There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[McCulloch]

The only reason homosexuals act out with each other is that each one lusts after the other.

How do you know that?

They don't care what God or anyone else thinks,

Why then do some homosexuals become involved with religion?

including what their behavior does to their children.

Yes they do. All of the homosexual parents and step-parents I know are deeply committed to the welfare of their children.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 19 Post 187:

Can you offer verifiable evidence there is a god? Lacking such, your examples are nothing more than an attempt at showing a connection that can't be shown to be true.

Sorry but since science rejects historical accounts and eye-witness testimony in favor of making up a history of their imaginations (including the history of the Jews), then it appears that they and you aren't interested in proof. You'd rather live in your imaginations.

What science can or can't prove should have no direct bearing on your claims. I do note there is no scientifically valid evidence to support god hypotheses.

But even if you reject historical accounts you can still see proof of God by everything around you, including your own body. It's design is so intricate that not even scientists can understand everything about it. Order can't come from chaos.

Argument from incredulity.

Can you offer verifiable evidence that your proposed god is the one behind this "design".

But I find is very interesting that the only reason that the secular world rejects Jesus is precisely because Jesus performed miracles!

I reject such tales because they can't be shown to have occurred.

Can you offer verifiable evidence they did?

Yet that's the very evidence you say you want us to provide for the existence of God.

So you're saying the only "evidence" you have is tales that can't be shown to be true? Or are you saying you can offer verifiable evidence they are?

God has to be supernatural and do supernatural things in order to be God. So why do you ask for proof of God when that's the very proof that you want to reject?

I don't want to reject the evidence, I want to see the evidence.

And considering that you have to make up an imaginary history to deny the proof we give you, then nothing, nothing whatsoever is rational about your claims that Jesus isn't who he says he is.

I've offered evidence for my claims, such evidence is based on reasonable, logically derived conclusions by experts in the pertinent fields. What have you offered other than personal incredulity and amateur opinion?

[Carico]

So you're saying the only "evidence" you have is tales that can't be shown to be true? Or are you saying you can offer verifiable evidence they are?

Even scientists know there's a design since they know that the universe works on a cause-effect basis. So they use that design every time they try to look for reasons why things happen the way they do. If there was no design, there'd be no order and and cause -effect and scientists would never look for cause-effect. they'd know that everything happens by chance. That's proof.

But those who want to deny the bible, will never say there's proof no matter how much we give them.

[palmera]

Even scientists know there's a design since they know that the universe works on a cause-effect basis. Rolling Eyes So they use that design every time they try to look for reasons why things happen the way they do. If there was no design, there'd be no order and and cause -effect and scientists would never look for cause-effect. they'd know that everything happens by chance. That's proof.

"Design" implies a designer. That the universe (as we observe it) operates under certain laws does not imply someone/something "made" it that way. Gravity does not imply God. Order does not imply God - it implies probability.

[JoeyKnothead]

So you're saying the only "evidence" you have is tales that can't be shown to be true? Or are you saying you can offer verifiable evidence they are?

Even scientists know there's a design since they know that the universe works on a cause-effect basis. So they use that design every time they try to look for reasons why things happen the way they do. If there was no design, there'd be no order and and cause -effect and scientists would never look for cause-effect. they'd know that everything happens by chance. That's proof.

But those who want to deny the bible, will never say there's proof no matter how much we give them.

Elsewhere you've dismissed scientists as otherwise tools of "Satan". Are you now accepting what scientists have to say?

[Carico]

Even scientists know there's a design since they know that the universe works on a cause-effect basis. Rolling Eyes So they use that design every time they try to look for reasons why things happen the way they do. If there was no design, there'd be no order and and cause -effect and scientists would never look for cause-effect. they'd know that everything happens by chance. That's proof.

"Design" implies a designer. That the universe (as we observe it) operates under certain laws does not imply someone/something "made" it that way. Gravity does not imply God. Order does not imply God - it implies probability.

A design absolutely implies a designer. And even scientists know that the world works by design because they rely on that design to understand how the world works. So their rejection of a designer is irrational because it's a contradiction.

[kayky]

I thought scientists just made up stories out of their imaginations...

[palmera]

Even scientists know there's a design since they know that the universe works on a cause-effect basis. Rolling Eyes So they use that design every time they try to look for reasons why things happen the way they do. If there was no design, there'd be no order and and cause -effect and scientists would never look for cause-effect. they'd know that everything happens by chance. That's proof.

"Design" implies a designer. That the universe (as we observe it) operates under certain laws does not imply someone/something "made" it that way. Gravity does not imply God. Order does not imply God - it implies probability.

A design absolutely implies a designer. And even scientists know that the world works by design because they rely on that design to understand how the world works. So their rejection of a designer is irrational because it's a contradiction.

I see that you've repeated yourself in response to my post. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said.

I don't understand where your proof is that "scientists" (which scientists?) "know that the world works by design..." It seems that you are assuming that "design" is either the same thing as "physical laws" or that "physical laws" are the result of a "design."

I want to argue that the laws of the universe are not a result of a design or designer. Positing that the universe was designed fails to answer what designed the designer ad infinitum...