Despite the fact that he has now been banned I am going to post this in case there is any future homosexuality debate so it can be referenced.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So let me state my own notions about how the universe functions. Where I stand on current moral, philosophical, and political grounds before I do the biggest tl;dr of my life.
I'll start this off by simply answering the question posted in this debate without responding to anyone in particular:
"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind"
By this definition I think there's hardly a question. We see homosexuality in other species and we see homosexuality in our species. Other species and ourselves are among the animal kingdom ergo homosexuality is natural.
Next off I will say that I am an atheist. I totally reject the existence of a God.
Politically I am a
social democrat,
progressive, and while I hate the term and associations I will begrudgingly admit that I am a
feminist.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally to these points.
Also I am putting enough work into this massive response as it is so I will not be directly adjusting the text to show exactly what I am referring to and you will have to search the paragraph above the material to see what I am specifically referring to.
Also your text hurts my eyes so I'm taking off the BB code for that.
NOW LET'S GET ON WITH THE SHOW!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it's unnatural. Have you ever heard of two men creating a baby through nothing more than biology? How about two women? Just because a pattern exists in nature doesn't mean that's how things are supposed to be. Murder also exists in nature, and yet we as a species seem to universally be against that.
First, I should mention that calling anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong in any way a "homophobe" is not only extremely rude but also the wrong term. I, for one, do not fear homosexuals or homosexuality in any way, but I still consider it to be what it is: unnatural and wrong. If you're going to debate something, you should at least be open to discussing it civilly with those, like me, who believe it should be stamped out.
Second, one's worldview (basic presuppositions that are necessary to interpret and interact with reality) will be a huge factor in what you believe about homosexuality, as well as many, many other things. Please bear that in mind.
Finally, when debating something like this, you have to be sure to separate love and lust. Homosexuality in all of its forms is born of love of self and lust. Real love means doing what's best for others, and homosexuality goes against that. One piece of evidence for this is the fact that the practice of homosexuality includes
leading your partner toward suicide,
feeding your partner poop, and
making your partner die faster.
It is interesting that all of the evidence points to homosexuality being bad, and yet people advocate for it with the same religious zeal as ISIS suicide bombers. Therefore, questioning the intellectual grade of the question is not only allowed, but required. After all, isn't believing 1+1=7 just as stupid as condoning the abuse of someone whom you claim to love?
I have never heard of two men creating a baby through nothing more than biology you are correct there.
I have never heard of two women ever giving birth through nothing more than biology. However I have heard that one woman (and since I'm an atheist I'll assume that unless this happened to Mary she either didn't exist or was never truly a virgin when Jesus was born) and I will provide an article and a research paper below to explain more about it (and one possible case where it may have happened).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html
http://genetica.ufcspa.edu.br/biomedic/seminarios monitores/NatureGenetics.pdf
I do not believe calling someone a homophone rude nor is it a wrong term. You are using the preffix and suffix to determine your definition of homophobia however that is not a correct assumption according to Merriam-Webster which states (and I quote):
Merriam-Webster said:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
So as you see it is not simply the irrational fear of homosexuals but also have an aversion to or discriminating against them. This is also the medical definition of homophobia. I'd say based on your aversion to homosexuality you are by definition a homophobe.
As for your definition of "real" love (and this I shall once again return to the dictionary) Merriam-Webster once again returns to have something to say.
Merriam-Webster said:
a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person
attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by people who have a romantic relationship
a person you love in a romantic way
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
Now as you can see I have italicized the middle part of the definition. While I understand you were probably using your morals in your definition the Merriam-Webster feels it (in particular) necessary to denote the sexual desire that is usually inherent in most loving relationships. It also mentions in no way doing what's best for someone else.
Your articles seem to either been opinion pieces or they relate back to studies which are funded or run by some Christian organization. As these are not independent sources (which I will give you credit are hard to come by) I can not fully trust their validity. However I will concede that men who have sex with men are more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases. However intentionally risky behavior isn't anything new. People go out and skydive for fun despite the fact that it provides them with nothing more than rushes of chemicals in their brain and provides a very real risk of injury or death. Additionally when discussing the mental state of homosexuals I think is important to note the inherent social bias against them and structural disadvantages homosexual people face. The United States is a very heteronormative state where in many ways heterosexuality is assumed and thrust upon others. In such situations who could blame homosexuals (in the closet or out of it) for being in depressive or worse mental states? Also even in relationships not everyone is happy. In fact the United States 40 - 50% of married couples divorce so this should not be a shock.
http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/
Based on my response so far to this first set of paragraphs I'd say comparing homosexuals to ISIS suicide bombers is a pretty far flung deduction. One is socially motivated, one is politically motivated. One is based on attraction, the other is based on religious extremism (although let us not forget many people tried to restore Charlemagne's religious Empire in Europe many times in history so this should not be surprising).
Also on the subject of naturalness and unnaturalness and your statement about 1+1=7 I have a few statements. While there are arguments for both sides philosophy has never definitely proved that mathematics is natural. Plato thought it was however there are also arguments that humans simply made up mathematics to help explain our world. Therefore your analogy using mathematics as your primary source to try to prove absurdity so therefore it is not stupid to assume that 1+1=7 because it is stupid to assume that mathematics is empirically is even something that exists due to it's uncertainty in the world.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/math-concepts/math4.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...cs-a-criterion-for-truth-in-the-natural-world
http://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/cafe/livio.pdf
Lastly just to wrap it all up and response to the second clause of your last sentence, I fail to see how homosexuality is abusing someone that you love.
First, check the links in my first post here. There are three of them. If you don't know where I'm getting my data, that should have been the first thing you did, and the second should have been doing your own research into those sources and their references. Second, Galileo was considered arrogant by the scientific community of his time, and yet later it was proven that he was right, so I don't think I care if you consider me arrogant. Third, you claim that homosexuality has less to do with selfishness and more to do with love, and yet the LGBT community has done nothing but bully everyone else into accepting their way or else (for example, a certain bakery that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian pair).
The only malicious one here is you, because you're closed-minded enough to claim I'm a bigot when you haven't done a lick of research on the subject in your entire life. If you had, then your only reason for attacking me in such a manner would be to silence me for speaking a truth you're terrified of: the fact that you advocate evil. Be thankful I give you more credit than that, at least...for now.
Note: I'll respond to this paragraph in particular however it's pretty arrogant of you to assume many of the things you are including the apparent truth on a morality subject which essentially can't be proved or disproven.
Galileo also lived in an age where not being religious was punishable by death and he was under house arrest for challenging the religious classes' idea of a geocentric universe.
But hey we all know it's actually turtles all the way down.
We can assume you might be arrogant however because all your text is italicized (as stated above I have removed it because it was annoying me) and according to dictionary.com that means everything you say should be taken with emphasis which is of course not true. We can also assume this by continuously hearing you call yourself "correct" or professing "truth" in this thread.
Additionally I'd like to argue that you are a bigot on the topic of homosexuality considering your intolerance and once again I'll reference Merriam-Webster:
Merriam-Webster said:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Also it is rather presumptuous of you that they've never done any research on the subject in their life. Additionally I'd argue that your dichotomy of the world is wrong but that gets into ethics and morals which I'd rather not argue in a thread about the "naturalness" of homosexuality.
Oh my, somebody's sensitive. Did you forget that debates get heated at times, or are you genuinely attacking me? My vote's on the latter, mostly because it's all too common when one has an unpopular view. So...
Argumentum ad hominem (as was most of your entire response).
Considering I've been researching subjects such as this for the last few years, I'd say I'm a bit farther ahead than the rest of you, which in turn affords me my conclusion. All I've seen so far are opinions, so I thought I'd be kind and post actual evidence. Too bad all of you who have responded so far have done so with the type of hatred I've also seen in Nazis and Trump supporters. If you love love so much, try showing some. But then, you'll probably get bullied like I have by the rest of you.
Argumentum ad hominem (as was most of your entire response).
My opinion is simply the truth: homosexuality is evil, and those who condone it are committing an equally evil act, in the same way I'd call out anyone who condoned murder or rape. Any claim that homosexuality is in any way "safe," "natural," "just another lifestyle," etc. is obviously overlooking all the science and evidence in the world.
By the way, it's funny that you refer to me as "God's right hand." That would be Jesus Christ, not me, and getting into a debate as to whether Christianity is or is not correct
will end in your loss.
Here are more then, all of which are peer-reviewed. For the record, however, I wasn't going to "cry victim" in your case. Your post was polite and well-read, which is more than what I can say for pretty much the rest of the thread.
If there is a social stigma about something, perhaps that should be researched. Why do we have a social stigma about child marriage, for example, even though it's legal with parental consent? Why do we have a social stigma about religious indoctrination? Why do we have a social stigma about slavery? Why do we have a social stigma about genocide? I'm sure you'd all consider all of these things evil, and therefore be supportive of the social stigma against them all, but why?
What do you base your morality on, exactly?
It is once again rather presumptuous of you to assume that you can have an entirely correct opinion on a moral argument without any logical proofs to back you up. Although you have right to your opinions on what to do when someone commits an
evil act we're allowed to have ours as well. Although the difference (in the United States and most if not all secular nations) is that murder and rape are illegal by the law while homosexual acts are legal as long as they're consenting adults and homosexual marriages are a grey area.
All of those links arguing that Christianity is empirically true are non sequiturs. Additionally many have argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Also your argumentum ad populum by trying to make yourself a victim is not a valid reasoning, it is a logical fallacy so please stop trying to apply it to anything in this thread.
That's so cute! Here, let me ask you something. What's two plus two? I have a condition, though: you're not allowed to say "four." It's too religious for me. You also aren't allowed to answer with anything that represents "four," such as a mixed number, decimal, or what "four" is spoken or written as in any other language. You're not allowed to raise your fingers or toes, and you're not allowed to use any form of sign language or gesture to give the answer "four."
Do you see what I did there? It's the same thing you're doing by attacking me. That's how closed-minded you are, and that's why you need to read what I've been posting. There are things that are not tolerated for a reason, and you should be very, very careful about what you choose to tolerate. Or should we assume that you advocate murder, rape, genocide, school shootings, suicide bombings, and more just because you don't like to hear the truth?
I reached my conclusion--that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural--by seeing where the research took me. You have my answer, and you can choose whether to accept it or not. However, it's impossible for me to take you seriously when you sound so much like Hitler.
Well once again going back to your math analogy and referring back to the topic of the thread math has not been proven to be natural or a human construct and therefore your analogy based on the topic of the thread whilst in response to someone else does not hold.
Also
argumentum ad hominem (as was most of your entire response).
Then, by your definition, sin and death are also natural, and because they're natural, they should be accepted/encouraged, right? The truth is pretty far away from that, actually. Sin is unnatural, but even so it entered creation thanks to Adam and Eve, and death is a symptom of that.
It's funny that you guys reject my first set of links, but the peer-reviewed ones say all the same things. It seems more and more to me that you'd rather attack the truth than see where it leads. More and more, you prove Romans 1 correct.
I can't speak to sin considering I don't believe in it however death is very much a natural process. Alongside birth, death is pretty much one of the most natural occurrences in the natural world, arguably
THE defining feature of nature after life. Also if Adam and Eve tempted fate by consuming the fruit of knowledge then why did every animal get punished as well? Why should every animal die due to the crimes of one species unless it was (and has always been) natural.
Also whilst peer reviewed links are better sources than the first ones you provided they're still subject to bias and these appear to me to also be biased.
So was the apostle Paul, and he ended up imprisoned and executed. For what? Speaking the truth. All you've done in this post is prove you are exactly the opposite of what you claim to be. Only a closed-minded person would reject fact. Instead, you'd rather call me names and act like you're smart.
I refuse to vote, actually. I don't believe any of the candidates can turn this country around. It'll turn out just like Sodom and Gomorrah did, and can you guess why? Because of people like you. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Everyone has a religion, whether you want to call it that or not. It's just a philosophy regarding the supernatural, how the world got to be this way, and so forth. No one's unbiased.
By the way, the golden rule was taught to mankind by Jesus, so good job sparing me the debate and proving that you borrow your morality from Christianity only to use it to argue against Christianity. You don't get to cherry-pick. Your position refutes itself.
See, this is exactly my point, and I gave the correct answer. Instead of the thread ending, everyone decided to call me names and go on and on about how peer-reviewed journals and religions are automatically wrong. Does anyone on this thread even understand how logic works?
Oh look, another expert at taking the Bible out of context. You do realize that I'm not a Jew, right? Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so naturally He has the authority to say whether Mosaic Law applies to us or not. As it happens, He did do away with a few things, such as restrictions on food (see Mark 7). Maybe if you didn't cherry-pick, you'd know that. The difference between Jews and Christians is Jews reject the idea that Christ is the Son of God with the authority to forgive sins. They still hold to the Old Testament laws as a result, denouncing Christ as some madman.
If a human being misinterprets a philosophy or an idea, does that condemn the philosophy or idea when the human being in question commits an atrocity in its name? Of course not; that would imply that free will is removed by philosophies or ideas. You also say that everything is relative, but please demonstrate that when it comes to "1+1=2."
Oh, wait, you can't argue against absolute fact. Christianity is absolute fact, too, whether you want to accept it or not.
"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it." So why don't you tell me? Homosexuality isn't the only sin. You've committed murder in your heart by hating me. I by no means am perfect, either. So if all of mankind has fallen, you tell me...are we all evil? Or do we just do evil things? Because let there be no question: sin is evil. It always has been. It always will be. Where in this thread did I call homosexuals evil as opposed to calling homosexuality evil? Where did I say people are evil rather than their acts?
If people like me are the reason homosexuals commit suicide, it's because they're like you and some of the other people on this thread: selfish, closed-minded, dishonest, and completely wrong.
However, it is far more likely that homosexuals commit suicide because they can't find the real love that only someone who understands what real love is can offer. If a gay man asked me out, my response wouldn't be, "No, you're an evil little sinner." It would be, "No, because I care enough about you to not encourage you to engage in something that is wrong." I just so happen to be abrasive and direct at times.
And if people have killed themselves because of "people like me," then they've already faced God. They've already been judged. And if they were anything like you are right now, I guarantee you they're burning for eternity.
So, as a warning and as a plea to all of you who still think I'm full of crap, turn around. You're hell-bound, and neither God nor I want that for anyone. But if you're selfish and foolish enough to say in your heart that there's no God, then hell is what you'll get.
Now, let that be the end of this thread. The answer has already been given, anyway.
All these argumentum ad hominem, can't hold them man.
I'll ignore the second paragraph considering it is completely irrelevant to the topic and anything I am concerned with replying to at this time.
As for your conclusion that any set of personal philosophies is a religion I disagree and once again check a definition of religion to see this. This is like the case where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square; that is to say all religion is philosophy, that doesn't mean that all philosophies are a religion.
Having a personal philosophy based in Judeo-Christian morality is not anything new especially in the western world. Choosing how you interpret it however is an important part of one's own personal philosophy.
We did not say that all peer-reviewed journals are wrong simply that the ones you supplied were subject to suspicion and not necessarily correct. Also if you are indeed wondering if anyone here "understands" logic I did take a college course on discrete mathematics (for a computer science degree) which is the mathematics of logic.
No comment on the existence of Christ and his implications in Judeo-Christian thought.
You assume that free will exists however were humans able to perfectly see the path that atoms are going in every part of the universe is a very real chance that we could predict everything that has or ever will happen. This same logic is why the butterfly effect exists and perhaps why free will might not exist. Therefore I simply fundamentally disagree with you that free will exists so I will just agree to disagree there.
Christianity is not absolute fact, being unable to disprove something does not make it fact. Actually quite the contrary when something is unprovable it is an argumentative fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I'm going to stop responding to any of your topics based on sin and evil because I simply reject the existence of either (in the same way you think of them anyway).
I can't believe how okay you are saying that you're okay with people killing themselves based on what you said simply because of sweeping generalizations about their personality (dicto simpliciter, btw).
I'm done hearing you repeat the exact same argument over and over so I shall move onto the next paragraph.
Jesus Himself was crucified by people like you, so I guess I should wear your name-calling as a badge of honor. It doesn't change the fact you're wrong, though. You claim I haven't used any real proof or logic, but I have. You claim I'm a consumerist, but that's just a cop out on your part. You claim I have no thoughts of my own, but you fail to realize that I challenged Christianity the most when I was younger, and for all my poking and prodding, it's actually the only belief that ended up making sense. I destroyed the rest.
I can prove you're closed-minded for years to come, but it won't matter because you're closed-minded. You won't admit to your errors. You'll just keep arguing because I'm "a religious freak."
You clearly haven't seen me talk to a homosexual person that didn't attack me like you have. Your accusations are meaningless.
Ooh, that's clever. And rather meaningless.
Science confirms what the Bible says as true, math and logic prove it, and you refuse to believe. Are you sure you're not the one who's nuts here?
That is the question posed, so I tried to answer it. That being said, it does matter that it's sinful, whether it's "natural" or not.
Well, exactly what did you expect? The question posed has a very simple answer that apparently no one on this thread even wants to hear or read. Honestly, I'd be laughing my head off if the whole state of affairs weren't so disgustingly sad.
More to the points you made though, yes, sex in and of itself is definitely natural. However, as its primary functions are both reproduction and keeping a married (that's one man and one woman by the way, no exceptions) couple intimate both romantically and on base psychological levels, homosexuality is, by definition, unnatural. Just like every other sinful act.
There's nothing new under the sun. Are we done with this thread yet, or should I expect more people to call me a dickhead?
I think that the logic you've so far used hasn't held up therefore I think that the assumptions that you haven't used any
real logic thus far are fairly well held up (besides on points I have previously conceded to). To provide a dichotomy to your thoughts of Christianity while you were younger (since you seem to love dichotomies for some reason) I have an example of a real life friend who had the opposite time. My real life friend was born a baptist and had unwavering faith in Christianity and God (as an atheist she and I got into many conversations about religion). Then she went off to college and the next time I saw her she was an atheist. Therefore it seems like what happened to you can go any way.
Another argumentum ad hominem.
Science, math, and logic do not prove the Bible true. The Bible is inerrant as you will state later however inerrancy does not imply truth it simply means there is no (at this stage anyway) clear answer to what the Bible provides us.
I can accept this result. That being said, there is absolutely no one who is without bias. If you're going to single me out, I can very easily prove that everyone else on this thread (except for the topic starter, who did nothing but ask the question) is biased as well. Some are extremely obvious, such as anyone who calls Christianity a load of bull. In Matthew 12:30, Christ Himself stated that you're either with Him or against Him, and I can think of no better statement He made that's relevant to the topic of bias. Therefore, your statement about using biased sources is pretty much invalid.
That being said, I don't claim to be the best at debate. All I can do is speak the truth, as the apostle Paul did, and watch as everyone else shows their true colors by their responses to it.
Either way, I consider the matter settled. A question was asked, and the correct answer was given. If I remember correctly, forums like this usually have an ignore list function. For people who hate me, such as UndertakerFreak1127 (my evidence being the fact he called me an asshole), I strongly recommend the use of that function. Or, better yet, all of you can pray to be saved, which is really the only correct response to the Bible anyway.
Yes everyone is biased. Next.
You do not speak truth. You speak statements which as the current point in time are simply unprovable, that does not make them correct.
You should use the function if people are calling you names.
Additionally if praying makes you feel better for all of us then I suggest doing it. Even if you can't change our minds you can try to put yours at peace.
I will refer to the conversation in
this thread. Because Christianity is correct, homosexuality is not. Because of that, homosexuality should be thrown out the window, along with every other sin. No human being is going to do that perfectly, but that's exactly why Christ did what He did. It is fallacious to state that any part of Christianity is wrong, because God is never wrong. If we were to throw Christianity out of the equation, then we may as well allow murder, rape, slavery, genocide, and whatever else just because we felt like it. Reason, morality, and the laws of nature are impossible without the God of the Bible, and there is absolutely no disputing that, ever. You can debate all you like, but all you've really got is a self-refuting position at best, because you ultimately have to borrow from the Bible to argue against the Bible (see the golden rule case earlier in this thread).
By no means am I claiming that anyone calling himself or herself Christian has always handled the problem of X sin flawlessly. Even Christians, especially Christians, are works in progress. However, that does not change anything. Homosexuality is still wrong, just as adultery and murder are wrong.
If that is truly what you base your morality on, you should be giving Christianity a closer look. It was recently proven that atheism is un-American, and furthermore, history has proven time and again that the only good governments are the ones that honor God first and foremost.
Once again you are promoting Christianity as an empirical truth which it has never been proven as. Additionally your assumption that moral societies can only exist in Judeo-Christian places is a complete non sequitur. Additionally religion does not make people more moral and in fact non-religious children are more altruistic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np4thTA1jpU
http://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html
I would like to see the proof that atheism is un-American. Not that I really mind however the United States does have the most adults who believe angels are real.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/23/AR2006122300229.html
James 2 famously states that "faith without works is dead." In other words, Christians should live as God would have us live as best we can, and repent for our failings. Repentance is not a mere apology, it's a promise to never make that mistake again, and we do our best. A real Christian lives a life of constant repentance, not because that does anything to increase or decrease his/her standing with God, but out of love for God. It's similar to how a child obeys his father because he loves his father, not because he fears punishment or anything.
I was referring to
this and the pattern of nations falling when they become too decadent and corrupt, such as the Roman Empire. Or are you not a student of history?
If you taught a philosophy class, and I was your student, I'm sure you'd reprimand and report me if I were to cheat on the final exam. However, what basis would you have for doing that as an atheist? According to what you believe, there's no reason to play by the rules if I can do better by cheating due to the infamous "survival of the fittest" mentality. As a Christian, however, I recognize that the existence of morality is justified by God. You, as an atheist, have no reason to do anything other than what makes you happy, because you have no idea when you will die, only that you will. Then you'll be gone, and nothing could matter to you because you'd be dead.
Without God, all things are permissible.
Filial piety also assumes that the father will treat the son well.
The Roman Empire lasted until 1453CE and was collapsed in a war with the Ottoman Turks.
Argumentum ad hominem (as was most of your last response).
In Romans 1, Paul writes about those who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." That is what comes to mind here. I'm grateful that you're being nice about this (unlike a couple other people I could mention), but this is in effect what you're doing. It's like you put on a blindfold and refuse to accept that you can't see.
If you're sick of reading what I'm posting, read the Bible instead. The Bible really is all the proof anyone needs anyway. Science and everything else just confirms the Bible is right.
Actually, an acquaintance of mine IRL recommended this site. I can see now that he was in error. I don't have another account here, and I don't really have much to talk about when it comes to Pokémon. I dislike competitive battling, and I generally keep to myself to begin with. However, when I saw this thread, I simply could not keep silent. While I agree that I could have phrased a few things differently, I don't believe anyone would have posted any differently in any case. The moment someone posts the truth about anything, that person is attacked without fail, and you don't see that any more viciously than in the case of the Gospel.
If it's up to each individual, why should God bother judging? I'd like to refer you to Romans 1 as well. However, it's also important to make a distinction between hating a person and hating a sin. Christ said that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, but if we really care about others, why are we letting them harm themselves and others?
Romans 1 assumes that Christianity is the truth. The argument holds valid with assumption but that does not make the argument is true. For a counter example argument I am going to have some premises and make a valid statement that does not hold truth.
Premise 1: The moon is made up of moonrock.
Premise 2: Moonrock is made of green cheese.
Conclusion: The moon is made of green cheese.
Since we assume that my premises are true then my conclusion follows through with the logic and is therefore valid. However we know that in a real world sense this does not hold because the moon is not made of any kind of cheese at all. I suggest you check out the CrashCourse on philosophy to learn more about these arguments.
I have read the Bible. I did not find the Bible intriguing, interesting, or containing any necessarily empirical truth in its doctrines.
I am sorry that this forum did not live up to your expectations.
I've already addressed Romans 1.
It's not possible to run chemical tests on something as abstract as a concept or idea, so empiricism in and of itself should not be one's worldview's ultimate standard. I agree that it's useful as a secondary standard, but no better than that.
Anyone who sincerely seeks God out will find Him. This is what I would have you do.
The simple fact is that God has had a huge impact on everyone's lives. Without Him, our lives wouldn't exist to begin with.
You know, at least Nah was fair. Let's tackle these things one at a time, shall we?
First, by no means do I claim to know and understand everything that God does. However, the Bible exists, so it's more than possible for any human being to understand enough of what God wants from us. Do you assume that the Bible is just another piece of literature, and/or do you assume that the 500+ people who saw the risen Christ are wrong, in spite of the fact Christianity could not possibly have survived if not for the Resurrection?
It's actually very easy. A homosexual lifestyle is, at its core, selfish and dangerous. Homosexual acts are proven to endanger the health of the participants, to say nothing of the psychological damage involved to both parties or the biological fact that a man and a woman are required for the reproductive process. If this act is natural, then you may as well also say rape is natural. Both are selfish sexual acts, both cause some form of harm, and both are evil in the eyes of God. And by the way, there's a huge difference between hating the act and hating the person. God hates homosexuality, not homosexuals. You would do well to remember that.
Regarding morality, everything you've just said I have already proven wrong either earlier in this thread or in the thread about the existence of God. I doubt you're interested, considering your tone, but you might want to do some reading.
All of creation is affected by sin, and eventually Christ will return and redeem everyone and everything, except for the human beings who sided against Him. Seeing homosexual behavior in animals now is just more proof of this, not proof that homosexuality is in any way okay or natural.
Although, because all of creation is affected by sin, I suppose one could try to argue that sin is natural. The problem with that, though, would be the fact that sin and death weren't originally part of creation, as they were introduced by Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and will be removed by Christ eventually, with the Resurrection ending the problem of evil in the meantime.
A bigot is defined as
"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion," so I'd like to question why that's so bad in certain cases. For example, I would claim it would be beneficial to be a bigot when it comes to rape. Is there a reason I should be tolerant of the idea that rape might be okay in certain circumstances? Is there a reason I should be tolerant of the idea that rape is perfectly acceptable? I sincerely doubt it. So, if I am a bigot because I don't tolerate the idea that homosexuality is okay, I am perfectly fine with that. From my point of view, it's not even really an insult.
I did point out ICR and Answers in Genesis before. Check 'em out.
I agree with the first sentence here and not the second.
Faith based on facts is rational, not blind. I have, in fact, given plenty of evidence. You don't see it because you are clinging to a fallacious worldview that assumes Christianity is wrong. Ultimately, everything comes down to a single choice, and that's what you decide on regarding Christ.
It is possible to run tests (not always chemical) on ideas if the ideas are indeed testable. Therefore on any testable idea empiricism is always the highest attainable assurance we can ever have. The best we have outside of empiricism is unprovability.
You once again presume that God made humans. I assume that that is a false premise and therefore your argument does not hold true to me.
I do assume that everyone who saw Christ rise was incorrect and that they may not have even existed.
Humans at their core are selfish beings. Altruism has to be manufactured and as I stated earlier it seems that irreligious people are more likely to be altruistic anyway.
You have not proven anything wrong, at best you have simply done what I have an just presume that earlier premises are wrong and therefore do not hold a valid conclusion.
I've already responded to the rest of this previously so I shall move on.
"Not one iota of perception" denotes empiricism, so I debunked it. I've already gotten the point of metaphysics.
That's what the Bible says. The Bible is inerrant. You're basically placing your own reasoning over everything else here, and human reasoning can only go so far. Even if God Himself stood before you today and said hello, you would probably still not believe, not because of a denial of the evidence (although you do do that as well), but because skeptics can try to explain away anything. Even the Pharisees claimed Christ cast out demons by the king of demons.
No other origin story works logically.
The Bible being inerrant does not make it true. Additionally I assume your presumptions are wrong and therefore your conclusion does not hold.
The big bang has a pretty decent following with some pretty good empirical evidence behind it.
I don't care if you hate me or if you hate God, but if you're going to use vitriol and poor reasoning to accuse me of vitriol and poor reasoning, I don't believe I can take you seriously. Besides, all you can really do is ban me, and people like Peter and Paul were executed for believing what I believe.
The reasonings stated previously were not in poor reasoning and my logical arguments help back up previously stated ideas and conclusions by other people in this thread. I think even if I were religious comparing your being banned to the sacrifices two people made for what they believed in is a little arrogant. You are not a martyr.
