mrdecepticonleader's forum posts

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#1 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

Rest in peace.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#2 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

Rolling Stones. Not really a fan of the Beatles.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#3 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

.....of course not

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#4 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

Watched Stranger Things, quite liked it.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#5 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:
@blacklegraph said:

@mrdecepticonleader: "God did it" is not anymore an answer to "how" as "Tom did it." Now it seems you are just purposefully being trite. That is an answer to "who" not "how", though they share the same letters.

Again, I never denied that religion provides comfort to some, but that is a poor answer to both the origins and purpose of religion when majority provide no such comfort and only a unique few do. It's like saying, "Oh, the reason we have books is because they serve as written porn." Romance novels may make a huge chunk of book sales and lead to book clubs and a sense of community, but that does nothing to answer those questions.

You never cease to be hilarious either. Everyone in the past was a certain way, but it's only you and a small percentage of people who see the light. You think it was not enough of an explanation for you but that it was enough for everyone else over thousands of years? There are many terms one could use to describe that, and none of them kindly.

The fact that you don't care what the main reason is should be warning enough that I'm wasting my time, but I guess I may as well finish this response. You also still refuse to address the questions I ask which prove once and for all that you are either ignorant, fearful of the implications or find it comfortable to not dig too deeply. Just about everything you've accused religious people of this entire time. Truly amusing.

Lol. It's like saying "people have been counterfeiting money for centuries, so there is no true money out there." Fallacious to the core.

The first cause argument isn't inherently theistic, though it bristles you so. It is simply a result of the principles of logic. If you don't like that, you can take it up with logic, epistemology and philosophy for all I care.

If god punishes evil, he indeed cannot be all-loving (whatever that means still). I don't disagree there. The fact that God loves good means by necessity he must hate evil, so he can't love everything.

Another lol. So because a country is ruled by a monarch, the society must be an aristocratic and lordly one? Good luck with that logic. Weren't you just praising logic a few responses ago?

Are you unaware that "militant" does not necessitate carrying a gun and shooting people up? It simply means being proactive and aggressive in spreading views and not sitting on your hands.

"I don't have a strong stance" translates to "I'm being hypocritical but don't want to own up to it." If you think homosexuality is without reproach, then you simply have no excuse. You can't be wishy-washy on one while fully accepting the other when both fit your criteria. Are you also saying that family members' choices outweigh the individuals? If someone consents to their dead body being used for intercourse with someone else, then what the family says shouldn't matter according to your reasoning for homosexuality, right? So you are a vegan? You must think animals should not be used for food or kept as pets, otherwise you have fallen into another hypocrisy.

I didn't know people stopped having disgust responses to homosexuality. Pray tell, when did that happen? I don't think people need to read words in a book before they respond in that manner anymore than people distrust others different from them due to natural instinct. What is then your excuse for many polytheists also looking badly on homosexuals? Or tribalists and spiritualists? Surely you must have something to fit the narrative you have in your head.

And when did I ever say anything about gay marriage? It seems you must believe that everyone who disagrees with you must be fuming about what some country they don't live in deems legal or not.

Again, necrophilia, bestiality and incest harms none of the people who engage in them, unless you want to include in a meta sense, then you'd also have to account for the prevalence of STIs in the homosexual community. You can't double deal my friend. It sounds to me that you have simply been following a narrative without analyzing it for yourself. These are things you've been blaming religious people for all this time. You seriously cannot be blind to that.

Again you seem to be doing what theists do when it comes to god claims as soon as it comes down to evidence and asking for it you back flip.

I have explained why religion provides comfort for people. It is a big factor and you are religious so it's no surprise you deny that religion bring people a sense of comfort and community.

Small percentage? You make out as if there are barley any non believers fact is religious numbers are declining Which is down to various factors including the ones I have mentioned. As I keep on repeating we have a much better and clearer understanding of the world compared with when religions like christianity were invented.

I have asked you to define what you mean when you refer to metaphysics but you've failed to so. You're just making another claim that you fail to expand upon and prove. I have wasted my time, proving no decent argument. I addressed your question. You seem to be under the same delusion other believers are that there god is special and there is some proof that can't be refuted. It's not a case of me not digging too deeply it's just the simple fact it makes no sense. Claims need evidence faith might be good enough for you and fine you do you but for me and many others it is not good enough.

Fallacious to the core? Why yes, yes you are. Heh. Well we can tell the difference between counterfeit and real money I guess religions are a counterfeit ways of understanding how the world works and science is the genuine way. That analogy backfired for you a little heh.

The first cause argument is pretty much cited by theists it's not used by scientists or unbelievers. It's used to argue for the existence for god. There is no empirical evidence to back the claim up.

If god is all powerful all knowing and all present then then the world would be a whole lot different. God reads in the bible as people from the time rather than an all knowing all powerful being.

You still totally misunderstand what secular even means. Despite me explaining it multiple times or you could google it. A secular society is simply one that isn't dictated by a partiqular religion, allowing people to hold whatever views in regards to religion they like.

What is wrong with being proactive and not sitting on your hands? Being critical of religion is fine. Wanting religion not dictate people's lives and rights is also fine. People who dislike religion aren't out there violently killing people but certain religious groups are doing just that. Specifically Islam. Also there are other negative factors with people following thousand year old holy books.

Why do you take what I say out of context use that bit as an argument and ignore the rest of what I said that if you didn't ignore there would be no argument? It's just dumb. Forget straw man you have a entire corn field full of scarecrow's. I clearly explained the issue of inbreeding in regards to incest. Also if a mother and son started having sex how would that impact the father and there relationship? Implications that would should be worth thinking about. A familial sexual relationship is not simply the same as sex with your own gender since your family aren't the same as meeting a non familial person. They are inherently different things. So it's not like having sex with another man is like having sex with your father or brother. I can't believe I'm having to explain this...ugh. Well I think if someone wants to let there body be used that way after death I don't really have an issue as long as there is documented consent, but my other point about necrophilia still stands. And again screwing a corpse is different to screwing someone of your own gender, since uh well one is alive the other isn't. Well unlike you I don't think raping animals is comparable to eating them or having them as pets. I don't see my cat and think oh yeah time to f!ck. It is classed as animal cruelty. Do you not see the obvious differences between these? Or are you trying to tell us some of your secrets? You wouldn't happen to coming out of a very large closet at all?

Well alot of people have. Like I said lesbians turn me on we can't even agree on that? And gay couples don't repulse me in the slightest. Don't assume everyone to have views as backward as yours. When a holy book that a large majority believe in as the word of an all knowing all powerful and all present being say that people who lie with the same gender is wrong, that is going to cause alot of anti homosexuality. Are you really this oblivious to this fact? Sure there are people who aren't christian or muslim you have that attitude too. Point is religion is the biggest factor for homophobia.

You brought up unions or something and how they haven't happened throughout as if that should mean we shouldn't have it in the present. And that was my response.

Um beastality does harm animals. Like I said sexual relations between family not only can lead to inbreeding but there are implications since it families we are talking about, not saying this alone is a reason it should be illegal but just stating the difference between family and non family (as if I should have to ugh). Gone over necrophilia too. Anyone can get an STD just practice safe sex and get tested regularly for STD's. That shouldn't denote homosexual rights. I have assessed the situation it is you who needs to re think things or don't it's up to you really.

This is going nowhere, especially since you are failing to be coherent. Where did the issue of evidence come from? I never once said I was going to prove that a god exists to you, it was your undefended claim that I address. I just take it that you are trying to change the topic because you are unfit to properly answer or understand the implications and are scared to.

I didn't deny that religion brings comfort to some people either, but that is a failed answer to its origins because the majority most certainly don't and one could say it is a unique attribute of monotheistic ones which are a small handful compared to the other thousands. Again, you may as well say the reason we have books is for people to get horny. It's inane.

I already stated non-believer numbers are growing, but it still remains a small percentage around the world. Does that trouble you?

I haven't delved into metaphysics because that is not the topic of discussion and is your attempt to avoid the question. If you want to discuss metaphysics, make a metaphysics thread, but that is not my purpose here. I see now that the actual topic so terrifies you that you go to such lengths to avoid it. It makes no sense considering you were so confident in your claim, yet that should not be surprising seeing as you are subject to the same issues you've been blaming religious people for.

You still continue in the silliness and ignorance of treating religions as if their goal is to teach people how to build a nuclear bomb. Again, the blindness should be unsurprising considering you clearly never considered your own narrative and hide behind generalizations, but it is still interesting to see nonetheless. You also clearly don't know what a fallacy is though you dabble in them frequently.

There are several scientists that mention the first cause argument. It seems you may also be under the illusion that religious people cannot be scientist. Do not confuse the naturalistic scientists' agenda with the scientific method itself, though that may fit snuggly into your preconceived notions. Like I said before, it is an argument independent of any position but one based on logic. It shouldn't surprise you that unbelievers won't mention it because it isn't in accordance with their pre-conceived worldviews, just as you yourself ignore things that don't fit your narrative.

And of course there is no empirical evidence to back it up because it is not a material object but an idea and founding principle, just as there is no empirical evidence to back up logic, epistemology or philosophy or any other abstract thing because they are non-material concepts. That just reveals the narrow-mindedness and folly of extreme empiricists who fail to realize that empiricism itself doesn't stand on material pillars. You simply reveal your ignorance in the field.

For someone who cries about empirical evidence, you seem to ignore it a lot yourself. How exactly would the world be different if God really had all those qualities? Unicorns prancing about? Everyone being millionaires? The Earth being a cube? I was also unaware that people in 2000 BC were timeless, spaceless, omnipotent and omniscient. Unfortunately for you, all the evidence points to the contrary for both the people and the popular conception of deities, which was the entire point of this conversation, for you to explain how Abraham supposedly imagined all these that were so radically different from the culture and times he lived in and far ahead by millennia. Your statement just destroyed your own arguments and you don't even know it.

Sigh* And here you are still oblivious to the difference between government and religion. Here's a riddle for you, what do you call a family composed of people with different religions but living in a country with no one religion as law? Do you say the family is secular even though they pray before their meals, some going to church, others to mosques and synagogues? If you think a government determines how a people are labeled, then why don't you agree that a nation ruled by a monarch would be called an royal society? It seems that the implications have sunk into your head, but you are just stubborn about acknowledging the differences. Hopefully for the last time: a nation can be secular and still composed of a religious society. Majority of the US population is still religious though the government is secular. A secular government has no bearing on the beliefs of the people. So if you think a society that wouldn't put an atheist into office still counts as secular, then you are only prevaricating with yourself.

People who don't like religions are out there killing people, and there are numerous historic regimes that also did so, like Mao's and Stalin's. Are you unaware of the atrocities being committed in North Korea?

You also make illogical leaps for some reason. When did I say there was anything wrong with people speaking out against religions? It seems like you just treat everything as generalizations which is the opposite of logic and even empiricism that you taut.

Now you are just excuse-giving. An incestual relationship doesn't mean that they have to have children. They can use birth control can they not? They can also use protection, just like homosexuals can use protection to prevent the spread of STDs. If inbreeding is such an issue for you, why do you ignore the higher prevalence of STDs in the homosexual community? Again, no matter how you cut it, you fall into hypocrisy if you accept one and not the other. What about family members who are unhappy that one of their own is a homosexual? Or on the other hand, what if the father doesn't mind what the mother and son are doing? You can't have it both ways. Either homosexuality is also unacceptable due to the health implications of STDs and negative impacts on families or incest is acceptable regardless of those. You can't now pick and choose if both fit the criteria.

Now being alive or dead is a separating issue? Then why is other people taking issue with being male or female a problem if you are just picking and choosing which criteria you don't like? They both have health issues, so why is one acceptable and not the other? Especially since the necrophiliacs are an even smaller percent of the population so have overall less health impacts on the society?

Lol! So it's okay to kill animals without their consent, but if someone wants to sleep with an animal, then it's not okay? That's still hypocritical! Are you saying that death is more acceptable? How exactly are you going to judge an animal on that? Animals rape each other in the wild, so should we ban all animals from mating? Again, using your own logic you can never escape the hypocrisy of it. It remains hypocrisy if you accuse religious people of being unreasonable for not accepting certain sexual acts when you do the same in rejecting others sexuality when it fits the criteria you lay out for homosexuality. Unless you amend such views, you are a blatant hypocrite.

Lol. Bestiality harms animals, but killing and eating them doesn't? Again, you a hypocrite if you accept one but not the other. Inbreeding can be prevented just as the spread of STDs can be prevented, so what other excuse do you have? If you reject incest on those grounds, then you must also reject homosexuality as well, otherwise you remain a hypocrite.

Not coherent? I brought up religious claims lacking evidence in previous replies.

Here

" But many people still claim that the world works that is contradictory to our actual understanding and religion does not hold up to the methods we use for finding the truth, it lacks the basic thing called evidence"

And here "There in lies the problem and sums up one of my points that seems to fall on deaf ears with you. I am someone, like many people who require backed up evidence to accept and understand things. Our understanding and knowledge of the world now far surpasses the claims made in religious texts and in many ways contradicts and debunks them"

You did make claims about the Abrahamic god being real. I pointed out that the claims you made were nothing special and were not proof for such a being. There is no empirical or sound evidence. Yet you have failed to come up with decent argument, instead saying I'm to scared and I haven't thought deeply about or something like that. Not trying to change the topic just trying to move it along. Pretty sure I have defined my position on that. All the evidence points to gods being man made not the other way around.

Did I not say and repeat posts ago that I am and as people tend to refer to the main religions in our modern world such as Islam and Christianity? Both of which are monolithic religions. And they do bring comfort to people, that is one of the main thing believers tend to tout as a selling point for their views. You've still offered no actual reasons yourself for why people have a faith. And just to be clear I'm talking about this century just in case you want to inflate that non argument again.

No....I pointed out religious numbers are dwindling and you made out as if there are barley any non believers. Do you have an accurate percentage on how many non believers there are? What's your point here?

What topic terrifies me? What topic have I avoided? I addressed your claim about Abrhamic gods and you never really followed it up with a competent argument. Don't talk to me about being scared heh. It's clear to anyone who goes back and reads my posts to you. Crap excuse for not saying how you define metaphysics. Two thumbs down there bud.

No I don't I simply point out how they were created in complete ignorance and we can understand religion for the unsubstantiated tripe it is. I understand that may hit a nerve with you.

The first cause argument is not used in science. Scientists can have any faith, (I never said otherwise) but they shouldn't let their religion interfere with that fact. The fact you say several scientists say that I'm going to assume you refer to scientists who are religious and are using that to try and somehow make it seem there is evidence behind it.

We determine what is true with evidence. Science has done more than a good job of clarifying and helping us understand things and continues to do so. Evidence and logic go hand in hand. Going by evidence, what we know is not close minded, it is the opposite. Since there is always instances that when new evidence arises for the option to change and alter ones views based on the new evidence. As opposed to having an ideology based on faith that you have to compromise evidence that contradicts such an ideology. That's close minded.

What empirical evidence have I ignored? You have provided none. Well we would likely have at least some incline of an existence of such a being. A strand of actual evidence. It is clear we have progressed beyond religion and that gods were thought up by us. Including the abrahamic one.

You again misunderstand what secular means for example that family are allowed to practice whatever faith they want that is a secular society. A secular society is composed of people of many beliefs and non beliefs the laws don't discriminate nor do they let other people discriminate based on a set one of beliefs. Laws do have a bearing on how people live and how they interact with others. Like I said the US is the least secular, secular society.

Sure there are oppressive regimes out there but they kill and oppress anyone it's not because they have an issue with religion, such regimes are comparable to religions.

It seemed to me you were saying such in your previous posts.

Many could though it is still a factor worth considering and luckily is. How is me pointing out the distinction between family and non family not a factor? I made it clear that it isn't necessarily a reason to make it illegal but is something worth considering and keeping in mind. Someone has sex with someone of their own gender is different to having sex with your own sister there is a distinct difference there. Christ on a bike...sick of having to point this very obvious fact out. It's not an excuse. I outright pointed out why incest and homosexuality are different. I simply pointed out the implications that incest has on family and they should be considered. How does being homosexual have a negative impact on families exactly? You are over rating the STD and homosexual thing. Alot of people get STD's should we just ban sex all together?

As I said necrophilia is desecrating a corpse, unlike you I notice the difference between these things. I also suggested before about not making it illegal and have documented consent. You seemed to have glossed over that for some reason.

Big difference between eating and raping an animal. Using animals to feed people is different. If you think that makes me a hypocrite so be it.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#6 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio
@xlab3000 said:

@blacklegraph: You criticize him for accepting homosexuality while not accepting incest, necrophilia and bestiality. Really? He already gave legit reasons for his views. Let's go through them again shall we.

The thing is I don't have a strong stance on incest as long as it's not rape and no inbreeding. But if it was legal there would be good chance inbreeding would increase. As for necrophilia I am sure family wouldn't want their son, daughter, father, mother, brother etc corpse desecrated in that way. As for bestiality abusing an animal is wrong surely I don't have to explain more than that. Homosexuality harms nobody. It is sad you can't see the distinction.

What's even more sad is that you continue to debate that instead of trying to see the distinction between them and homosexuality. I'm usually quiet when I see debates between other people on this thread no matter how crazy they are but to call @mrdecepticonleader a hypocrite over those reasons is plain bullsh!t and you know it. Going by your logic a person who believes having sexual relationships with the things they eat is wrong (yourself included). We simply eat animals (and plants) for survival. Do you even know what hypocrisy is? I will post the Merriam Webster definition.

Hypocrisy-the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.

Eating an animal and saying bestiality is bad is in no way of being hypocritical. You need to get over yourself dude.

Thank you. Really strange he doesn't see the distinction between these.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#7 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

Rest in piece.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#8 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader: "God did it" is not anymore an answer to "how" as "Tom did it." Now it seems you are just purposefully being trite. That is an answer to "who" not "how", though they share the same letters.

Again, I never denied that religion provides comfort to some, but that is a poor answer to both the origins and purpose of religion when majority provide no such comfort and only a unique few do. It's like saying, "Oh, the reason we have books is because they serve as written porn." Romance novels may make a huge chunk of book sales and lead to book clubs and a sense of community, but that does nothing to answer those questions.

You never cease to be hilarious either. Everyone in the past was a certain way, but it's only you and a small percentage of people who see the light. You think it was not enough of an explanation for you but that it was enough for everyone else over thousands of years? There are many terms one could use to describe that, and none of them kindly.

The fact that you don't care what the main reason is should be warning enough that I'm wasting my time, but I guess I may as well finish this response. You also still refuse to address the questions I ask which prove once and for all that you are either ignorant, fearful of the implications or find it comfortable to not dig too deeply. Just about everything you've accused religious people of this entire time. Truly amusing.

Lol. It's like saying "people have been counterfeiting money for centuries, so there is no true money out there." Fallacious to the core.

The first cause argument isn't inherently theistic, though it bristles you so. It is simply a result of the principles of logic. If you don't like that, you can take it up with logic, epistemology and philosophy for all I care.

If god punishes evil, he indeed cannot be all-loving (whatever that means still). I don't disagree there. The fact that God loves good means by necessity he must hate evil, so he can't love everything.

Another lol. So because a country is ruled by a monarch, the society must be an aristocratic and lordly one? Good luck with that logic. Weren't you just praising logic a few responses ago?

Are you unaware that "militant" does not necessitate carrying a gun and shooting people up? It simply means being proactive and aggressive in spreading views and not sitting on your hands.

"I don't have a strong stance" translates to "I'm being hypocritical but don't want to own up to it." If you think homosexuality is without reproach, then you simply have no excuse. You can't be wishy-washy on one while fully accepting the other when both fit your criteria. Are you also saying that family members' choices outweigh the individuals? If someone consents to their dead body being used for intercourse with someone else, then what the family says shouldn't matter according to your reasoning for homosexuality, right? So you are a vegan? You must think animals should not be used for food or kept as pets, otherwise you have fallen into another hypocrisy.

I didn't know people stopped having disgust responses to homosexuality. Pray tell, when did that happen? I don't think people need to read words in a book before they respond in that manner anymore than people distrust others different from them due to natural instinct. What is then your excuse for many polytheists also looking badly on homosexuals? Or tribalists and spiritualists? Surely you must have something to fit the narrative you have in your head.

And when did I ever say anything about gay marriage? It seems you must believe that everyone who disagrees with you must be fuming about what some country they don't live in deems legal or not.

Again, necrophilia, bestiality and incest harms none of the people who engage in them, unless you want to include in a meta sense, then you'd also have to account for the prevalence of STIs in the homosexual community. You can't double deal my friend. It sounds to me that you have simply been following a narrative without analyzing it for yourself. These are things you've been blaming religious people for all this time. You seriously cannot be blind to that.

Again you seem to be doing what theists do when it comes to god claims as soon as it comes down to evidence and asking for it you back flip.

I have explained why religion provides comfort for people. It is a big factor and you are religious so it's no surprise you deny that religion bring people a sense of comfort and community.

Small percentage? You make out as if there are barley any non believers fact is religious numbers are declining Which is down to various factors including the ones I have mentioned. As I keep on repeating we have a much better and clearer understanding of the world compared with when religions like christianity were invented.

I have asked you to define what you mean when you refer to metaphysics but you've failed to so. You're just making another claim that you fail to expand upon and prove. I have wasted my time, proving no decent argument. I addressed your question. You seem to be under the same delusion other believers are that there god is special and there is some proof that can't be refuted. It's not a case of me not digging too deeply it's just the simple fact it makes no sense. Claims need evidence faith might be good enough for you and fine you do you but for me and many others it is not good enough.

Fallacious to the core? Why yes, yes you are. Heh. Well we can tell the difference between counterfeit and real money I guess religions are a counterfeit ways of understanding how the world works and science is the genuine way. That analogy backfired for you a little heh.

The first cause argument is pretty much cited by theists it's not used by scientists or unbelievers. It's used to argue for the existence for god. There is no empirical evidence to back the claim up.

If god is all powerful all knowing and all present then then the world would be a whole lot different. God reads in the bible as people from the time rather than an all knowing all powerful being.

You still totally misunderstand what secular even means. Despite me explaining it multiple times or you could google it. A secular society is simply one that isn't dictated by a partiqular religion, allowing people to hold whatever views in regards to religion they like.

What is wrong with being proactive and not sitting on your hands? Being critical of religion is fine. Wanting religion not dictate people's lives and rights is also fine. People who dislike religion aren't out there violently killing people but certain religious groups are doing just that. Specifically Islam. Also there are other negative factors with people following thousand year old holy books.

Why do you take what I say out of context use that bit as an argument and ignore the rest of what I said that if you didn't ignore there would be no argument? It's just dumb. Forget straw man you have a entire corn field full of scarecrow's. I clearly explained the issue of inbreeding in regards to incest. Also if a mother and son started having sex how would that impact the father and there relationship? Implications that would should be worth thinking about. A familial sexual relationship is not simply the same as sex with your own gender since your family aren't the same as meeting a non familial person. They are inherently different things. So it's not like having sex with another man is like having sex with your father or brother. I can't believe I'm having to explain this...ugh. Well I think if someone wants to let there body be used that way after death I don't really have an issue as long as there is documented consent, but my other point about necrophilia still stands. And again screwing a corpse is different to screwing someone of your own gender, since uh well one is alive the other isn't. Well unlike you I don't think raping animals is comparable to eating them or having them as pets. I don't see my cat and think oh yeah time to f!ck. It is classed as animal cruelty. Do you not see the obvious differences between these? Or are you trying to tell us some of your secrets? You wouldn't happen to coming out of a very large closet at all?

Well alot of people have. Like I said lesbians turn me on we can't even agree on that? And gay couples don't repulse me in the slightest. Don't assume everyone to have views as backward as yours. When a holy book that a large majority believe in as the word of an all knowing all powerful and all present being say that people who lie with the same gender is wrong, that is going to cause alot of anti homosexuality. Are you really this oblivious to this fact? Sure there are people who aren't christian or muslim you have that attitude too. Point is religion is the biggest factor for homophobia.

You brought up unions or something and how they haven't happened throughout as if that should mean we shouldn't have it in the present. And that was my response.

Um beastality does harm animals. Like I said sexual relations between family not only can lead to inbreeding but there are implications since it families we are talking about, not saying this alone is a reason it should be illegal but just stating the difference between family and non family (as if I should have to ugh). Gone over necrophilia too. Anyone can get an STD just practice safe sex and get tested regularly for STD's. That shouldn't denote homosexual rights. I have assessed the situation it is you who needs to re think things or don't it's up to you really.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#9 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader: You are still badly contradicting yourself. "It answers all those questions" and "we don't know" do not mix. It is either the answers remain unknown or we know them all already. I don't know any religions that claim to have a monopoly on knowing everything. Most tend to deal with questions in a larger sense, and some may address specific issues like who or why, but don't address the how or when.

People have also derived a sense of comfort from atheistic philosophies, so what is your point? If that is your answer to the why for which people follow all religions, then it still fails badly, because many still offer no such thing. Many state that higher powers are out to kill you or there is no meaning, so comfort certainly can't be the answer (except in a convoluted sense of course). The "religions were made for understanding the world" also fails badly when many do not even address that issue at all or deal with things that already had explanations or even forgo the physical altogether. You are still grasping at straws with these answers. One reason people are dropping away from religions is because someone hurt them, or they do not like the state of things, or they don't want to be restricted from doing certain things, so again, what exactly is your point? There are still a myriad of reasons, and picking the ones that make you feel comfortable so you don't have to seriously think about it doesn't do you any favours, but simply makes you come off as either ignorant or prideful.

I didn't go on about metaphysics because that is simply a side issue and not the main reason we started this, which is your claim that everything was just made up (which you still keep shying from.) If you really don't want to answer, have no idea or are scared of facing it, I'd understand so this doesn't just go on endlessly, but you'd need to be upfront about that. Also, not believing in God/gods still remains uncommon, despite the fact that that is changing, it still has a ways to go. You said all religions are made up, yet you cannot even address why a single one is made up and just go on about other things without addressing the question. Let me try a final time and see if you will answer:

If the Abrahamic God is made up, why are his characteristics so different from other deities? Why are some of them far beyond the contemporary time it came about (~2000-3,000 B.C)? Why did he claim that every other one was not real? Why the claim of global effect (most deities of the time being instead only local)? Feel free to answer any of those.

You didn't refute anything (unless we all missed it, then you can bold it the next time please). The first cause principle is a tenet of logic and philosophy independent of religion, theists of atheists. Like I said before, it just so happens to be more in line with the theists, so it is not a personal argument, I simply pointed that out.

The people that usually say God is all-loving also tend to say that he is a judge and punishes evil, so it is not the awry idea of omnibenevolence or whatever that is.

The people themselves and the governance of the people are still 2 different things. The former is what society is, while the latter (laws) is what governance is, so you have secular governments, while the sum of peoples is the society. So if the people of a nation are isolationist, but the government has imperial leanings, you say the government is imperialist while the society is isolationist. The government does not determine the nature of the society, just like a nation being a monarchy doesn't mean that the society is royal or aristocratic.

Militant atheism is beyond simply being critical of religion, but attempting to remove theism from most facets of life. You can have atheists critical of religion who still mostly keep to themselves. It is those that try to get people to abandon their religions, preach about it and attack followers that are the militants.

What are the harmful impacts of incest between family members of the same sex? Or those who use birth control or have no children? Again, it would be hypocritical to reject those if you accept homosexuality on those grounds. Same goes for necrophiliacs, bestiality, etc.

How can religion be the main reason for homophobia if it didn't cause it? You think the thing that causes homophobia is not the main reason for it?

And no, some ancient cultures tolerated certain forms of homosexuality like pederasty (young boys) and homosexual acts themselves, but actual homosexual unions in lieu of marriage was extremely rare and looked upon badly. You could have older men going after young boys, but older male unions or marriage arrangements are practically unheard of.

As for your last statement, you do not deny incest couples, necrophiliacs etc their equal rights, do you?

No not at all. You still misunderstand. You pointed out some things that we apparently don't know about and as Will Payton demonstrated in his post answering those questions we do. I said that there is more for us to discover that is not a contradiction in the slightest. Well religions do claim to know how and it usually is "god did it" which we know now isn't how things work. But many people still claim that the world works that is contradictory to our actual understanding and religion does not hold up to the methods we use for finding the truth, it lacks the basic thing called evidence.

I never said it was the sole reason. But it is a significant one. And as I keep on saying religion is in many cases installed in many at a young age where they can't think for themselves. I went into fair detail previously of why it provides a sense of comfort and meaning for people. You have really as per provided no reasons for why religion doesn't provide comfort for believers. As I said it provides a sense of community for believers. The idea you are following the guide of the creator of all and have a relationship with them is comfortable for many. The things I mentioned here and previously are arguments many believers use to argue for religion. Religions and belief in gods did provide a very basic explanation that gods did it and are responsible for all. And that was enough of an explanation for people who were entirely ignorant on how things actually worked. We also understand the physical is what is. Again I never said it was the only reason I specifically stated previously that is the case for some people. Again you make up an argument out of thin air.

Main reason we started this? I don't care what your perceived main reason is. I have asked you to define metaphysics and you still again fail to do so. Going for the world record or something? Again you still fail to actually specify what you are replying to. I never said everything is made up Also you made a bunch of claims in your initial post to me. Here are some of my previous posts answering why gods are man made.

"Well for me gods are purely a work of fiction it is all made up, gods/god are figments of our imaginations. Created by us in ignorance and are still believed in ignorance. Not believing in something isn't too absolute I mean you don't say to people who don't believe in Santa Claus that is too absolute or people who don't believe in the Greek pantheon. That is what atheism is not believing in god and gods"

"People have been coming up with gods for centuries it's in our nature to anthropomorphise things. When people had no idea absolutely no knowledge on how things came to be and formed they saw themselves building things so to them it would make sense that something more powerful and above them would create such things and that as a society a group they must adhere to the belief and whims of the higher power. Many different gods were thought up by man that many believed in and still do to this day. Through science we have ways of testing and understanding the word around us. The fact that not every person on this planet, a growing number don't believe in religion and that religion has been shown to be false and screwed up in many areas. We came up with religions when we didn't and couldn't have known any better."

"We know how the universe works and there is no religion required and in many instances science contradicts the false claims made by religion. Also as well as intellectually we have morally surpassed religion"

And just to add to all that anyone who believes in a god or gods don't believe in all gods. An atheist just goes that one or two gods further. Everyone disbelieves in some gods. I keep on mentioning evidence and religions/god claims not having any. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And much of what we have found through science contradicts and debunks such claims.

I answered before the Abrahamic god isn't anything special. They aren't so far out. And if this is your "evidence" it is very weak.

I mentioned the big bang. The point I made was that it is the cosmological argument since you refer to god and that is a theistic argument. And thus the claim everything has a first cause except god is hypocritical. Also first cause isn't scientific.

So if god punishes evil then he can't be all loving, in part because god himself created evil, which also means he can't be all loving. What a contradiction eh....

The laws made are secular thus society follows those laws making them secular, since it is illegal to allow one religion to impose rules over people. If people followed rules that were from one religion and people were forced to follow those rules that would make a society a religious one. But the fact people have the right to personally follow whatever beliefs they want and the laws don't discriminate based on that makes a society secular.

Again you are conflating being militant with being critical. There is no group out there violently trying to enforce not believing in god on people. You are talking about debating again not being militant. Sure anyone who would do that most would disagree with and it wouldn't denote how religion screws things up. Also atheism is simply the lack of belief in god and gods, it isn't an ideology.

The thing is I don't have a strong stance on incest as long as it's not rape and no inbreeding. But if it was legal there would be good chance inbreeding would increase. As for necrophilia I am sure family wouldn't want their son, daughter, father, mother, brother etc corpse desecrated in that way. As for bestiality abusing an animal is wrong surely I don't have to explain more than that. Homosexuality harms nobody. It is sad you can't see the distinction.

Well it is the main reason for homophobia certainly today since it says in the bible and Quran that homosexuality is wrong. You're seriously debating this?

Whilst it was rarer it did happen, and not just pederasty. And what's it matter anyway? Gay marriage is legal get over it.

As I stated above there are reasons to make those illegal. Since it harms people.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#10 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader: No. It seems that the problem here is that you choose not to desist in making claims without backing them up. What is this knowledge that far surpasses the claims made in religious texts? What makes us us then? What is your explanation for consciousness? For the origin of life? For the uniqueness of the planet? For the human nature? It isn't hypocritical to not hold the metaphysical to the same standards as the material. In fact, what is stupid is to hold them to the same standard, like trying to use a yardstick to measure both length and weight? There is an inherent difference in the nature of those two, and only the ignorant or willfully so would disregard that.

You're the one that is out of touch if you don't realize that Christianity arose around 30 A.D? Where was the comfort that people were taking in religion before then? Are you just selective in your reasons for why people choose to follow religions or are you just blind to the fact that your answer is simply faulty in the face of that? If that is the major reason why those people chose that religion (since apparently no one needed comfort before that time), how do you then explain your contradictory statement that people are dropping away from the religion? You've wrapped yourself up in a tangled web of contradictory answers that make no sense.

You can't change your mind now, this is your own quote: "We know that isn't how the universe is and came to be." The obvious implication is that you are already certain of the correct answer, so go ahead and enlighten us please. Also, you are contradicting yourself if you claim to hold things to the scientific standard because science always states that there is a 'why' for every event. You are not coherent if you keep on contradicting yourself like this.

There is no hypocrisy in my statement because I never made any statements needing defending. From the start, I've been addressing YOUR claim that everything was just made up and asking you to defend that position, but you've been & (and if history is any indication), will continue to fail badly. So let me make one more attempt: if you claim the Abrahamic God is just made up like all others, how do you explain the blatant difference in characteristics between deities and the anomalous properties which are as highly improbable for the time as discovering a nuclear bomb 4 millennia ago?

The first cause argument stands on it's own in philosophy, regardless of theism or atheism, so the fact that it happens to fit one of the properties that God assigned to himself is independent of anything I have to say. You will have to attack that philosophical argument itself and provide a suitable alternative. That just further exhibits your unawareness of philosophy.

The irony is amusing. You just have to look at the world? Well, unfortunately for you, humans have been doing that for millennia and arriving at the opposite conclusion that a powerful God rules all, in whatever forms they arrived at. I don't know where the term omnibenevolence is coming from either, as no religion maybe except for interpreting some of Islam a certain way makes such a claim.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about either. You mention society yet speak of a 'ruling force' which is the government. Again, majority of the societies around the world are religious because society is the sum of the people. Government is the ruling and leadership of the people, which is a different thing. You can have a religious leader of a secular government because government is independent of the people's beliefs on that issue. Anytime you are talking of the ruling or legal matters of a people, you are speaking of government, not society. The US has a secular government but mostly religious society.

There is no big anti-religious group as of yet because the numbers are not simply large enough, but the militant atheist movement certainly has that as one of its goals, and is projected to increase in size over time. The movement is already showing the classical signs of everything you rail against religion for, including what children should be taught.

What are your reasons for being against incest if you are not against homosexuality? You are being contradictory there.

"For people to be more logical ,nuanced and thoughtful rather than emotional and single minded." What you are asking for is a miracle, because no human can be fully removed from the emotions. You also run into issue considering the terms you throw around have different meanings for different people. You are basically railing against human nature itself, which is why it is odd that religion is what you have picked out of it, considering the root of many of those issues remain human nature.

Militant atheism is non-existent? Lol. Dawkins, Harris, Maher and co will like to have a word with you.

You've shown ignorance once again claiming that religion is the main reason for anti-homosexuality. Anti-homosexuality has been around as long as human history because the natural disgust response to things that appear unnatural has always been a thing outside of religion. Even atheistic regimes like Stalin's still persecuted homosexuals. I'd think that ancient peoples didn't need religion to figure that penis goes into vagina.

Also, is the implication that people cannot disagree with homosexual acts or a homosexual lifestyle? Then you aren't truly for that "freedom" you mentioned before. It's more like the current state of social justice movements where you are only free to agree with them.

I'm sick of you constantly asking questions I have already answered. I HAVE CLEARLY STATED MANY TIMES THAT SCIENCE GIVES US A SUPERIOR AND ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS. And it answers all those questions you're free to look it up at you're leisure. . Unlike religion science never claims to have the monopoly on knowing everything, there is plenty we don't know and have yet to discover. And again you give no definition of metaphysical you just claim we can't know about it, which just holds no water.

People have always got a sense of comfort from many religions, belief in a higher power that will protect you and give you a form of strength, and meaning from it. Religions were made up to attempt to give people an understanding of the world which would also help reinforce a sense of meaning and comfort. It also provides a state of sameness the idea that everyone agrees and believes in the same ideology and is united, is comfortable to religiously minded people as again religion depends on this. One reason why people are dropping away from religion is because it is not an efficient way of viewing reality. Religion is ingrained in many people and often gives them comfort, as I said debating religion for many believers is a touchy subject because they find it uncomfortable. I haven't contradicted myself you either didn't understand or are again trying to make an argument out of nothing.

I meant in regards to creation myths from any religion you want to pick from. Science finds out the how, through that we find the "why."

No you just keep on making statements that can't be defended. You by responding to me have made you're own statements. What do you think I have been responding to for the past few days? You made a statement about metaphysics which you have given no more clarification on, you have stated that accepting homosexuality but not incest is hypocritical, that a Abrahamic god exists,that a first cause has none etc. My position is nothing unique, thinking that the concept of god is man made. Not believing in gods is pretty common. I never said "everything is made up" what's that mean? is there like five people who use your account and they respond to me interchangeably or something? You can't even mention what you are "addressing". Again what proprieties are you talking about?

You used the first cause argument to claim there is a god and I refuted it. It's nothing special.

Uhh.. we have been using science to come to reasoned conclusions for decades now and we continue to do so. As I said we have the option to know better and not simply settle for religion. People always go on how god is all loving.

I previously explained what a secular society/ country is. All the people in a country are referred to as a society. Laws govern a society. And people follow those laws, which can either be secular or otherwise.

You seem to define "militant atheism" as being critical of religion, it is a common claim amongst believers. You're talking as if there is this group of atheists that are trying to get rid of people's rights. Tin foil hat much? Many atheists just want children to be brought up to think for themselves and not have an ideology shoved down their throats and in schools of all places, where people should be learning not believing in things without asking questions. The fact people view that as militant or bad just shows how religion affects someone's thought process.

Well homosexuality has no harmful impacts on society, whilst incest does, inbreeding for example.

You asked me what Id do and jumped to killing people. I responded. It was a hypothetical question. Why do you keep doing this. It's stupid. I'm not talking about human nature I'm talking about religion and how it impacts people. How it affects someone as I mentioned ideology and world views affect and define us and as a result can affect other people in varying ways.

Again you conflate criticism of religion with being militant.

It is the main reason and cause for homophobia, never said religion created it. Most people who are anti gay are so due to religion. Not saying everyone is obviously just most people. Homosexuality has been accepted in many cultures throughout history. Okay so Stalin was against homosexuality and he was an atheist so? He was the head of a communist dictatorship. Well we clearly figured out that a penis can go in an ass hole and a vagina can go against a vagina. Lesbian porn is hot we can both agree on that right?

People are free to hold what views they like but they are not free to deny people equal rights due to those views.