AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

4668 1473298
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

  • 4,668 Replies
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

The trolley scenario is:
Ah, I have read about it somewhere. I'd rather overturn the trolley while it's still not have killed anyone. I don't think I'm brave enough to do so with my own body be it needed, as we're on the Internet and one can't prove if he will do that really... and I require external conditions, whether how far is the switch from the trolley, how far is it from the people (both sides) and can I really have an impact on the trolley other than this switch. (By the way, if that switch is analogue, I'd turn it halfway causing the trolley to fly between the paths killing no one.)
In the same time, they get mad at you when you do it nonetheless, although it is not their role to get mad at sinners. Their role is to guide, not to judge. Judging is god's field, if I understood it correctly. Why, in hell's name why, do christians still try to judge every single person they can?
A correct point indeed. We are forewarned about doing this by God, who said "Don't judge and you won't be judged" (which could mean condemnation). I am trying not to judge anyone, but I find it hard not to, especially if I was just hurt somehow by the person I'm thinking about, so I expect that other people experience the same difficulties, and sometimes we fall to this temptation. It's pity we do, and it's greater pity is we continue to do this. Thanks for pointing this out, maybe we'll turn away from this sin.
After all, it's god who hurts your soul when you go against his commandements.
Fortunately, no, this is not God who hurts us, but the devil, who is also as real as God, and being evil, he's more active among us. The devil always sends temptations, and if we'll follow them, we'll sin and harm our souls. We are always free to choose the side, be it God or devil. But we should test the choices against our conscience to determine what choice leads to God and what choice leads to the devil. If a person has decided to not listen to his conscience, he will eventually choose the devil's ways and will start his descent.
It gives people 30% less chance of getting prostate cancer.
Hehe. If you will have a job that would involve you into walking activities at least for 25% job time, this will reduce sich a risk by 50% or more because of the increased airflow in your butt region, as well as muscle tonus and overall physical training - walking for 2 hours a day is enough to give your heart the required workload. But people are so lazy that they take a single argument for their current activities be beneficial and ignore the rest stating otherwise. After all, if you do a homosexual act you're putting your **** into other person's butthole, and not into a woman's vagina as designed. In fact AIDS appears as a result of uprising narcotics and homosexualism, having about 70/30 percent of transmissions total. So ditching homosexualism reduces your chance to get AIDS (and probably STDs) by at least 30% if you take drugs, and by 50% if you don't. Isn't this an argument?
stem cells can form ovocytes and adults can produce stem cells, albeit fewer and less strong then, say, a neonate.
Ah, stem cells? Missed that, sorry *starts thinking* So, you have a zygote then with proper medical techs. Then how would two males bear a child, even formed this way? (Two females can, though they will always end up with a girl)
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

Article explaining some of the findings
Page 2 states this article is based on a set of studies which are unnamed, and this particular researcher has negated some of the previous studies as "weighted and biased, based on nothing more than the researcher's views." This statement is therefore applied to her own research, since the valid data selection criteria is not presented.
Journal of Pediatrics
Same author quoted. This dialogue ends in stalemate.
So your saying single parents shouldn't be parents?
No, I'm only saying there are difficulties for the single-parent families to raise children while lacking either a father or a mother. These children can grow to think that one gender is unneeded in evolution, or that the role of a father is to help conceiving a child then flee. I'm not speaking about how big is a mental trauma for a child when parents divorce, but even if one of the parents dies, there will be difficulties which are to the remaining parent to compensate. Since heterosexual marriage initially comprises of no such difficulties, it's better than homosexual "marriage" where such difficulties exist by design. You should also know that children learn while looking at parents' actions, so they can, probably accidentally, learn homosexuality, thus be turned homo by parents, which is already an offense. So gay marriage is declined in order to prevent this happening.
What you forget is, Marriage is not a religious object, it's a civil object.
Civil marriage is derived from religious marriage, and a successfull attempt of their total separation has occurred somewhere in the 1950s. This also led to this "demolishing" of Prop.8.
he is not the authority on the usage of language. Humans are.
This dialogue ends is a handswipe over the chessboard.
That's like your mother telling you to go to bed at 2:00PM because she said so. You wouldn't do it, even though she dictates w/e goes on because it's her house.
I did, to some extent of age, at some point my mother stopped demanding this seeing me grown. So, wrong association.
BS. If you have less, you can learn more
"BS" is not an argument. The rest of quote requires sources of this learning. Where can a girl learn to be a mother if she doesn't have one around, and where she can learn who is a father and how to choose a man who can be a good father for her own children if she doesn't have a father to look at? Same for a boy. These are the difficulties which a single parent is faced in raising his children, one way or another, but that parent is capable of reducing them by having strong relationship with a happy couple with children, or eliminating them by, say, marrying another spouse who will be faithful (regardless of his remaining lifespan) and will provide the correct example of a missed parent. Homosexual couples cannot eliminate these points, and they introduce them at the point of that couple forming, which is wrong.
Source is pbs
This is the letter to Galatians itself, this is not the source of the conclusions you provide about "Paul BS'd".
Sodomy includes blow jobs. So Clinton committed sodomy with monica lewinsky.
Yes indeed.
it seems that any pleasurable activity is sinful.
Wrong expansion. You can have pleasure in sending soap bubbles into the sky, while this isn't a sinful action. Masturbation, sodomy and other sexual behavior that's deemed perverted is so because it uses sexuality for something that is not procrastination, for what it is designed. If a sexual act has zero chance to result in a conception, OR it's altered in an intent to not make children (condoms, spermicides, interrupted, maybe more), it's a wrong use of sexuality, and is named sin.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

It accurately creates a situation where you really DO only have two choices. You can pull the lever or you can not pull the lever. Which is the moral choice?
The only winning move is not to play. That mad scientist will be guilty for either outcome, and since you can choose only between death and death, you are not moral-bound to take on the choice. If I'm forced to choose, I'm not bearing any guilt of the consequences, though I will still pray for salvation of those that will be killed. And actually I'd try to cheat here, by pulling the lever at the exact moment when the trolley is at intersection, to throw it off track.
He is good or evil based on his actions, just like people are.

No. He is good or evil based on his intentions, just like people are.
No, BOTH of these are true about people, and neither is true about God, because we can't determine the entire set of reasons and consequences which are the source and result of this particular event. You need to do both good deeds and have good intentions to be on the side of God. And we can't judge God for doing this or that, since we can't comprehend His infinite wisdom. He will always provide a reason unnoticed or unknown to us, that will make the result of a deed in question "good for all", and He will also make consequences that will ensure this to happen.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Ah, I have read about it somewhere. I'd rather overturn the trolley while it's still not have killed anyone. I don't think I'm brave enough to do so with my own body be it needed, as we're on the Internet and one can't prove if he will do that really... and I require external conditions, whether how far is the switch from the trolley, how far is it from the people (both sides) and can I really have an impact on the trolley other than this switch. (By the way, if that switch is analogue, I'd turn it halfway causing the trolley to fly between the paths killing no one.)


He cheated.
Kobayashi Maru

Since you can't see Youtube videos
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru_scenario

Fortunately, no, this is not God who hurts us, but the devil, who is also as real as God, and being evil, he's more active among us.


Given the number of people God has killed in the Bible compared to the deaths the devil is responsible for, from that perspective I would have to disagree.

After all, if you do a homosexual act you're putting your **** into other person's butthole, and not into a woman's vagina as designed.


First off not all homosexual acts involve **** sex and second the vagina and and penis are often not matched up to fit each other. The shapes of the two organs can vary greatly from one person to the next. The vagina can accommodate itself to many different shapes and sizes. So if the two are designed to fit one another perfectly the vagina wouldn't need such an ability to accommodate widely varying differences.

In fact AIDS appears as a result of uprising narcotics and homosexualism, having about 70/30 percent of transmissions total. So ditching homosexualism reduces your chance to get AIDS (and probably STDs) by at least 30% if you take drugs, and by 50% if you don't. Isn't this an argument?


The transmission as related to narcotics is the result of sharing needles, not the actual drug use itself.


Ah, stem cells? Missed that, sorry *starts thinking* So, you have a zygote then with proper medical techs. Then how would two males bear a child, even formed this way? (Two females can, though they will always end up with a girl)


You can have a surrogate mother.

Just for a basic idea of what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_pregnancy
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

He cheated.
Kobayashi Maru
Wow. Given the Enterprise, I think I'd rather use its interstellar-class shuttles as Hawking, in order to take the crew off the damaged ship. These are not warships, so no violation of the neutral zone with warships is in place. We have a task of saving the crew, bot the ship.
Given the number of people God has killed in the Bible compared to the deaths the devil is responsible for, from that perspective I would have to disagree.
Devil destroys souls and not bodies, as they are mundane and thus (prior to Christ) are in his power, so why he would waste resources to kill something he already owns?
The transmission as related to narcotics is the result of sharing needles, not the actual drug use itself.
Indeed, and the homosexual transmissions is because of sharing liquids and contacts of mucosal surfaces.
You can have a surrogate mother.
I am aware of this, but since the two males need a female to have their engineered child to grow and be born (one way or another), there are three people involved, and since the surrogate mother is linked to the child for about 9 months, she is also his real mother.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Page 2 states this article is based on a set of studies which are unnamed, and this particular researcher has negated some of the previous studies as "weighted and biased, based on nothing more than the researcher's views." This statement is therefore applied to her own research, since the valid data selection criteria is not presented.


That comment was commentary by a medical doctor which places some of the findings of the actual scholarly findings, which you'll see in my second link, into layman's terms. That is all. I placed it there for those who do not wish to gain access to, and pour over, a lengthy scholarly work. Also on the second link you can see numerous other scholarly studies which refer to and/or expand on the intial findings in the report. I suggest you go through those before you dismiss them.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Devil destroys souls and not bodies, as they are mundane and thus (prior to Christ) are in his power, so why he would waste resources to kill something he already owns?

He's doing God a favor. It is, afterall, God's will that those just and true to the Bible go to heaven. He doesn't say it, but he needs the Devil.

After all, if you do a homosexual act you're putting your **** into other person's butthole, and not into a woman's vagina as designed.

Okay. Well, shall we move to primitive society, as designed?

No, really. You cannot say we were supposed to develop this kind of technology, we were simply a more stable form of monkey (less agile but toupher and stronger). If you think that we were meant to make 2 story buildings, telescopes, armies, and etc, you must be crazy.
Oh and hey, we're not designed to pray. Wanna know why people do it? Because nothing goes against praying. Same with homosexuality in your example. I don't agree with homosexuality but I will defend it, especially against religion.

- H
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

Also on the second link you can see numerous other scholarly studies which refer to and/or expand on the intial findings in the report. I suggest you go through those before you dismiss them.
Hmm *looks at the second link again, finds "full text"* probably you should give full text link instead of abstract. *goes reading*
Well, shall we move to primitive society, as designed?
Reductio ad absurdum detected.
we're not designed to pray.
If one would accept Christianity (or Judaism, as this is from Old Testament) as a believer, one will say that initially we had no need to pray since Adam and Eve were embraced by God so closely that they had the ability to talk with Him without sending prayers. After expulsion from paradise, we lost such a direct contact with God, though our souls still seek Him, so Adam's descendants started to pray.
He's doing God a favor. It is, afterall, God's will that those just and true to the Bible go to heaven. He doesn't say it, but he needs the Devil.
I think yes, God yet needs the devil to play a role in here, He did state that "the power will be given to the devil for the short time".
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

MRWalker82, it looks like this article compares gay fathers to divorced fathers, and lesbian mothers to divorced mothers, while I request a comparison between a heterosexual couple (full) and gay couple or lesbian couple.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

No, I'm only saying there are difficulties for the single-parent families to raise children while lacking either a father or a mother.


This is usually the result of less income and having the burden all the responsibility on a single person. With a homosexual couple you don't have these issues. The gender of the second person makes no difference here.

These children can grow to think that one gender is unneeded in evolution, or that the role of a father is to help conceiving a child then flee.


Can you give me even one instance of this ever happening, because I can't think of one.

I'm not speaking about how big is a mental trauma for a child when parents divorce, but even if one of the parents dies, there will be difficulties which are to the remaining parent to compensate. Since heterosexual marriage initially comprises of no such difficulties, it's better than homosexual "marriage" where such difficulties exist by design.


Are you seriously claiming that homosexual relationships are doomed from the start? What do you base this on?

You should also know that children learn while looking at parents' actions, so they can, probably accidentally, learn homosexuality, thus be turned homo by parents, which is already an offense. So gay marriage is declined in order to prevent this happening.


Homosexuality is not a learned trait, it's based on genetics. Just because the child parents are gay doesn't mean the child will be as well. There are many homosexual couple with heterosexual children.
Even if this was the case so what?

Devil destroys souls and not bodies, as they are mundane and thus (prior to Christ) are in his power, so why he would waste resources to kill something he already owns?


The devil owns my body? How does this sit with the whole free will deal and why do Christians even bother keeping them then?

I am aware of this, but since the two males need a female to have their engineered child to grow and be born (one way or another), there are three people involved, and since the surrogate mother is linked to the child for about 9 months, she is also his real mother.


Biologically yes, but there people who care for the child are the two males. I suppose the saying "anyone can make a baby, but it takes a real man to be a father" would be fitting here. In other words just because there isn't a genetic link with one of the parents that doesn't make them any less the child's parent.

I'm going to have to get back to some of the other comments later, but by that time someone else is likely to beat me to it.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

Homosexuality is not a learned trait, it's based on genetics.
Sources please.
Just because the child parents are gay doesn't mean the child will be as well.
This, immediately following your previous statement, is ridiculously false. If something is genetically based, it's inherited by children, thus if the parents are homosexual, their children are also homosexual. If they are not, then this statement is false.
The devil owns my body? How does this sit with the whole free will deal and why do Christians even bother keeping them then?
The devil ownED all humanity prior to Christ redeeming us. So, once you're baptized, you were pried away from the devil's clutch by the Jesus Christ's sacrifice. Actually a man's free will was never in devil's power, it's just that a human is susceptible to temptations, and the devil uses them to bend the human's will to obey his commands.
I suppose the saying "anyone can make a baby, but it takes a real man to be a father" would be fitting here. In other words just because there isn't a genetic link with one of the parents that doesn't make them any less the child's parent.
Yes it takes a good man to be a father, but the very same principle applies to the mother. A boy must learn who is the father and who is the mother, a girl must also learn this. While there are two fathers in a family, there is no mother, this may cause a child to turn homosexual, boys having higher chance. The same principle applies to two mothers and no father. Such children will have more difficulties living in a heterosexual family, because they wouldn't know what the husband should do, what the wife should do, and how to behave as a good father or mother (gender-dependant) and what to request of one's spouse in relation to their children.
Are you seriously claiming that homosexual relationships are doomed from the start? What do you base this on?
Part of the base is written above.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Sources please.


Here's one study. The summary quotes that there is "a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."

Here's another study citing variations with the X chromosome that almost certainly causes our sexual orientation.

Comparative study between homosexual males with varied types of twins and non-biological siblings. (Spoiler alert: The more closely related they are the more prevalent homosexuality is)

So, here's my problem. If your God created us then he, by definition, created homosexuality. It is an inherited trait and is no more choice than heterosexuality. A heterosexual person can no more make themselves homosexual by sheer force of will than a homosexual can make themselves heterosexual. And no, I'm not refering to the base acting out of our sexuality, but our true preference.

It is simply a part of who we are and we can no more will it to change than we can will our eye color or skin tone to change. So, if I were you, I'd drop your bigotry and prejudice at the door because frankly it's quite disgusting.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

Here's one study.
Located full text. Influenced, yes, but not entirely dependant. This means even if a human has erroneous genes and claims that he's gay because of them, he's still able to return to heterosexual orientation. He might not need it probably in terms of his own mortal life, but that is mostly his problem if he'll look at it critically - he'll not have children (except for these stem cells tech children) and therefore this genetic error will die with him.
It is an inherited trait and is no more choice than heterosexuality.
It can be overcome, though is indeed influenced. But still a person can choose heterosexuality being a genetically influenced homo. Therefore it IS a personal choice.
A heterosexual person can no more make themselves homosexual by sheer force of will than a homosexual can make themselves heterosexual. And no, I'm not refering to the base acting out of our sexuality, but our true preference.
True preference is heterosexuality, because without heterosexuals humanity cannot survive. And I mean the whole of the humanity - if a single generation will comprise of homosexuals only, humanity will only survive on technology developed, while a heterosexual humanity can survive without any. Claiming genetic malfunction as "true preference" is fallacy.
. So, if I were you, I'd drop your bigotry and prejudice at the door because frankly it's quite disgusting.
I can only look at homos as weak-willed people, although I can now better understand that there is something hidden that can affect sexual orientation. But my opinion at homosexuality itself is unchanged. If it can be overcome within a person, it should be, and it's normal people who have to help weak people to do this step.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

You can pull the lever or you can not pull the lever.
Or I can do literally anything else. I don't only have two choices. I can call the cops. That won't help, but it's an option.

So if someones intention was to improve their country but in the process killed countless, they would not be evil?
They honestly thought they were trying to help. If that's not good, than I don't know what is.

So would you consider him evil?
I don't know why he did what he did.

so it should not matter according to you.
Now you're getting it. Sample: Any action is fine in the trolley situation, as long as you think it's the right thing to do at the time.

Morality is a complicated thing, but it's not about actions. Good people can mess up, and bad people can bumble their way into good. Intention alone isn't quite the yardstick to use, but it's a hell of a lot closer than actions. Being good is what makes one good. Being evil is what makes one evil. More important than intention, it's the why behind the what. A cruel, sadistic person may be evil even if he rationalizes his actions, but an empathic, compassionate person driven to murder by delusions is still good. Oh, it's like Heart of Darkness, a dream slipping through my fingertips like so many grains of sand. But yeah. People who think they're helping aren't evil.

The assumption that they are is its own pitiable brand of rationalizing. It is an effort to dehumanize them, to demonize them just so you can say "That could never be me".

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Then may God have mercy on my soul.

Civil marriage is derived from religious marriage, and a successfull attempt of their total separation has occurred somewhere in the 1950s.
Etymological fallacy. Its derivative has nothing to do with its modern state.

As for the issue of homosexuality, your anti-homosexual arguments are, as usual, idiotic and inaccurate. It would be easier to just quote the things that AREN'T logical fallacies. But let's go with one or two, for kicks:

This means even if a human has erroneous genes and claims that he's gay because of them, he's still able to return to heterosexual orientation.
This is completely non sequitur. Prove it, because there is no logic to support it.

therefore this genetic error will die with him.
That's not how evolution works. Th homosexual-influencing genetics are present in the population, though they manifest into homosexuality in him. His sexuality actually helps the population survive, apparently.

But still a person can choose heterosexuality being a genetically influenced homo.
Prove it. Regardless, being a choice in no way affects its moral standing.

True preference is heterosexuality, because without heterosexuals humanity cannot survive.
Fallacy of the false dichotomy. There are still heterosexuals. Tons of 'em.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Let's see...repeating question!

What, exactly, makes homosexuality bad. I get that you think it won't work, and that you think it's wrong and sinful, but I have yet to see any reason other than something involving children, either the lack of them or raising them also to be a homosexual. Also, this blatent bigotry is getting a little hard to handle calmly, have you even looked at what you've said Vesperbot?

Showing 646-660 of 4668