Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 4,401-4,450 of 12,463

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: You can see it with what cs has said. Though he and other theists have posted claims that religion is superior, he accuses atheists of lurking on forums to attack religion. So it is ok for him to preach his religion and claim its benefits but other people who choose to disagree are "attacking" him.

"

One of your attributes is to ‘put words into others mouths’ for the benefit of other atheists. You check back on this thread; anyone who answers in favour of religion is then questioned by two or three regular atheist members, as I was. My ‘preaching ‘ as you call it is in response to questioning I receive, normally from two or three folks at a time and I don’t give a monkeys about wanting to bestow on others, the benefits you seen to think I want to.


Are you trying to imply that Shannon is secretly bigoted against Christians then?


Another example. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion, or is it just another way of putting ‘words in mouths’ again to curry favour with others.


Christianity claims that being gay is bad, many Christians claim that bad people are going to hell. Therefore many homosexuals brought up with a Christian influence feel guilty about their feelings and are afraid of being punished by god for the sin of how they feel.


Read this back to your self. Two sentences which includes four negatives, again for effect, I suspect. This is not a normal discussion, this is someone having a rant at Christians at every chance he gets.

Christianity does not claim being gay is bad, they say it is sinful. And as you well know the vision of hell that you like to paint here is not what Christians perceive it to be now. Again and as I’ve said before you are using Christianity of the past and blending it with the present for effect and it seems to work, I’ll give you that, some here seem impressed with your words.

Times change and the effects of the change can be seen in science, religion, politics, philosophy etc. But you like to paint the 2012 Christian religion with colours from past.

You will get conflicts through all walks of life, including religion, and sometimes an individual will have to make a choice, that’s life. If you are a Christian who happens to be gay you may have to choose between your lifestyle and your religion, if you believe what you are doing is wrong. If you believe that you are doing nothing wrong then in the Catholic eyes you are not sinning, so there should not be a conflict.

I have mentioned this before, but instead of seeing my point or discussing it, I get all the usual ‘flip’ remarks that I have come to accept on this forum.

To state the opposite view and play devils advocate. People have a right to not approve of the unnatural act of homosexuals.


Evidence please. No known contemporary accounts exist that corroborate the existence of a figure called Jesus that wasn't written after the establishment of the Christian religion.


So are you going to apply this logic to every historical person in the same way?

[Travis]

cs wrote: "Gary wrote: You can see it with what cs has said. Though he and other theists have posted claims that religion is superior, he accuses atheists of lurking on forums to attack religion. So it is ok ..."

How is homosexuality unnatural?
It occurs in numerous species, and they are all part of nature.

As to the 'proving' Jesus thing: yes, we should apply the same logic to all made up historical figures as we do Jesus.

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "cs wrote: "Gary wrote: You can see it with what cs has said. Though he and other theists have posted claims that religion is superior, he accuses atheists of lurking on forums to attack religion. S..."

Travis, we should apply it to real historical figures too. For example, in another thread cs challenged those responding to him to prove that Henry the 8th actually existed, so we listed the vast amount of evidence we have of his existence, and compared this to the utter dearth of evidence for Jesus, not only this, but we discussed quality and reliability of evidence. So, the fact that this has come up again, at the prompting of cs has led me to conclude a couple of things, that may or may not be mutually exclusive. First, he's a troll, simply trying to get a response by constantly using the same ignorant lines of questioning. Second, that he simply pays no attention to anything anyone else has written, that he is so sure of his rightness that he simply dismisses what anyone has written, probably without doing anything other than his infamous skim read, and no amount of talking or discussing with him will alter the way he views what he considers to be "facts". Actually theres a third thing too, and that is he keeps asking the same questions in the hope that someone will concede his unsubstantiated claims and points and will give credence to what he thinks, a sort of plea for confirmation of his position.

[Maria]

Gary said:

"Adam and Eve were punished for even finding out what was right and wrong."

Actually they were punished for disobedience. They were given a test by being told not to eat from a particular tree. It wasn't the tree that was bad, necessarily, it was the fact that their Creator gave them a command and wanted to see if they would obey. God could have said "Don't sit on that particular rock." No reason given. The command did not have to make sense - just don't do it because he created you and he said not to. Either way, they disobeyed so got punished.

[Maria]

Travis said:

"How is homosexuality unnatural?"

If one chooses to believe in the Bible, we've already been over how it is condemned in the book of 1st Corinthians, i.e. "men who lie with men...will not inherit the kingdom of god". Christians claim that the Bible is their "rulebook" - so therefore a Christian has to acknowledge, however grudingly, that, yep, that's what it says.

Also if one chooses to believe in the Creation account in Genesis - God gave Adam a WOMAN, Eve, to be with and to "know" in the Biblical sense. If God was ok with men/men he would have put a man and a woman both there and asked Adam to pick the one that turned him on.

[Tim]

That's absurd! Who is this God telling me not to sit on that rock? I'll sit where I damned well like. We got told do this don't do that all our lives by evil motherfuckers here in South Africa, half the time using the bible to back up their orders. And you know what drove me mad? There was no logic, it was just an order. "Because we said so!"

If God really gave orders like that without explaining himself, then he can shove his tree up his arse as far as I'm concerned.

[Tim]

And his apples and his bloody talking snakes too.

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "Travis said:

"How is homosexuality unnatural?"

If one chooses to believe in the Bible, we've already been over how it is condemned in the book of 1st Corinthians, i.e. "men who lie with men...wil..."

the thing is, whatever belief people subscribe to is irrelevant of whether its natural or not. As we're not the only species to display homosexual behaviour, then it can be extrapolated that it is a natural state. A girl I went to school with had 4 cats, 3 male, one female (none of them spayed/neutered), and one of the males was only interested in sex with the other two males, and had no interest in the female even when she was in heat.

And when it comes to people who subscribe to the belief as you described it, then until they can provide proof for what they're saying it can be dismissed, especially in the face of contradictory evidence.

[Tim]

Exactly. A male dog will fuck anything: a table leg, your own leg, another male dog...

I rest my case

[Maria]

Tim - that is certainly your prerogative, and I won't dispute your right to do whatever the heck you please. I'm not saying I don't do whatever the heck I please either.

But IF someone believes that God is their creator, then, yeah, the creator does have the right to tell his creation what to do and expect it to be obeyed.
If you don't believe in God or the Bible, then you're off the hook, so to speak.

And the evil MF's you speak about in South Africa - not obeying those horrible people is a lot different than not obeying the creator of the universe and all the people and things in it. If that's what you believe in.

[Tim]

Phew! Thanks Maria. ;-)

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: How is homosexuality unnatural?
.."

Unnatural in the sense that it is against nature, the job of any life form is to procreate.

It occurs in numerous species, and they are all part of nature

Not strictly true, there are mixed options on this.

[Maria]

Tim wrote: "Phew! Thanks Maria. ;-)"

No problem. :)

[Dan]

I think it's not so much religion vs science and vice versa, I believe that it's the interpretation of religion and the implementation of science thats the key.

Without religion, we would not have had the belief to dig deep and discover what we have so far.

I am an atheist but yet I still believe in myself to keep pushing and discovering more, could that not be classed as a religion? A religion not as we know it of course, but a religion nonetheless.

Several posts have been made regarding extremism and it's relation to religion throughout this chain and as I mentioned above, it's not religion thats the problem - its the interpretation of it. I will stand by anyone who says they believe in something (without trying to be extremist obviously) but until I see proof that something out there exists, Science wins.

[cHriS]

Tim wrote: "Exactly. A male dog will fuck anything: a table leg, your own leg, another male dog...

I rest my case"

You have just disproved your own case.

[Hazel]

its really interesting that people think the job of any organism is to procreate, it is not, it is to ensure the survival of its genes into the next generation, and many species have ways of doing this that do not involve mating, but instead involve helping relatives raise their young.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "One of your attributes is to ‘put words into others mouths’"

Can you not see the inherent irony of accusing me of certain attributes, that attribute being speaking on behalf of others? You are trying to speak on behalf of me here!

cs wrote: "Another example. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion, or is it just another way of putting ‘words in mouths’ again to curry favour with others."

Of course I can, accusing someone of using the line 'I am not bigoted against (x) because they have friends who are (x)' is usually an implication that they secretly are prejudice and are trying to use this claim to hide this fact. This is why I was somewhat shocked. It was not an attempt to "curry favour". I speak for myself, not for other atheists or theists.

You seem to have developed a bit of a persecution complex.

cs wrote: "Read this back to your self. Two sentences which includes four negatives, again for effect, I suspect. This is not a normal discussion, this is someone having a rant at Christians at every chance he gets."

I think christianity (not Christians as you keep claiming) has bad parts. I mention it in the discussion as the good parts are not in dispute, for what they are.

What is not a discussion is making claims and accusations without accompanying rationale or evidence.

cs wrote: "Christianity does not claim being gay is bad, they say it is sinful."

So what is the difference between "bad" and "sinful"?

sin
noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
verb (used without object)
4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.

So sin is a transgression, offence or crime. I think that can be typified as "bad".

cs wrote: "And as you well know the vision of hell that you like to paint here is not what Christians perceive it to be now."

Actually I have met a preacher this week alone who would disagree with you.

cs wrote: "Again and as I’ve said before you are using Christianity of the past and blending it with the present for effect and it seems to work, I’ll give you that, some here seem impressed with your words."

So where do you get your idea of god, cosmology and the rules of christendom? Is there a revised Bible or are you the new prophet of a new Christianity?

cs wrote: "Times change and the effects of the change can be seen in science, religion, politics, philosophy etc. But you like to paint the 2012 Christian religion with colours from past."

Look at the US and the struggle to try to prevent changes to "traditional" marriage and attempting to deny evolution as it conflicts with the ancient account of the bible. Look at the people who say we should follow the ten commandments as the basis of our laws.

cs wrote: "If you are a Christian who happens to be gay you may have to choose between your lifestyle and your religion, if you believe what you are doing is wrong. If you believe that you are doing nothing wrong then in the Catholic eyes you are not sinning, so there should not be a conflict."

So the great morality of Christianity is it is only sin if you feel bad about it? That explains a lot to be honest.

cs wrote: "I have mentioned this before, but instead of seeing my point or discussing it, I get all the usual ‘flip’ remarks that I have come to accept on this forum."

You seem to think "seeing your point" means agreeing with you. People don't and explain why and in response you throw out accusations without base.

cs wrote: "To state the opposite view and play devils advocate. People have a right to not approve of the unnatural act of homosexuals. "

And people have the right to challenge hatred and bigotry wherever it raises its ugly head. Especially the sick idea that people are unnatural for expressing love for someone.

cs wrote: "So are you going to apply this logic to every historical person in the same way?"

Yup. Fortunately a lot of historical figures are less contentious and have more evidence.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "The command did not have to make sense - just don't do it because he created you and he said not to. Either way, they disobeyed so got punished. "

Yup Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So god told them not to do it, but they did not know good and evil (therefore right and wrong) until they ate the fruit so how were they supposed to know that disobedience was wrong?

[Gary]

Tim wrote: "And his apples and his bloody talking snakes too."

It's only referred to as a "fruit", the general assumption was it is an apple, especially as apples as a form of conflict is an old Greek legend. :-)

[Maria]

Gary said:

"So god told them not to do it, but they did not know good and evil (therefore right and wrong) until they ate the fruit so how were they supposed to know that disobedience was wrong?"

Well, you got me there :)

But, did they really have to know that disobedience was wrong, or just know that "I was told not to do this by God so I better not do it." ? Not the concept of right and wrong, per se - just knowing what DON'T DO THIS means.

[Hazel]

but until they know that "don't do this" means something is forbidden, the words mean nothing. And until they know right from wrong, they have no concept of forbidden, because forbidden comes under "wrong". Its simply that they have no concept of what any of the words mean, they do not comprehend at all. It would be like putting a steak in front of a dog and saying its not to eat it, the dog doesn't understand, so, punishing the dog when it does eat the steak is unreasonable.

[Maria]

Well, yeah, but I would hope he would have made them a little more intelligent than a dog. Even a small baby knows NO. Doesn't know why, or know that it's wrong, just understands NO. Good debate.

Just as an aside, I did have a dog named Andre, the best dog I ever had as a child - you could put a hot dog on the floor beside him and he wouldn't go for it until you gave the command.

[Maria]

I hate to tell you cs, but there is not a "2012 Christianity" vs. an ancient Christianity. It is the SAME... unless you know of a Bible written recently.

[Hazel]

a small baby doesn't know "No" actually, I can attest to this, having had one. You have to teach them.

And you'll have had to train your dog to do that. Though thats very cute. I used to know a dog who was trained to balance food on its nose, and then his owner would count to 8, and on 8 it would flip it into the air and eat it.

[Maria]

Yeah, Andre would do that too. And, yes I trained him to do it.

According to the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden for an indeterminate time period before the "temptation" incident. Adam named all the animals, with God's help - probably had to build a shelter of some kind - and the account says that God would talk to Adam at different times - so chances are, Adam had enough intelligence and training to know what no meant.

I don't think that a loving god would punish his "children" for something they didn't know was wrong, any more than you'd punish your baby for not knowing something you hadn't taught them yet.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Also if one chooses to believe in the Creation account in Genesis - God gave Adam a WOMAN, Eve, to be with and to "know" in the Biblical sense. If God was ok with men/men he would have put a man and a woman both there and asked Adam to pick the one that turned him on. "

You are quite right. The Bible also says that women should not talk back to men on matters of religion and that women were given to men to be subservient to them.

The Bible says a lot of horrible things which I find morally repugnant. Not just the homophobia.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "But IF someone believes that God is their creator, then, yeah, the creator does have the right to tell his creation what to do and expect it to be obeyed.

That is fundamentally messed up right there. Why give something free will if you don't want it to use it? Especially if you are all-knowing and know you are going to have to kill them or condemn them to suffering even before you made them?

Imagine the outcry if mankind created a sentient, self-aware creature and then demanded unquestioning obedience. In fact mankind does this on occasion without bothering with the creation bit. Its called enslaving people.

Maria wrote: "If you don't believe in God or the Bible, then you're off the hook, so to speak."

I wish. Unfortunately you will find yourself throughout your life at the whim of those who do believe.

[Maria]

Gary said:

"The Bible says a lot of horrible things which I find morally repugnant. Not just the homophobia."

And since you don't claim to be Christian, then you don't have to agree with the Bible on any matter, repugnant or just "doesn't make sense".

I don't take issue with that because you are being true to what you believe, or don't believe in this case.

It's the so-called Christians I take issue with - the hypocrisy of saying "yes, I'm a Christian who accepts Jesus, and believes in the Bible, but I don't agree with the Bible's position on homophobia, women's submission to men, etc etc."

My entire position on this thread has been that you can't claim to be Christian (or Buddhist or Muslim or whatever) and not agree with ALL the beliefs of that faith. You're not allowed to pick the ones that suit your lifestyle and reject the others. I find that to be hypocritical.

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "Yeah, Andre would do that too. And, yes I trained him to do it.

According to the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden for an indeterminate time period before the "temptation..."

which is why I don't think the god as portrayed in the bible is a loving god. For example, a loving god would have taken loving steps instead of instantly resorting to genocide by flood. And many many other examples.

And you're talking about the bible as if its consistent. It contradicts itself within a couple of verse of each other fairly regularly.

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "Gary said:

"The Bible says a lot of horrible things which I find morally repugnant. Not just the homophobia."

And since you don't claim to be Christian, then you don't have to agree with the Bibl..."

I still haven't worked out what your position is, even though I'm loving many of your posts. So I'm gonna ask outright. Are you a christian? Or something else? Or what?

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Unnatural in the sense that it is against nature, the job of any life form is to procreate."

If its against nature then why is it in somebodies nature? Why is the 'job' of a lifeform to procreate, I thought religion was meant to give a purpose to life? You know, other than sex.

Does that mean that men or women who for no fault of their own cannot procreate should not get married or have sex? Does that mean that they should die because their lives are now meaningless? What about when you get to a certain age? Are old childless couples lives meaningless?

cs wrote: "It occurs in numerous species, and they are all part of nature

Not strictly true, there are mixed options on this. "

Again I think you mean "opinions" and not "options" and there is no mixed opinion amongst people who have actually studied it.

[Gary]

Dan wrote: "I am an atheist but yet I still believe in myself to keep pushing and discovering more, could that not be classed as a religion? A religion not as we know it of course, but a religion nonetheless."

If you 'believe' something then you are placing idea above evidence. You don't need to believe in yourself as you have evidence of yourself. What people tend to mean by 'believing in themselves' is trusting that they have the willpower to do something.

Ideas are better, an idea can be changed, can be updated, beliefs try to stamp on new ideas.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Gary said:

"Adam and Eve were punished for even finding out what was right and wrong."

Actually they were punished for disobedience. They were given a test by being told not to eat from a partic..."

Just got home from work and am catching up ... not sure if this has been covered ... my apologies if it has.

Last I knew, homosexuality in men is genetic. There's an extra chromosome or some such thing. Correct? I could swear I heard or read about that. If that's true, it would be natural. Correct? They were born that way ... having a genetic predisposition for homosexuality.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "But, did they really have to know that disobedience was wrong, or just know that "I was told not to do this by God so I better not do it." ? Not the concept of right and wrong, per se - just knowing what DON'T DO THIS means."

Ok "don't do this", response "why?" The only choices are "because it will harm you" or "because it is wrong". God said that "in that day they would surely die", but as it turns out they were going to die anyway according to 3:22 and god had to banish them to prevent them from avoiding death.

Either way its abusing an innocent.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I hate to tell you cs, but there is not a "2012 Christianity" vs. an ancient Christianity. It is the SAME... unless you know of a Bible written recently."

Agreed.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:Of course I can, accusing someone of using the line 'I am not bigoted against (x) because they have friends who are (x)' is usually an implication that they secretly are prejudice and are trying to use this claim to hide this fact. This is why I was somewhat shocked. It was not an attempt to "curry favour". I speak for myself, not for other atheists or theists."


Speaking for others again., it’s getting to be quite a habit. And not getting the point, or not getting the point so that you can use it to your own advantage again. Almost every debate, discussion or chat show will have someone who makes a comment about asians/ black folk/ gays etc. will add , I have friends who are asian/ black / gay. This is because we live in a PC world and people feel that they have to justify what they say because there are always others in the background waiting to shout racist or what ever. Of course you will read into x what suites


What is not a discussion is making claims and accusations without accompanying rationale or evidence.

Yes it is, this is what you, Hazel and some others can’t grasp. We can have a discussion about why I believe in a god and life after death and you don’t. But you don’t what a discussion you want a debate with evidence otherwise you discount everything. Your rational does not allow you to have a discussion.

No one can prove a god exists but we could have discussed why we think this way or why we don’t. As I have said before with a ‘normal’ atheist this is quite possible, but atheists here seem to sit down with their degree in philosophy or their just read pile of philosophy books waiting for someone with a belief to practice on. The mission here is not so much to exchange ideas, it is to prove anyone with a belief is wrong to have that belief.

I think that can be typified as "bad".

I know it can’t.

Actually I have met a preacher this week alone who would disagree with you.

I think he would also disagree with you much more than he would disagree with me.

So where do you get your idea of god, cosmology and the rules of christendom? Is there a revised Bible or are you the new prophet of a new Christianity?

For someone who reads the bible and ridicules Hawking, I would question where you are coming from.

Especially the sick idea that people are unnatural for expressing love for someone.

Yet again altering words to suite and curry favour, unable to see other view points and talk all the time in negatives. What I said a few sentences ago. You are why people are being so concerned about expressing an option. I guess you would be one of the first to shout racist or what ever.

[Maria]

Hazel wrote:

"I still haven't worked out what your position is, even though I'm loving many of your posts. So I'm gonna ask outright. Are you a christian? Or something else? Or what?"

Fair question and I don't mind answering :) although my answer probably won't satify you any more than it satisfies me.

The answer is: I'm not sure. I was raised Christian -and to take the Bible as being the final say on matters - but as has been said, some things just don't make sense, and don't reflect a loving god as I've been taught that he is. I do not think that evolution makes sense, any more than I think that the earth could have been created in 6 literal days.

I also like to debate and discuss, as long as it can be done with a fun spirit rather than mean or critical. There have been some good points made on this thread, and I find myself looking forward to stirring some of the folks up, simply because they are so prone to it.

I think everyone (except one notable exception, we all know who that is...) on here has made some good points and is very good at expressing their beliefs and thoughts.

Thanks, guys!

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Gary said:

"The Bible says a lot of horrible things which I find morally repugnant. Not just the homophobia."

And since you don't claim to be Christian, then you don't have to agree with the Bibl..."

I'm curious, Maria. Obviously, you don't need to answer. But, I am curious about your stance on religion. I mean, I know what you think others should believe. If one is Christian, they need to believe a, b, and c. You must believe everything, etc....

But, I've noticed you've not made a personal argument. You've not shared your beliefs or lack of beliefs ... just what others should believe.

So, if you don't mind, I'm curious to know your religious leanings ... or lack thereof.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "So I'm gonna ask outright. Are you a christian? Or something else? Or what? "

Oh, wow, Hazel. I just posted the same question ... before I saw your post. I could have just said, "Ditto."

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "Hazel wrote:

"I still haven't worked out what your position is, even though I'm loving many of your posts. So I'm gonna ask outright. Are you a christian? Or something else? Or what?"

Fair quest..."

"I'm not sure" is a perfectly reasonable answer :) It means your exploring, rather than just accepting blindly :)

[Maria]

Shannon wrote:

"If one is Christian, they need to believe a, b, and c. You must believe everything, etc...."

I do believe that, which is why I am struggling with my own beliefs. I am a kind of all-or-nothing person and don't feel comfortable saying I believe this part of the Bible but not the other.

That's why I can debate both sides pretty well, since I can SEE both sides pretty well...

[Rach]

They are both one in the same, branches of the same tree, one cannot thrive without the other. Science was born from religious practices (first surgery was a result of a supposed religious ceremony), they both need each other.

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "So I'm gonna ask outright. Are you a christian? Or something else? Or what? "

Oh, wow, Hazel. I just posted the same question ... before I saw your post. I could have just said, "D..."

so, is it a case of great minds think alike, or that fools rarely differ? :P

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Unnatural in the sense that it is against nature, the job of any life form is to procreate."

If its against nature then why is it in somebodies nature? Why is the 'job' of a lifeform t..."

You are turning the discussion back to a religions one.


You don't have to be religious to think the 'act' to be unnatural.Unnatural does not have to mean wrong, although some will see it that way and those people are allowed to see it that way.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "I find myself looking forward to stirring some of the folks up, simply because they are so prone to it."

So, is this one of the reasons you take part in this thread? To purposely stir people up?

If so, I wonder why that's something you look forward to doing?

In addition, ... and I don't want this to sound harsh ... but ... is that not the definition of a "troll" ...?

[Hazel]

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Sorry Shannon, missed your post when catching up.

Shannon wrote: "I get what you're saying now, although I'm still a bit confused by your paragraph on community support."

The distinction is that ..."

Not ignoring you, Gary. Had a long day with middle schoolers and there are a lot of points in your post. I need to re-read it when I have more caffeine on board. ;)

[Maria]

Shannon wrote: "Maria wrote: "I find myself looking forward to stirring some of the folks up, simply because they are so prone to it."

So, is this one of the reasons you take part in this thread? To purposely st..."

I don't think I'm a troll, Shannon - and maybe that was not a nice thing for me to say, about stirring people up. I've never heard the term "troll" but I'm sure it's not me. Actually, the only one I was referring to stirring up was cs, who seems to be really "stirrable". And there was someone a while back named YAIR or something like that who was really comical in his righteous indignation. I will admit I had some fun with him/her - but the rest of you have really been fun just tossing ideas back and forth with.

So, no, my main reason for being here is not to stir everyone up - and I hope that's not what everyone thinks.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Speaking for others again., it’s getting to be quite a habit."



Yup, and I think you should stop doing it.

Oh and if you argue back on this point, you are not having your "discussion" as I have made an unsubstantiated claim, therefore by your argument you should accept it.

cs wrote: "Yes it is, this is what you, Hazel and some others can’t grasp. We can have a discussion about why" I believe in a god and life after death and you don’t. "

No we can't as you have just told us that you won't say why, 'why' means a reason, rationale or evidence.

cs wrote: "But you don’t what a discussion you want a debate with evidence otherwise you discount everything. Your rational does not allow you to have a discussion. "

Yes it will. Without a rationale we are left with you say "god exists" and I say "I doubt it". Repeat. That is not a discussion, it is an argument and a childish one at that.

cs wrote: "No one can prove a god exists but we could have discussed why we think this way or why we don’t.

Can't discuss "why" without "reasons" that is why we say "The reason why I believe..."

English is not your strong suit. Nor it seems is science, comparative morality or scripture.

cs wrote: "atheists here seem to sit down with their degree in philosophy"

Astrophysics and Cosmology.

cs wrote: "I know it can’t."

So sin isn't bad? Why does god punish sin then? Is he bad?

cs wrote: "I think he would also disagree with you much more than he would disagree with me."

Yes but the point is you are still wrong. People do still believe in literal hell.

And to be honest, he at least could debate with rationale and reasons. Only his evidence (i.e. the Bible) was lacking.

cs wrote: "For someone who reads the bible and ridicules Hawking, I would question where you are coming from."

I never ridiculed Hawking, I did however come close to ridiculing you for misrepresenting him so badly. Have you read Hawking's books? Have you looked at his conclusions? Hawking didn't support the idea of God being before the universe anymore than Einstein supported Creationism.

cs wrote: "Yet again altering words to suite and curry favour, unable to see other view points and talk all the time in negatives."

You refer to homosexuals as unnatural and accuse me of using negatives :-D and who exactly was a currying favour with, you know apart from anyone with a sense of morality?

cs wrote: "What I said a few sentences ago. You are why people are being so concerned about expressing an option. I guess you would be one of the first to shout racist or what ever."

"Opinion" not "Option".

Are you now trying to intimidate people from challenging racism (or sexism or homophobia) because if they do they are being too 'PC'. You know some people honestly feel that such behaviour is vile. However, you only seem to be sensitive about poor christians.

You know, except the christians who don't follow your version.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Last I knew, homosexuality in men is genetic. There's an extra chromosome or some such thing. Correct? I could swear I heard or read about that. If that's true, it would be natural. Correct? They were born that way ... having a genetic predisposition for homosexuality."

To be fair the actual cause is not yet fully understood, however the scientific consensus is that there does appear to be physiological differences. More study is needed but obviously it is rather politically charged as many people do not want it to be thought of as a physiological defect that can be "cured".

Of course the irony would be us "playing god" to "cure" something that is deemed "unnatural" by some religions.