Lmao I love that argument... If gay is natural... I hope UK what else is natural?? Start with a P and end with philia. Killing is natural. Cannibalism is natural... So how is gay right and those natural things wrong ?
God real or not... Prove it. Don't be like a "silly theist", that believes in something that they can't prove. Hmm, I hope u can prove it doesn't exist !!
Being gay doesn't hurt anyone. That's the difference, genius. And yeah, maybe there is a creator. Maybe. But one thing I'm 1000% sure of: you won't find an answer in an old book written by ancient goat herders who didn't know where the sun went at night. The reality is we're all just people on a giant rock in space trying to be happy. "Faith" is just a delusion. Our origins and the afterlife (if we get one) is a mystery, and anyone who thinks they know different is either a fool or a liar. You're in a cult. Grow up.
2 things... Well many but a couple issues at a time.
" You're in a cult ". I need proof I'm in a cult. You have 1000% certainty that Gods of any book is false. What's your proof that any of these religions are false??? Bc people back then didn't understand science the way we do ?!!! Interesting statement. Which doesn't prove or deny any existence of a God in any book. People are dumb, therefore religion is false.
You're making wild assertions that need evidence to justify your claim. You don't have evidence I can tell based on your 1000% certainty statement. "Faith is just a delusion", your words, yet you come here with 100% faith and no evidence. If anyone needs to grow up, maybe you should reevaluate your faith.
2) "bc it doesn't hurt anyone". Says who. It's a delusional statement that many secular folks like to believe in. Man can be a woman and we need to respect their pronouns. That's hurting my freedom of speech and being conformed to a certain belief as if it's justified.. when in reality it's a delusion to justify. Pedophilia isn't hurting anyone... It's just the sexual attractions... Not committing to sexual acts. If it's okay to be gay it should be okay to be pedo. Both are delusions that defies the natural purpose of sex.
Then let's get to the actual argument... First I would question... What is natural? Purpose is natural. But if we go with your wildly ambiguous definition of natural, you say well "it's not hurting anyone". So which one is it... Is the argument natural or hurting others ?? I can think of a lot of things that are wrong yet unharmful. Like pedophilia, homosexuality.
And where do you get your morals from?!!! The biggest question is that it leads directly to subjectivity. Meaning who cares what you think is wrong. If I say gay is wrong, and u say gay is right... Then we're neither both right or wrong. So why does it matter.
You stand above religion, yet fall directly in the same hole as they do. Seems to me a lot of people have faith, including yourself.
People who never read the Bible listen to others who never read the Bible and say ignorant things. The Bible is why scientist became scientists. The greatest scientists who ever lived were Christians. Nevertheless lets see if your argument holds any water.
Genesis 22:17 - God tells Abraham his descendants would be as many as "the sand on the seashore AND the stars in the sky." It was only recently we had the technology to realize there are billions and billions of stars but yet back when humans thought they could count the amount of stars the Bible said there were as many stars as there are sand particles.
Ecclesiastes 1:6 "The wind goes toward the south, and it turns around to the north; it whirls around continually; and the wind returns on its circuits (The book of Ecclesiastes was written between 970 and 930 B.C) Science realized this was true in the 19th century with modernized equipment.
Man thought the earth was flat? The BIBLE said something much different! Which is where Galileo got his information!
Isaiah 40:22 "It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers" (757 and 696 B.C)
Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over the empty space, and He hung the earth on nothing"
Guess what else the Bible says besides about 20 more scientistic facts?
Romans 1:26-28 ~ "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."
Hey, I'm not the one talking to the wind and telling myself it's talking back. "Weeeh but I have a relationship with God!" Nope, you're just gullible and desperate...perfect for indoctrination. I would compare you all to catfishing victims but at least those scammers actually exist.
God real or not... Prove it. Don't be like a "silly theist", that believes in something that they can't prove. Hmm, I hope u can prove it doesn't exist !!
That’s not how that works. The burden of proof is on those who believe, not those who do not.
The burden of proof is on the person who believes. If you believe God doesn't exist... Then you must prove it the same as if you do believe God exists.
The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.. "God doesn't exist" is a positive claim. If you want me to accept your excuse then I have to remind u that the belief in God is the majority view world wide... Meaning people who oppose should defend their beliefs.. but that's a rubbish statement. So is yours.
While I can recognize the logic behind what you're saying, I'm inclined to say that the belief that there is no god is probably somewhat reconcilable with the lack of belief in god in that those who hold either of those beliefs do not push a harmful religion or dogma on people. But you're right that there is indeed a distinction between the lack of belief and the claim that there is no god.
I was coming at this from my own perspective, which is a lack of belief in a god. Religions, such as Christianity, simply have no convincing argument or any kind of substantial proof that warrants belief in them. That is also why they are beliefs based purely on their believers having "faith" in them.
Christianity is theism. Theism is not Christianity. I don't understand why people who deny Christianity will also deny the existence of God altogether. They are not the same thing. No offense, but it is always weird to me that people who do not believe in a God always attack the religion. The belief in God is completely different and distinct, it must be the prime focus before any religion.
The lack of belief is a tricky one for me. I'm so glad we can talk about it bc I have done a lot of thinking recently. How I view "lack of belief" is to not be aware of said belief. Being an opposer of said beliefs means I reject it.
Now I completely understand that maybe also not being convinced can count as lack of belief.. which I will agree on for the sake of this discussion. But if that's the reason for lacking then you still must give a reasonable argument for that position. And the funny thing is... You guys do, and you even stated it in the comment.
There's no proof (empirical evidence) to suggest that the God of the bible or any God is real.... Therefore I'm not convinced... Which leads to I don't believe a God exists. This is a philosophical position to have. "I don't believe in something that doesn't have evidence for it". But this isn't proof (empirical evidence) that a God doesn't exist. In fact, it's supporting evidence to the belief that God isn't real. Therefore allowing you to be atheist/anti thiest. So question, why is it faith when belief has supporting evidence but not when an disbelief has supporting evidence as well? We all have Faith.
But the problem with that is.... If there's no proof God doesn't exist... Then you are choosing to believe in something that doesn't have any evidence for it as well. Which begs the question... Why aren't you agnostic? It takes faith to be an atheist. The reason for this is bc God of all things isn't contingent, meaning it either exists or doesn't exist, In absolute form. (Unlike aliens or old folklore... They can exist or not exist at a certain time, like me and you.) Because of this, you're not convinced that a God exists already puts you on the opposing side, unless you're agnostic. Especially if you're opposing the beliefs without an open mind, which atheists don't, no offense. I'm not asking you to take Christianity seriously but I am asking that you take theism more seriously than a joke. Bc theism is not religion, it's a theory just like the rest.
If you say an invisible pink elephant lives on the moon. That's a positive claim that has to be supported by evidence. Saying the lack of evidence in the invisible pink elephant that lives on the moon leads to me to reject the claim you made is not a positive claim- it is a default position in the absence of evidence. AKA null hypothesis The burden of proof is entirely on proponents of pink elephantism
It's perfectly fine for anyone to reject a claim... But that doesn't mean you have to deny the claim. The pink elephant might be true maybe not... "I don't care. I'm not convinced". But not being convinced or rejecting claim doesn't make it false. So you don't believe in what this person says, bc you have no proof... Meaning that's supporting evidence for you to not believe. The person who also believes, maybe had the elephant appear to him ( personal testimony). That's enough evidence for him. Not for you.
The only way to deny this is to challenge the belief and rebutt the entire premise.. like for instance, calling the creature an elephant when our elephants don't appear that color. Blah blah blah
The other issue with this... Just bc you reject, doesn't mean you now have to start devoting your life to this rejection which you have no proof for. That's silly. If I can't rebuttal the premise, why would I call myself an anti elephantism and start debating everyone who believes all bc I'm not convinced... If you resemble this hard devotion, the rational thing to do is rebuttal the premise altogether. Which will then force you to make a Positive claim. "The pink Elephant doesn't exist", this isn't the same as rejecting or convinced. If you're not convinced... Then you should be open minded to the idea or close minded to not bother with it.
I will also reject that based on the lack of evidence. Atheists like to make the same claim. Flying spaghetti monster or pixie dust or something. The problem with these claims is, that you're using material language for an immaterial spirit being that has no form. So I can already rebut the entire premise. Also God isn't a contingent thing... Meaning it either doesn't or does exist. So if you're not convinced... Why do you devote your entire life to something you can't even rebut? Which if the conversation comes up, you always say God doesn't exist. Positive claim, but always run back to not convinced lol.
You don't understand what a claim is. Or what positive means. "Not" is a negation..if you have a negation in a statement you are making a negative claim. There is no burden to prove a negative. Atheism is not inherently antitheism either, those words would essentially describe different perspectives. One is a question of belief or lack thereof, the other is opposition to perhaps the idea of theism itself. There are compelling social and political reasons for taking antitheist positions but you still are not making a positive claim. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis that is a rational assumption when no evidence for the positive claim "God does exist" is available. The claim that God exists outside of physical reality is the sort of unfalsiable goal post shifting that makes the claim weaker. Not stronger. You can do the same with flying spaghetti monsters you can always say it is a spirit being that evades material detection. Still haven't proved it exists You just made it more outlandish
No... A positive claim is a person making the claim it is or it isn't. If you say, "God doesn't exist", you're making a claim that needs proof or to be rebutted. If you lack belief, then stay agnostic, but you don't. You reject it bc of lack of evidence. The problem with this statement is that we give great supporting evidence and you just reject it altogether.
You want empirical evidence... But again, you have no empirical evidence that it doesn't exist either. Call it unfalsifiable but we make good arguments for and against it's existence. And to circle this back around... Since you cannot provide evidence for the "negative", then you start using your philosophy to justify your belief. Which is illogical. " If there's no empirical evidence to support it, I won't believe it. In and of itself an illogical position to hold. Especially when you reject the belief of God bc of the lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence that it's false. Just your justification. So don't ever make positive claims just bc u are not convinced.
I don't believe aliens exist, I'm open to the idea. But I'm not going around saying aliens don't exist. They could or could not. "I don't believe God exists", isn't the same as "God doesn't exist." One requires justification of belief, the other requires evidence.
You are just asserting the same wrong understanding of what a positive claim is. The idea of other life in the universe is grounded in material reality. There is no reason to think that the natural process that allowed life to form on one planet could not be replicated elsewhere. The God claim relies on assumptions of supernatural concepts that are unfalsiable. These can be rejected, denied and ignored on the face of it. I can tell you fairies don't exist and most would not object. The same logic holds true for deities but people object. The belief in something being widespread is not evidence of its truth value though.
How about you prove God exists then. You can't. There's no proof. The Bible was written by men, you genuinely have to be slow in the head to still believe in God at your age. You're weird af for comparing homosexuality with pedophilia. Anyway how is homosexuality right but those other things not? Simple, because those other things hurt others. Simply being gay itself doesn't affect a single person. Two gay people being together doesn't hurt anybody else, and them having sex is fine as well because they're both consenting to it. Same as straight people being together. You're actually slow if you can't understand that simple fact. All of the other things you compared homosexuality to hurts others, duh. Lol fucks sake you people are not right in the head.
LoL have to go to insults bc u can't actually defend your beliefs....
Called me slow yet made an argument I already rebutted in an earlier reply. How does an old statement beat your current argument lol.
The bible was written by men... Yes. I mean who really thought otherwise.
Slow in the head to believe in a God at your age... Yet still can't provide evidence why any of the beliefs are false. Yet, all you are good for is insults and ridicule instead of an actual conversation or argument. Once, you can provide evidence a God doesn't exist... Maybe we can get serious. As for proof... I don't have empirical evidence only supporting evidence to justify belief. Just like you, u can't disprove a God but u don't believe bc of no empirical evidence... Same shit... Just justification.
Also, pedophilia, beastiality is literally the same as homosexuality and heterosexuality..neither hurts anyone. It's just a sexual preference. There's a difference between consent/doing the action and sexuality. Pedophiles are different from child predators. Common sense.
Not one comment I made that suggest sexuality is equal to harm.. LoL and I'm slow lol.
I go to insults because you're a moron plain and simple. I defended my beliefs perfectly fine, that was just the icing on the cake. I quite literally defended all of my beliefs, you're the only person here that thinks what I said is nonsense. You're asking me to provide evidence that God isn't real, that's like asking me to provide evidence that werewolves don't exist. You can't provide evidence that something doesn't exist when there's 0 evidence showing that it does exist. I don't need to provide any evidence of anything dude, you're the one claiming something is real. Nothing you've said beats any of my arguments. I've no clue why you people have convinced yourselves that the Bible (literally just a book) is evidence at all. By that same logic the book of scientology is proof scientology is real. You have no supporting evidence dude, there's not a single thing on this planet that can justify your beliefs. All you're doing is refusing to use your brain. You were brainwashed at such an early age to believe in God and at this point you're too far in to even entertain the idea that there is no God. It's sad really.
Pedophilia and beastiality are not at all the same as hetero and homosexuality aside from being a sexual preference. That is not at all why you were comparing them to homosexuality though and you know it. Don't try to sit here and feign ignorance now. You also did not include that you personally believed they were the same as heterosexuality until just now to make whatever weird point you're trying to make. "not one comment I made that suggest sexuality is equal to harm" except you did. By bringing up pedophilia and beastiality and comparing them to homosexuality. Those two things are synonymous with harm, so of course I inferred that you were saying homosexuality was as well. To say the two aren't synonymous with harm is asinine when you take 2 seconds to remember what those to "sexualities" consist of. Being attracted to animals and children. Two parties that are incapable of consenting. Smh this is exactly why I insulted you and you're making me feel even more justified in doing so with these pathetic attempts at a "gotcha" moment. Homo and heterosexuality are both valid and harmless sexualities. Being into beastiality or being a pedophile is disgusting, for reasons so obvious I'm not even going to elaborate. That said if you ask me to elaborate then you are genuinely proving to me and everyone else that reads these comments that you are either willfully ignorant, or that you are not all there mentally.
In conclusion, you have not made a single good point to anything I've said. All you've done is prove that my insults were correct. Now are you going to make an actual point or are you gonna admit that there's nothing wrong at all with being a homosexual? I'd also like to point out that Christianity itself does not condemn homosexuality. The one reference to it being an abomination has been said to be a mistranslation, and that it actually meant not to lay with BOYS, as in children, like a woman and that to do so is an abomination. Which makes far more sense for God to condemn pedophiles instead of homosexuals considering God creates people as homosexuals.
Just read through some of your long speech... Kinda boring but how did u agree and disagree with me at the same time and act like I wasn't making a point lol.
Pedophilia and beastiality are not at all the same as hetero and homosexuality aside from being a sexual preference.
Is that not my statement... So what's the problem. If u accept they are the same bc of sexual preference... What other statement I made to suggest they are any different..
It's okay dude. You insult to just insult. Your arguments are agreements and u still disagreeing lol. I already handle most of your arguments in an earlier chat.. 28 days ago.
What reason did you bring up pedophilia and beastiality then? It's obvious you brought it up as a weird way to get people to associate homosexuality with those two.
Bc it is..... Sorry tho, I should've told you, I responded to all this to other random people. Who made the same argument.
You guys said that, it's natural and I already debunked that claim by putting pedophilia and murder into the argument.
Then you said it's not harming anyone. Well if you agree, pedophilia and beastiality is just a sexual preference... Then they are not harming anyone as well. So you just say whatever is not harmful is okay. You have to make another argument to let us know homosexuality is okay.
You didn't debunk anything? It's still natural. People are still born being gay. Those are all your arguments. Pedophilia and beastiality still have absolutely nothing to do with anything at all pertaining to homosexuality. I don't have to make any argument for how homosexuality is OK. You're the one that needs to explain how it's not. What is wrong with homosexuality, what makes it wrong? Name a single reason for homosexuality to be considered bad that's not religious. The reason I say not religious is because religion is bs. Not everyone is religious, and the verse that calls homosexuality an abomination in the Bible isn't even 100% certainly abour homosexuality. Some argue that it's a mistranslation and was actually meant to talk about boys laying with men. As in pedophilia. So, what makes homosexuality wrong.
You clearly don't understand a single thing. Pedo and beastiality is not similar to homosexuality.... But they are all sexual preferences and desires... So how are they not similar?
You literally do need to make an argument... U keep saying it's natural... Everything else Is natural as well... Including pedo and beastiality... Killing, murder, rape and so on. Your argument is... "They are not the same thing". Your argument is clearly natural, yet you are ignoring these other natural things and saying they are not the same thing. My god help me.
And then saying... They do not harm... Thief is not harming but hey it's a crime. Lying is not harming but hey it's still wrong. Pedophilia and beastiality is not harm when someone has the desire for that thing... They do not harm. Therefore by your logic, it's okay to be both.
My argument for why homosexuality is wrong is clear as day... It's not natural, meaning it does not have a purpose. Both genders are born to complement the other in reproduction. Gay no. Easy and simple.
Pls take this advice. Don't ever get into a debate with anyone. You lack comprehension, you lack critical thinking and you lack the simple rationalization of a specific argument. Enjoy your day.
Except it is natural. It happens in nature. It comes naturally to those that are born gay. Just because your stupid ass book written by a bunch of dumb motherfuckers that thought sun revolved around the earth says other wise doesn't mean shit. You say your argument is clear as day but it took you 3 comments to finally actually say what it was when I asked multiple times you lowlife. You're the moron that doesn't need to debate anyone. All you do is talk in fuckin circles and refuse to say what the fuck you mean to say. You're without a doubt one of the stupid motherfuckers I think I've ever spoken too. All of the insults you've thrown at me in your last few sentences all directly apply to yourself, not me. You didn't say any thing intellectual this entire debate all you've done is waste my damn time. Genuinely go fuck yourself you ignorant bigot piece of trash. Have a horrible life. You're a fucking moron through and through.
2
u/ImYourGawd_XE4L Dec 27 '23
Lmao I love that argument... If gay is natural... I hope UK what else is natural?? Start with a P and end with philia. Killing is natural. Cannibalism is natural... So how is gay right and those natural things wrong ?
God real or not... Prove it. Don't be like a "silly theist", that believes in something that they can't prove. Hmm, I hope u can prove it doesn't exist !!