.

Cool how you made him the intolerant one in that too ten claimed moral high ground. Didn't work in the least, but was clever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Worked so far. You nor IP have offered anything like a reasoned argument to prove that you aren't suggesting religious bigotry as a substitute for what you term bigotry against homosexuals.

I am not claiming the right to tell homosexuals what they can and cannot do on their own property, time, and dime. I am defending that same right for those who disagree with homosexuality.