Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

As far as domestic violence and homosexuality, I have a neighbor early 30's who has been in 4 violent relationships with men and she has 5 kids so I don't think you can say she was gay

I've know gay men who have kids (from a heterosexual marriage). They'll be the first to explain that some people deny to themselves that they're gay longer than others.

 

[ryzno]

And as far as animals, my friend has 2 male dogs used for breeding, they do have sex with each other and I feel bad for the female when they bring one.

My point is sex is a euphoric experience, but in animals it a form of hormone release.
All humans use sex for stimulation, not always what it's meant for...

Who knows what she wanted to be, but I find the facts of what I have seen (I know her before facebook) interesting, after documentaries I've watched. I even tried to "let her cry on my shoulder" about here problems, you why she didn't want me in between heterosexual relationships? Cause I'm white. Figure that out.

 

[huskeR32]

Scaff asked when I figured out my sexuality, around 9 or 10 I found my father's porn and even though I didn't understand what was happening I was aroused by women.

The question isn't when did you figure it out. The question is, when did you choose to be straight? If it's a choice, then everybody made that choice at sometime or another. When did you?

And after a hospital visit at 11 I was sure I didn't like things going on in that manner. (I could not eat from surgery so I had to take the meds another way.)

Wut?

Some chose,...

When did you?

...some probably are born gay,...

All.

...others a symptom of abuse.

You keep claiming this. Would you care to provide any evidence? Any at all?

 

[ryzno]

Just google. And I explained clear enough when I figured out my sexuality.

 

[Dan]

Just google. And I explained clear enough when I figured out my sexuality.

So why can't you provide a source?

 

[ryzno]

Cause it's what I have seen in my life don't always make the news...

 

[MatskiMonk]

Cause it's what I have seen in my life don't always make the news...

Oh you mean anecdotal stories, the circumstances, background and aftermath of which you probably don't actually have that much insight into.

My friend came out, after he'd had 3 kids with his girlfriend... I guess it must be true that having three kids makes you gay.

 

[Scaff]

Except for putting my neighbors facebook on here I have no scientific proof, just what I have seen in life. Take it how you want to but she was not gay until the last relationship, here baby daddy is locked up for what he did and now she is on her 2nd girlfriend, ironically enough she is still having the same relationship problems.

So bisexuality doesn't exist then?

Scaff asked when I figured out my sexuality, around 9 or 10 I found my father's porn and even though I didn't understand what was happening I was aroused by women. And after a hospital visit at 11 I was sure I didn't like things going on in that manner. (I could not eat from surgery so I had to take the meds another way.)

That's not a choice you made.

Some chose, some probably are born gay, others a symptom of abuse. Regardless they are human.
.

Evidence to a scientific standard exists for one of these three, are you able to provide it for the first and the last options?

Who knows what she wanted to be, but I find the facts of what I have seen (I know her before facebook) interesting, after documentaries I've watched. I even tried to "let her cry on my shoulder" about here problems, you why she didn't want me in between heterosexual relationships? Cause I'm white. Figure that out.

Did you seriously just go down the 'she wouldn't have me, must be gay' route!

She may well have been suppressing her sexuality, she may well be bisexual and she may just not be attracted to you.

Oh you mean anecdotal stories, the circumstances, background and aftermath of which you probably don't actually have that much insight into.

My friend came out, after he'd had 3 kids with his girlfriend... I guess it must be true that having three kids makes you gay.

Oh 🤬 I've got three kids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dan]

Cause it's what I have seen in my life don't always make the news...

Nice way to completely dodge my question.

 

[The McMerc]

But there are also those who are Christian who say they were delivered from being a Homosexual and have Christian ministries that operate under that claim.

Right, the people who have grown up in a heavily conservative and Christian society, who suffered endless homophobia and abuse at school, online and even from their own family. Who were sent to camps and retreats to "cure" them of their sexuality, where they were told they weren't normal, that they were just going through a phase, that they'd go to hell.

And what happens when they suddenly acclaim that they aren't gay anymore? They're treated like a normal person.

 

[huskeR32]

Just google.

People with the name "ryzno" on an internet forum are most likely gay.

If you don't think that's true, Google it. It's not my responsibility to backup the ludicrous claims that I make.

And I explained clear enough when I figured out my sexuality.

So, you're claiming that you remember making a conscious choice to be straight? May I ask what criteria you weighed when making that choice?

 

[ryzno]

Haha, try googling ryzno most links come back here. The other links are not a person. And funny enough I thought it was a random word with a twist on a nickname..

And the AUP does not allow me to explain. Take the surgery reference and figure it out.

And obviously bisexuality exists...

 

[Scaff]

Haha, try googling ryzno most links come back here. The other links are not a person. And funny enough I thought it was a random word with a twist on a nickname..

And the AUP does not allow me to explain. Take the surgery reference and figure it out.

And obviously bisexuality exists...

The AUP does however allow you to supply independently verifiable evidence to back up your claims.

That you are seemingly unable or unwilling to do so doesn't help your credibility in this at all.

 

[Com Fox]

Without explaining it then we can't believe you. So if anything you could be lying or giving us false info.

Haha, try googling ryzno most links come back here. The other links are not a person. And funny enough I thought it was a random word with a twist on a nickname..

And the AUP does not allow me to explain. Take the surgery reference and figure it out.

And obviously bisexuality exists...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Rights are "inalienable" for external forces. You can give them up via your own actions...There is no such thing as "logic of some particular people".

The right to life remains whether or not during the course of one's life one takes another. The right to life is either absolute or not-at-all.

The logic of some particular people has it that this right is somehow tradeable as part of a social bargain, it is not.

 

[Famine]

Except for putting my neighbors facebook on here I have no scientific proof,

That's also not scientific proof - or indeed evidence of any kind - so the "Except" part isn't really necessary.

As far as domestic violence and homosexuality, I have a neighbor early 30's who has been in 4 violent relationships with men and she has 5 kids so I don't think you can say she was gay

Why not?


Just because someone hasn't acted in a completely homosexual manner doesn't mean they aren't homosexual - "coming out" is an extremely recent thing because of the stigma of being gay across all Western societies right up to the middle of the 1990s. It's still quite the stressor, but these days you only face being thrown out by your parents, some mild public scorn and the occasional sexuality-motivated assault. You don't have to look very far at all to find gay male celebrities who have married women (commonly referred to as 'beards') and had children with them, to maintain a public face of heterosexuality.

It turns out that with sufficient brutality - say the threat of being stoned to death in the street or strung up from a tree with your genitals set alight - you can prevent people from behaving how they want to behave. I'd entirely agree that a violent sexual assault can change how someone expresses their sexuality, but to suggest that it changes their sexuality is to not understand what sexuality is.

Your neighbour may have always been with men because that's what has always been expected of women in the "East Atlanta Slums" (the Bible Belt... imagine!), but always wanted to be with women and has finally decided to live as she wants if she's going to be beaten up anyway...

 

[CodeRedR51]

And obviously bisexuality exists...

Yes, it does.

 

[Danoff]

The right to life remains whether or not during the course of one's life one takes another. The right to life is either absolute or not-at-all.

The logic of some particular people has it that this right is somehow tradeable as part of a social bargain, it is not.

Rights are inherently reciprocal. If you take an innocent person's life, you have no claim to your own. You have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to observe the rights of others, and by doing so you have demonstrated to others your principles, the principles you adopt for your own behavior of your own free will. Your own established values are then what devalues your own rights.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Rights are inherently reciprocal. If you take an innocent person's life, you have no claim to your own. You have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to observe the rights of others, and by doing so you have demonstrated to others your principles, the principles you adopt for your own behavior of your own free will.

We're getting off topic...but your actions are irrelevant to the existence of your rights. What you're doing is overlaying a belief system that some people say works a certain way. That's not an expression of rights, that's legislation. Perhaps that is on-topic given the biblicalness* of such an idea.

*I know, I know.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's fine. But if they murder someone they have no claim to a right to their life.



Beautiful thing about logic is that it's not subjective.



Right... but we also have no obligation to avoid incarcerating or executing them in response.

Your missing the whole point Danoff.
All of that is your interpretation, not necssarily someone elses.
It is all justifiable and logical to them, so it would not be justifiable on a level moral plane of authority for you to impose punishment of any kind on them.
Their moral code is just as justified as yours.

Not to mention you are claiming objectivity from a subjective source.

So all the secular countries of the world are run by despots now?

I never said that.
I recognized their existence, I did not elaborate beyond that.

Not to mention that you stated a Christian origin, not a religious one or are these religion equal to Christianity?

Here is my quote regarding the theory:

I would like to put forth a concept, feel free to challenge it if you wish.
I don't think many of you are considering the eventual consequences, that I am convinced will result from operating under the "God doesn't exist position".
If there is no higher being of authority upon which to base a standard of absolutes, then there is nothing to prevent the eventual consequence of basically "anything goes". Or whatever goes goes at the whim of man at whatever point in time. Same difference depending.
Now the reason that is an eventuality, is without a higher basis of estabished standard, no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses. Or in other words we are all on the same plane of authority, with no more basis for authority than the next fellow to judge what is wrong or right..
Isn't that what I'm hearing in this thread?
Or in short, mob rule.

That would include any God, or Deity if you prefer.
However, I can understand how you would make that assumption.

Did I say it was statistical? I've already done that and you ignored them, so let me ask you.

Touche

Do you think that you would murder and rape if it were not for the laws of God and the fear of him?

Another good question.
It is not possible to accurately determine that.
Referring to my legitimate control group statement, the clock would have to be rewound 2000yrs and then played forward under 2000yrs of pagan influence to determine that.
As far as what I think, I believe if that was the alternate case, it is much more likely that given the opportunity I would be more inclined to it, yes.
If the rewind were possible, we may find I wouldn't exist at all.

Well that then puts every word of the Bible into question.

How so?

So until then you ignore the evidence in front of you?

No, I just don't draw conclusions from inconclusive evidence.

A law that your God put in place!

Sort of.
Under the new covenant, everyone without exception is guilty of sin, so it is hypocritical to judge on a personal scale.
In civil matters as part of civil authority, if required one must judge according to the evidence of the case at hand.

Also you are once again assuming that he said it, the problem is that the evidence doesn't support that (but don't worry about that - I know you will just ignore that).

I don't ignore it, again it is inconclusive so I can't conclude that he didn't say it.

 

[Scaff]

Here is my quote regarding the theory:

That would include any God, or Deity if you prefer.
However, I can understand how you would make that assumption.

You mean because you identify as a Christian first and fore-most and if I recall have dismissed other deities in the past, as such when you state God (and the capital at the start is critical) you have always been referring to the Christian one.

Another good question.
It is not possible to accurately determine that.
Referring to my legitimate control group statement, the clock would have to be rewound 2000yrs and then played forward under 2000yrs of pagan influence to determine that.
As far as what I think, I believe if that was the alternate case, it is much more likely that given the opportunity I would be more inclined to it, yes.

What have pagans got to do with anything?

However why do we have to rewind 2,000 years? Christianity is not the only religion on the planet, plenty of others exist and manage to do so without mob rule.

Its also rather worrying that you feel without the fear of God you would be more inclined to murder and rape. Why do you think that is not the case for such a large number of other people?

If the rewind were possible, we may find I wouldn't exist at all.

Odd.

How so?

If the parts of the Bible that are inaccurate are the fault of man how do you know which part is right and which part is wrong?

No, I just don't draw conclusions from inconclusive evidence.

Yes you do, your entire belief structure requires it.

Sort of.
Under the new covenant, everyone without exception is guilty of sin, so it is hypocritical to judge on a personal scale.
In civil matters as part of civil authority, if required one must judge according to the evidence of the case at hand.

But you just inferred that we shouldn't draw conclusions from inconclusive evidence?

I don't ignore it, again it is inconclusive so I can't conclude that he didn't say it.

So instead you draw a conclusion from zero evidence, as that's how much you have that he said it.

Outside of the Bible we have two independent references to Jesus from one source (and even he lived after Jesus) and all he stated was that a man called Jesus was baptized by a man called John and that the Roman's crucified a man called Jesus.

That's it, as such no evidence outside of the bible (of which the oldest one flat out contradicts your claim) to support your claim.

 

[Exorcet]

Your missing the whole point Danoff.
All of that is your interpretation, not necssarily someone elses.
It is all justifiable and logical to them, so it would not be justifiable on a level moral plane of authority for you to impose punishment of any kind on them.
Their moral code is just as justified as yours.

How can you say this when you previously said:

no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses.

So someone must be wrong in thinking they can challenge anyone else's conduct. This makes slavery wrong straight away, as well as murder and theft.

"Personal logic" is not logic, it is just a logical fallacy. So something being logical to someone doesn't justify anything. It has to actually be logical. Of course, humans are capable of making mistakes.

While I'm here, I kind of curious as to why you ignored my response to your morality challenge:

I would like to put forth a concept, feel free to challenge it if you wish.
I don't think many of you are considering the eventual consequences, that I am convinced will result from operating under the "God doesn't exist position".
If there is no higher being of authority upon which to base a standard of absolutes, then there is nothing to prevent the eventual consequence of basically "anything goes". Or whatever goes goes at the whim of man at whatever point in time. Same difference depending.
Now the reason that is an eventuality, is without a higher basis of estabished standard, no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses. Or in other words we are all on the same plane of authority, with no more basis for authority than the next fellow to judge what is wrong or right..
Isn't that what I'm hearing in this thread?
Or in short, mob rule.

Logic. Anything goes until you harm someone else. That's morality. What isn't morality is heterosexual sex only, eating only green food on the third Wednesday of every other odd year, and telling a super being that he's the greatest thing ever every Sunday.


Correct. So whatever someone wills to do is fine, unless they mistakenly take their will to be better than someone else's and thus dictate how the other person should go about their business. That's morality.


Wrong conclusion. Having more people on your side doesn't make your will any more correct. It's still exactly as meaningful or meaningless of the minority.

 

[Danoff]

We're getting off topic...but your actions are irrelevant to the existence of your rights.

Tell that to the guys behind bars.

What you're doing is overlaying a belief system that some people say works a certain way. That's not an expression of rights, that's legislation.

Then you don't understand what I'm saying. It's best to take this to the human rights thread.

Your missing the whole point Danoff.
All of that is your interpretation, not necssarily someone elses.
It is all justifiable and logical to them, so it would not be justifiable on a level moral plane of authority for you to impose punishment of any kind on them.

They subscribed to subjective values when they violated the rights of another. That's all you need for authority to impose a punishment.

Your missing the whole point Danoff.
Their moral code is just as justified as yours.
Not to mention you are claiming objectivity from a subjective source.

Logic is a word that gets thrown around a lot, often misused. But logic is objective.

 

[Scaff]

Can we move the pure morals discussion to the Human Right thread please.

 

[TenEightyOne]

An entertaining amateur roundup of the best in Christian TV/Film through the years.

Youtube, very strong language within.

EDIT: This one seems language-safe, I love it

 

[Imari]

Yes it does.
But there is one pivotal difference between a cult and this.
You are never at any time under any pressure or obligation to participate.
It's up to the freewill choice of the individual.
You are encouraged to participate and become a member but it's up to you.
You can come and go as you please.
Nothing is compulsory.

It's just that we'll be tortured for eternity if we don't?

Seems fair and reasonable.

It's a bit like those guys that stop me on the sidewalk and ask for my money. They insist that I'm under no pressure or obligation to do so, but they're quick to point out that if I don't then these other guys with whom they're totally not affiliated will beat me with baseball bats to within an inch of my life.

I feel fine with that though, as they gave me a free choice. Promising future violence for non-compliance is in absolutely no way to be considered pressure or obligation.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You mean because you identify as a Christian first and fore-most and if I recall have dismissed other deities in the past, as such when you state God (and the capital at the start is critical) you have always been referring to the Christian one.

As far as my belief yes I refer to the the Christian God, but as applied to the theory it goes one step further.
There is no higher being or power upon which to base moral authority.

What have pagans got to do with anything?

That may not have been the best word to use.
Perhaps secular humanist influence would be better.

However why do we have to rewind 2,000 years? Christianity is not the only religion on the planet, plenty of others exist and manage to do so without mob rule.

The reason we, as in you and me, would have to rewind 2000yrs is because we are a product of 2000yrs of Christian influence.(Europe and America)
That is unmistakable, undeniable, and unchangeable without the rewind.
So when Penn Jillette or you make statements as to your high moral character, you are doing so, as I said under the benefit of that influence.
Or if you were not a product of that influence, you may have a completely different moral standard.

Its also rather worrying that you feel without the fear of God you would be more inclined to murder and rape. Why do you think that is not the case for such a large number of other people?

Well thats just a guess.
As I said, there is no way to determine that without the rewind.
Perhap's I wouldn't be so inclined, I don't know.
There is no way to say if I were a product of 2000yrs of some other moral beliefs, practices, and teachings, what my moral inclinations would be.

You have no reason to worry under the present existing circumstance, since it is not possible to perform a rewind.
I'm more inclined to worry about the eventual affects of the secular humanist influence.

If the parts of the Bible that are inaccurate are the fault of man how do you know which part is right and which part is wrong?

Again they are perceivably inaccurate, not conclusively.
Or not beyond the possiblity of a reasonable explanation.
Consequently I have to consider them of the gnat variety.
Or they do not take away from the clear and present Camel.(main point or theme)

Yes you do, your entire belief structure requires it.

The difference, as I've stated is the personal or individual confirmation or what has been shown to me through the acceptance and receipt of the Holy Spirit as conclusive to the Bible and it's teachings.
And the same is displayed through others here.
Under that exposure, I am compelled to give God the benefit of doubt.
Obviously, that is a circumstance completely unique in that respect, as far as I know.
I am confident either way God knows the circumstance, and as I said earlier we may know at some point in the future.

But you just inferred that we shouldn't draw conclusions from inconclusive evidence?

I am inferring that as far as me personally, Jesus's remark in question is consistent with his other teachings and as said not beyond the possiblity of a reasonable explanation why it is not in the oldest original text.

So instead you draw a conclusion from zero evidence, as that's how much you have that he said it.

Same answer as above.

I think in this particular instance we have a distinct difference between our standards of reasonable doubt.

Outside of the Bible we have two independent references to Jesus from one source (and even he lived after Jesus) and all he stated was that a man called Jesus was baptized by a man called John and that the Roman's crucified a man called Jesus.

That's it, as such no evidence outside of the bible (of which the oldest one flat out contradicts your claim) to support your claim.

In that regard it is not conclusively established either way.

BTW, I don't think you answered this question:

"who decides what is bad"?

How can you say this when you previously said:
So someone must be wrong in thinking they can challenge anyone else's conduct. This makes slavery wrong straight away, as well as murder and theft.

As far as slavery, murder and theft they are challenged on the basis of a higher moral authority, not the absense of it.

"Personal logic" is not logic, it is just a logical fallacy. So something being logical to someone doesn't justify anything. It has to actually be logical.

Under the circmstantial hypothetical, thats irrellevant.

Of course, humans are capable of making mistakes.

No doubt.

While I'm here, I kind of curious as to why you ignored my response to your morality challenge:

I think I already have.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The reason we, as in you and me, would have to rewind 2000yrs is because we are a product of 2000yrs of Christian influence.(Europe and America)
That is unmistakable, undeniable, and unchangeable without the rewind.

1400 years for me, I'm in Britain. Not personally, of course, but I doubt the distinction matters much.

And 300 years for you, if you're in America.

So when Penn Jillette or you make statements as to your high moral character, you are doing so, as I said under the benefit of that influence.
Or if you were not a product of that influence, you may have a completely different moral standard.

Indeed you may but also you may not. Some of the most notorious child molestation cases in recent history occurred under the aegis of a Christian church. The most recent cases of mass slavery known in Britain or Ireland in recent history occurred under the aegis of a Christian church.

Personally I feel that in essence the 10 commandments give a generally good idea of how a decent society may conduct itself. Imagine if those ideas were written down 1500 years by another civilisation before the Old Testament was? Oh, wait, they were.

I'd dare to posit that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Imari]

I'd dare to posit that you don't know what you're talking about.

You wild rebel you!

Don't you know that SCJ's knowledge springs from that font of indubitable wisdom, that library of endless knowledge that is Jesus and God himself? Everything that flows from his fingertips is blessed by God, and are his own holy words unmitigated by any sort of reasoning or critical thinking.

When SCJ speaks he tells you how God intended reality to be, in cases of major discrepancy it's reality that has it wrong*.

*(God bless Douglas Adams, may his memory never be demolished to build a space bypass.)

 

[Scaff]

As far as my belief yes I refer to the the Christian God, but as applied to the theory it goes one step further.
There is no higher being or power upon which to base moral authority.

Which doesn't mean squat to the 2/3 of the planet who don't worship him.

That may not have been the best word to use.
Perhaps secular humanist influence would be better.

May not?

Not even remotely close to being the same, you have more in common with a Pagan.

The reason we, as in you and me, would have to rewind 2000yrs is because we are a product of 2000yrs of Christian influence.(Europe and America)
That is unmistakable, undeniable, and unchangeable without the rewind.
So when Penn Jillette or you make statements as to your high moral character, you are doing so, as I said under the benefit of that influence.
Or if you were not a product of that influence, you may have a completely different moral standard.

Which is why you said we needed a control group, and we have them, the 2/3rd of the globe who don't worship the Christian God.

Well thats just a guess.
As I said, there is no way to determine that without the rewind.
Perhap's I wouldn't be so inclined, I don't know.
There is no way to say if I were a product of 2000yrs of some other moral beliefs, practices, and teachings, what my moral inclinations would be.

You have no reason to worry under the present existing circumstance, since it is not possible to perform a rewind.

That doesn't explain why neither I nor Penn, nor any of the hundreds of thousands who have no belief in God have not gone on murderous rampages as a result of having no faith.

I'm more inclined to worry about the eventual affects of the secular humanist influence.

Really, please explain.

Again they are perceivably inaccurate, not conclusively.
Or not beyond the possiblity of a reasonable explanation.
Consequently I have to consider them of the gnat variety.
Or they do not take away from the clear and present Camel.(main point or theme)

You missed that point by a mile (or ignored it).

You don't know which bits are the gnat and which bits are the camel as its all been edited by men.

The difference, as I've stated is the personal or individual confirmation or what has been shown to me through the acceptance and receipt of the Holy Spirit as conclusive to the Bible and it's teachings.
And the same is displayed through others here.
Under that exposure, I am compelled to give God the benefit of doubt.
Obviously, that is a circumstance completely unique in that respect, as far as I know.
I am confident either way God knows the circumstance, and as I said earlier we may know at some point in the future.

Which bible. That's the point. How do you know which one is right and why?

I am inferring that as far as me personally, Jesus's remark in question is consistent with his other teachings and as said not beyond the possiblity of a reasonable explanation why it is not in the oldest original text.

So you have chosen to ignore the evidence.

Same answer as above.

I think in this particular instance we have a distinct difference between our standards of reasonable doubt.

Ditto above, you have chosen to ignore the evidence.

In that regard it is not conclusively established either way.

BTW, I don't think you answered this question:

You do.