Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
correct...its not a lifestyle..its not a choice...its a birth defect...a neurological disorder... a disability
Yes indeed ... it is not a lifestyle ... it is not a choice ... it is a special gift ... a positive attribute ... a glorious and beneficial ability to transcend the mundane and banal mediocrity of the majority.
First off God didn't make you *****, you decided to be. It's not cotton clothes my friend, but Wool. Actually I like wool clothes. Warm in the winter, eventho at first hot in the summer, when you start sweating, the wool will actually help cool your body.
Second, just because YOU don't like what God said in a book of the Bible, doesn't mean he won't judge you by that book! Oh, i do not eat clams, oysters, shrimp, crab, or lobster.
ROFL..........It says unnatural fibers....meaning man-made fibers are a no no..........I'm familar with Wool......you didn't just patent it!!!!
And get educated your posts are foolish.......you don't have a CLUE what sexual orientation even means otherwise you would not post such BS and nonsense! And it's IMPOSSIBLE to avoid man-made materials in modern clothing.
Show me the scientific and/or professional links stating folks choose to be gay........and why you are at it.....this is the 21st century.....you got a computer do some research YOURSELF before posting LIES and MISINFORMATION!
PS......YOU better hope God does not judge you as you try to judge others....otherwise you're in BIG trouble and Wool won't keep you cool down there.
Why don't you stick to your Ten Commandments, you already broke a few of those in your post. Like bare false witness against thy neighbor!
If the necessary requirements for something to happen exist, and it has an eternity to do it, it would have happened an infinite amount of time ago. This isn't the case, because we do know that there was a beginning point to the universe.
Do you know what an antonym is? It's opposites. If we have an "antonymic pair", it's either one or the other. In this case, there is "either" a personal creator, or not. The non-personal creator/cause is impossible--as I've explained. I realize this is probably the first you've heard of this argument, and you probably have no other answer but "So....you're stupid!". That's pretty typical of you guys when you get stumped. Try to resist that and do some research on your own.
Quote:
Such as?
Ponder that one for a bit. Where did the space in the universe begin? What about the matter that makes up the universe? What triggered it? Why didn't it occur an infinite amount of time sooner?
Quote:
I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. That still doesn't offer any proof of a supreme creator, however. If one thing (god) can have always existed, why not another?
Logical absolutes, which are conceptual in nature, and are not dependent on location, time, phsical existence, etc, prove the existence of a mind. If you want to claim there may be multiple "minds", fine.
Quote:
I never claimed you had been quoting the Bible, did I? I simply said it was not acceptable to use as "evidence".
So, because something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same sense, that proves there is a supreme creator? How, exactly?
That would be a logical absolute that is conceptual in nature, and such an absolute proves the existence of a mind to conceive of it.
Quote:
Can the universe exist without an intelligent creating being? Yes, I believe it absolutely can and does.
Then you are not thinking logically. At some point you need to ask yourself what caused the universe, and how do you account for logical absolutes?
As I said before, don't feel bad. Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest have no real answer either. Their schtick is to just throw insults at religion and try to shame people into not noticing the atheist position is not viable.
Because for the Christian nut jobs the book of myth says that its bad. but it also says for slave to be obedient, and that killing non believers is just OK with God. LOL. Stupid people.
Show me that please. Give me actual quotes please. Nonsense like that is what's tiring. It'd be nice if you actually did a bit of homework and posted with some knowledge. I know that's too much to ask sometimes.
Show me that please. Give me actual quotes please. Nonsense like that is what's tiring. It'd be nice if you actually did a bit of homework and posted with some knowledge. I know that's too much to ask sometimes.
If the necessary requirements for something to happen exist, and it has an eternity to do it, it would have happened an infinite amount of time ago. This isn't the case, because we do know that there was a beginning point to the universe.
Correct, but that "beginning point" to the universe could have been caused by an event, not necessarily a "being". Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean the only acceptable answer is "magic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Do you know what an antonym is? It's opposites. If we have an "antonymic pair", it's either one or the other. In this case, there is "either" a personal creator, or not. The non-personal creator/cause is impossible--as I've explained. I realize this is probably the first you've heard of this argument, and you probably have no other answer but "So....you're stupid!". That's pretty typical of you guys when you get stumped. Try to resist that and do some research on your own.
Yeah, I know what an antonym is, even as a product of public schooling. Thanks for the patronization, though. It adds tons to your argument. No, this isn't the first time I've heard this argument, either. I've done lots of research on my own, thanks. I am of the opinion that it is a logical leap to say that simply because we agree on logical absolutes to provide a foundation for rational discussion, that it presents irrefutable evidence of a "mind" or creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Ponder that one for a bit. Where did the space in the universe begin? What about the matter that makes up the universe? What triggered it? Why didn't it occur an infinite amount of time sooner?
Again, just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that it was magic or "God" did it. IMO, this is simply another situation where we use "God" as a crutch, because to have ANY reason (even one with no evidence to point to it as the truth) is more comfortable than saying "I don't know".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Logical absolutes, which are conceptual in nature, and are not dependent on location, time, phsical existence, etc, prove the existence of a mind. If you want to claim there may be multiple "minds", fine.
That would be a logical absolute that is conceptual in nature, and such an absolute proves the existence of a mind to conceive of it.
Again, I think this is a leap in logic, as I stated above. Just because we all agree on ground rules for "logic" doesn't mean there MUST be a skydaddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Then you are not thinking logically. At some point you need to ask yourself what caused the universe, and how do you account for logical absolutes?
I would argue that I AM thinking logically. I don't know what caused the universe, and neither do you. I don't see any compelling evidence that points to an all powerful "being" that exists outside the universe, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
As I said before, don't feel bad. Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest have no real answer either. Their schtick is to just throw insults at religion and try to shame people into not noticing the atheist position is not viable.
I don't believe I've insulted you, have I? There is as much evidence to support atheism, if not more, than to support theism. Again, just because we don't know all the answers right now, doesn't mean it was supernatural.
Is that the best answer you can come up with?
The Bible wasn't written in English, and the cultures were vastly different to 21st century western cultures.
"God" didn't say anything about gays. Neither did the men who wrote the biblical texts. They referred to male shrine prostitutes (qadesh) in the original languages and context.
Sexual orientation is not something you can pray away.
"Sexual orientation is not something you can pray away."
actually ? it is...but not in the way your 'highly-evolved mind' could possibly comprehend at this point in your life...
The 'act' of praying (on a regular basis) forces one's mind OFF of the things which they might otherwise be doing.
It's called 'self-discipline'...and if there's ONE thing I've noticed SADLY lacking among members of the 'LGBT' community, it's self-discipline.
You all 'flit' here and there, on a whim as it were...going from one person/place or thing as it pleases you all, and when that person/place or thing 'dis-pleases' you in some way, shape or form, you simply 'move on' to the next sexual/mental or financial 'curiosity'...
With gays, it's all about 'doing whatever FEELS good for the moment', and almost NEVER about finding a physical, mental or spiritual challenge which inevitably leads to a 're-birth' within oneself...something worth pursuing to it's logical end, in such a way that they are 'improved' as a human being, and (in turn) can be used to help or improve others around them.
Allrighty...so you have gay-parades...it's a 'community thing', I'll give you that...but how does a gay-parade 'improve' the surrounding community ? seems to me it sows nothing but discontent on BOTH sides of the street.
Hetero's are incensed at your blatent "we're just like YOU !" attitudes...because it's plainly evident that you're NOT just like us.
Ohhhh I'm reading all these posts by gay people, and inevitably your hatred is summed up in your statement "why should I have to be lonely for the rest of my life just because YOUR God says being gay is a damnable sin..."
Well...I for one am not saying that you do an air/sea change and start believing in my (or any other) God...but I AM going to say that there IS great nobility in facing one's own weaknesses, and learning to work through it.
If you're a man, and you don't feel any physical attraction to women, nobody is saying you HAVE to force yourself to do something that totally disgusts you, right to your very core...
If you're a woman and don't feel the need to get with a man...MORE POWER TO YOU...
What you CAN do, is learn to love your fellow man (or woman) as brother and sister...but KNOW that there is a line that is drawn, and there is a 'natural order' to things...whether placed upon us by a God which you can neither see or hear (or who'se existance you have no proof of)...or by millions of years of human evolution.
Generally speaking, most 'Highly Evolved' individuals (Elites ?) stand out from the crowd, or come out on top by exhibiting GREAT amounts of self-discipline; that's how they got where they were to begin with...but FOCUSING on thier goals and never letting anyone or anything get in thier way.
That trait right there shows an incredibly high threshold to pain and discomfort, whether physical, mental or spiritual...and to date, I have YET to have met a single, solitary gay man or woman who shows those levels of 'tolerance'...quite the opposite really; much whining and complaining...constantly, never-ending actually.
TEDIOUS...VERY very tedious individuals...HOPELESSLY tied-up in thier own personal 'comfort-level', hardly ever learn to push the envelope of thier OWN narcissistic 'bubble', but instead are only TOO happy to lash-out and share thier pain and discomfort with others.
No...I'm not terribly impressed with the gay-community as a whole, and as these economic times worsen, I feel that many within it's ranks will eventually fall by the wayside, because the hetero-community outnumbers the gay community by so great a margin, that the 'issues' of the gay-community just don't even register on our agendas.
There's FAR more important matters to be concerned about, rather than whether or not Adam and Steve or Eve and Erica can LEGALLY walk down the aisle hand-in-hand and be recognized as...
...'whatever'...
:: rolles eyes & throws hands up ::
Do what ya gotta do...live your lives...but don't get in my face with your issues, because I WILL push back, and perhaps not nearly as 'gently' as you'll be hoping.
Christian or not, God-Fearing or not...I recognize pure evil and 'de-constructive' ideals and mind-sets for what they are, and if I'm not allowed the freedom to stand MY ground and live a quiet, peaceful life on MY terms, totally free and apart from that kindof filth, then I will go on the offensive, and run you off.
Money won't save you...Political and Legal 'connections' won't save you, and the law is forbidden to get involved until AFTER something happens.
So the next time one of you F*** slithers up to me in a bar and tries to hit on me with your 'oh so typical' effeminate witticisms, just keep in mind:
The only substitute for good manners is fast-reflexes.
Correct, but that "beginning point" to the universe could have been caused by an event, not necessarily a "being". Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean the only acceptable answer is "magic".
What triggered the event? Why didn't it happen sooner?
Quote:
Yeah, I know what an antonym is, even as a product of public schooling. Thanks for the patronization, though.
Not everyone does. To be honest, the new atheist movement isn't known for great intellectual power. You guys wouldn't stand a chance against some of the great Christian minds of old. At least based on what I've seen from your movement.
Quote:
It adds tons to your argument. No, this isn't the first time I've heard this argument, either. I've done lots of research on my own, thanks. I am of the opinion that it is a logical leap to say that simply because we agree on logical absolutes to provide a foundation for rational discussion, that it presents irrefutable evidence of a "mind" or creator.
How else do you account for them?
Quote:
Again, just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that it was magic or "God" did it. IMO, this is simply another situation where we use "God" as a crutch, because to have ANY reason (even one with no evidence to point to it as the truth) is more comfortable than saying "I don't know".
The only other option is something that has been proven impossible.
Quote:
Again, I think this is a leap in logic, as I stated above. Just because we all agree on ground rules for "logic" doesn't mean there MUST be a skydaddy.
You ignore logic and choose instead of pose strawman arguments like "skydaddy". Who's patronizing who?
Quote:
I would argue that I AM thinking logically. I don't know what caused the universe, and neither do you. I don't see any compelling evidence that points to an all powerful "being" that exists outside the universe, though.
I would disagree. YOu're willing to embrace just about anything on faith as long as it's not God.
Quote:
I don't believe I've insulted you, have I? There is as much evidence to support atheism, if not more, than to support theism. Again, just because we don't know all the answers right now, doesn't mean it was supernatural.
I haven't suggested you did--other than patronizing me with stupid "skydaddy" comments just now. I do find it interesting though, that given 2 choices that are possible you reject both and say there must be a 3rd just because you're unwilling to accept something you can't explain.
What triggered the event? Why didn't it happen sooner?
I don't know and neither do you. That doesn't mean it MUST have been "God", however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Not everyone does. To be honest, the new atheist movement isn't known for great intellectual power. You guys wouldn't stand a chance against some of the great Christian minds of old. At least based on what I've seen from your movement.
You're welcome to your opinion. Perhaps you just haven't seen enough of the "atheist movement"? Also, it's not "my" movement. If anything I'd consider myself far closer to an agnostic than an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
How else do you account for them?
As above, I don't have the answer. That doesn't mean it had to be "God".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
The only other option is something that has been proven impossible.
What is this only other option and who has proven it to be impossible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
You ignore logic and choose instead of pose strawman arguments like "skydaddy". Who's patronizing who?
I'm not ignoring logic, and "skydaddy" is not a strawman argument. Regarding patronization, turnabout is fair play, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
I would disagree. YOu're willing to embrace just about anything on faith as long as it's not God.
I'm not taking ANYTHING on faith. How many times do I have to say "I don't know" for you to get it. There are myriad things that no one has the answer for and I'm perfectly comfortable with the answer of "we don't know, yet". It would appear that you aren't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
I haven't suggested you did--other than patronizing me with stupid "skydaddy" comments just now. I do find it interesting though, that given 2 choices that are possible you reject both and say there must be a 3rd just because you're unwilling to accept something you can't explain.
LOL What two choices have I rejected? *I'm* the one unwilling to accept something I can't explain? I've have stated over and over again that I don't know the answers, and I don't believe anyone does. It would seem, to me, that people who cling to religions as a means of explaining the unknown are the ones unwilling to accept something without an explanation.
Regardless, we have gone far afield from the OP of this thread. We can continue this in one of the several similar threads in the religion forum, if you like.
I promise to not use the term "skydaddy" anymore, as it seems to upset you. I apologize.
I don't know and neither do you. That doesn't mean it MUST have been "God", however.
If there is no personal creator, there is nothing to explain why such an event did not happen as soon as the conditions were right to happen.
Quote:
You're welcome to your opinion. Perhaps you just haven't seen enough of the "atheist movement"? Also, it's not "my" movement. If anything I'd consider myself far closer to an agnostic than an atheist.
I've read Hitchens and Dawkins. I've heard quite a few debates between New atheists and theists. I wasn't impressed. I'm sorry if I miscategorized you. You seem to be taking the side of the new atheists.
Quote:
As above, I don't have the answer. That doesn't mean it had to be "God".
If the alternative theory is ruled out the remaining one is proven. (Antonymic pairs).
Quote:
What is this only other option and who has proven it to be impossible?
The non-personal creator. It's been disproven.
Quote:
I'm not ignoring logic, and "skydaddy" is not a strawman argument. Regarding patronization, turnabout is fair play, no?
It presents a simplified view of theism. You're right...not sure if "strawman" is an appropriate label.
Quote:
I'm not taking ANYTHING on faith. How many times do I have to say "I don't know" for you to get it. There are myriad things that no one has the answer for and I'm perfectly comfortable with the answer of "we don't know, yet". It would appear that you aren't?
It was EITHER (antonymic pair) one or the other. I can disprove the non-personal creator. The only other option is a person creator.
Quote:
I promise to not use the term "skydaddy" anymore, as it seems to upset you. I apologize.
Thank you. I also apologize if I've said anything to offend you and will try to refrain from patronizing you, as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
......you didn't just patent it!!!!
