[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
So then I guess you believe that you where not born gay then right? Or does your logic only work when it doesn’t affect you?
There is solid supportive evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation, but I think that as with most human characteristics, environment probably plays a role as well. For example:
In the early 1990s Bailey and Richard Pillard coauthored a series of twin studies which examined the rate of concordance of sexual identity among monozygotic twins (52% concordance), dizygotic twins of the same sex (22%), non-twin siblings of the same sex, and adoptive siblings of the same sex (11%)
If it was 100% genetic, you would expect monozygotic twins to have 100% concordance. But if it was 100% environmental, you would expect monozygotic, dizygotic, and adoptive siblings to be the same.
Are you really going to put Bailey and Pillard’s twin studies on the same level as one of hundreds of belief systems, which by their own admission, are driven by faith rather than facts?[/quote]
Your the one who stated bailey and Pillard’s study not me. I am simply saying there has been no evidence of a gay gene yet(or lack of a gene). So unless we want to bring in mental defects into the discussion you have to hold yourself to the same standards as you hold the bible too.
I understand you will not do this but everyone else looking in can clearly see the hypocrisy.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Yet you call the bible fairy tales, which means you have already taken it off the table. Consistency is a bitch I know that.[/quote]
Prove to me that fairies (other than Perez Hilton) don’t exist.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Pat,
I wouldn’t waste too much time with those two, they each have a lifestyle agenda and God deosn’t exactly fit in. I wonder if they’d believe if the Bible encouraged homosexuality, and a host of other “fun” things that they like?
I bet we’d not be having this debate huh? Some people are easy to figure out, they want what they want and anything that tells them the can’t just can’t be real.
Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the Bible is one of the most well researched ancient documents of all time. More accurate than all the works of Socrates, Plato and many other well respected ancient writers. One only has to use google, it’s not a hidden secret.
The Bible is true and It’s the word of God.
I’ve had many prayers answered in my life and I know many others who have as well. Some very amazing things have happened just from prayer alone. We don’t need a scientist to stand by measuring the perceived accuracy to know that prayers are indeed answered.
However, it is all about faith and you cannot argue science to confirm faith.
One last thing, many if not most of the “atheists” on this site are between the ages of about 21 and 30’s. When they grow up and stop playing “know it all” they just might come around. For those who don’t maybe a life changing event or two will bring them around, maybe not.
As my grandfather used to say " I never saw an atheist in a foxhole."
Take care Pat and God Bless!
So your grandfather was unoriginal as well?
You are more deluded than I thought if you really believe that the Bible is a historically accurate document. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Just a short list of inacuracies.
The Jews were from Judea area originally, they didn’t come in from Egypt.
The Jews were never enslaved.
Herod never masacred any babies.
Solomon and David never existed as powerful kings.
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who’s name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
If Jesus even existed, he certainly wasn’t born in Nazareth as it didn’t exist at the time.
Sources, please?
Erm, the Bible.[/quote]
The bible categorically claims that all it’s stories are false?..Damn, I better reread.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
forlife wrote:
Does it not make you a little suspicious that your belief system is, by definition, unconfirmable? You’ve set up the perfect crime for yourself.
Think about it.
You can claim whatever you want about your god, and how your life is blessed in material ways due to your faith and prayers.
However, the moment anyone actually attempts to assess the truthfulness of those claims, you respond that your god refuses to be measured in such a way.
Thus, it is impossible to actually confirm any of your claims.
Given that your claims literally cannot be substantiated, what differentiates them from any fairy tale that someone might concoct?
I have one question, how is our faith uncomfirmable? Which is not a word by the way, but I get your gist. You can very well see if you look at the earth that there has to be some creator.
No, the earth is amazing however everything on it can be explained without the need of recourse to a supreme being. It is lazy to use a supreme being to fill in the gaps in your personal understanding or education.[/quote]
Statistically speaking it would be impossible for the earth and Universe to be as it is by chance. There has to be something that created it. Second, a cause and effect for you little “God doesn’t existites”, does cause and effect not explain that something one and of itself and separate have to be, to cause a line of effects and causes. Meaning that there has to be an Eternal Causer for all the effects in the world.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
forlife wrote:
Does it not make you a little suspicious that your belief system is, by definition, unconfirmable? You’ve set up the perfect crime for yourself.
Think about it.
You can claim whatever you want about your god, and how your life is blessed in material ways due to your faith and prayers.
However, the moment anyone actually attempts to assess the truthfulness of those claims, you respond that your god refuses to be measured in such a way.
Thus, it is impossible to actually confirm any of your claims.
Given that your claims literally cannot be substantiated, what differentiates them from any fairy tale that someone might concoct?
I have one question, how is our faith uncomfirmable? Which is not a word by the way, but I get your gist. You can very well see if you look at the earth that there has to be some creator.
No, the earth is amazing however everything on it can be explained without the need of recourse to a supreme being. It is lazy to use a supreme being to fill in the gaps in your personal understanding or education.
While I generally tend to agree with this (I believe in evolution and prescribe to no religion), I have to say that not everything can be satisfactorily (for me) explained using only science. If you look at the universe from a scientific perspective, it is really just one huge chain of cause-and-effect phenomena. However, go back to the beginning and try to explain the FIRST event in the history of the universe–you cannot do it without violating the principle that no thing can be in motion without being set in motion. I’m not saying that I necessarily believe in an omnipotent, bearded old man who said some words and thereby created the universe. What I AM saying is that I find it hard to explain the existence of matter without appealing to some being that is above the laws of science (namely the principle that no thing can move without being moved). The one way out of this is to say that matter itself is this thing, in which case I guess matter is your God.[/quote]
You took the words out of my mouth, however matter is not eternal, so it would then have to be a “being” that is eternal. The bearded old man is very humorous, and yet false. There is no recognisable image of YWHW, only of Jesus (possibly), and of the Holy Ghost (a symbol).
[quote]John S. wrote:
Your the one who stated bailey and Pillard’s study not me. I am simply saying there has been no evidence of a gay gene yet(or lack of a gene). So unless we want to bring in mental defects into the discussion you have to hold yourself to the same standards as you hold the bible too.
[/quote]
Are you trying to claim that Bailey and Pillard’s study doesn’t provide objective support for a genetic component to sexual orientation? How about actually addressing the results of the study?
I have one question, how is our faith uncomfirmable? Which is not a word by the way, but I get your gist. You can very well see if you look at the earth that there has to be some creator.
Logic fail happening here. You cannot very well see there has to be some creator just from looking at the earth.[/quote]
If you look at the world (and universe), there is no possible way all the conditions that humans and life forms needed to survive could be set exactly where they need to be and you possibly thing there is not something call divine intervention in the world.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
smh23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
forlife wrote:
Does it not make you a little suspicious that your belief system is, by definition, unconfirmable? You’ve set up the perfect crime for yourself.
Think about it.
You can claim whatever you want about your god, and how your life is blessed in material ways due to your faith and prayers.
However, the moment anyone actually attempts to assess the truthfulness of those claims, you respond that your god refuses to be measured in such a way.
Thus, it is impossible to actually confirm any of your claims.
Given that your claims literally cannot be substantiated, what differentiates them from any fairy tale that someone might concoct?
I have one question, how is our faith uncomfirmable? Which is not a word by the way, but I get your gist. You can very well see if you look at the earth that there has to be some creator.
No, the earth is amazing however everything on it can be explained without the need of recourse to a supreme being. It is lazy to use a supreme being to fill in the gaps in your personal understanding or education.
While I generally tend to agree with this (I believe in evolution and prescribe to no religion), I have to say that not everything can be satisfactorily (for me) explained using only science. If you look at the universe from a scientific perspective, it is really just one huge chain of cause-and-effect phenomena. However, go back to the beginning and try to explain the FIRST event in the history of the universe–you cannot do it without violating the principle that no thing can be in motion without being set in motion. I’m not saying that I necessarily believe in an omnipotent, bearded old man who said some words and thereby created the universe. What I AM saying is that I find it hard to explain the existence of matter without appealing to some being that is above the laws of science (namely the principle that no thing can move without being moved). The one way out of this is to say that matter itself is this thing, in which case I guess matter is your God.
Have you considered an infinite regress? I personally am much more comfortable (not that my comfort has anything to do with what is actually true) with the idea of events extending infinitely forward and/or backwards through time, than I am with the idea of an uncaused cause. [/quote]
That statement Sir, is the reason why I will not debate with you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
No, neither is yours. You cannot prove that the things you believe are correct. You cannot prove that the way you think the universe/ world works is even remotely correct.
The difference between you and me is that I choose not to believe in ideas for which there is zero empirical evidence. On the other hand, lacking any evidence, you have chosen not only to believe in certain ideas, but to invest a good deal of your life following those ideas as if they are real.
If you don’t know something is true, why not admit it and withhold judgment, instead of choosing to believe in it anyway? How does believing in something for which there is zero evidence make any sense whatsoever?[/quote]
You speak of empirical evidence, yet your arguments are filled with things that have only been believed for a generation, that sir is not empirical evidence. Plus your evidence comes from folly and fads.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have one question, how is our faith uncomfirmable? Which is not a word by the way, but I get your gist. You can very well see if you look at the earth that there has to be some creator.
I was referring to claims about divine intervention, which supposedly affect the material world.
On the reason for the earth’s existence, there are many possible hypotheses, none of which requires a supernatural explanation.[/quote]
Except and uncaused cause, the rest would be illogical since they are statistically impossible.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.[/quote]
More like you choose to believe in things that are modernistic in value because you assume sense you came before old white patriarchs that you are in fact smarter then them, and anything they have said is invalid because you came after them. Plus, they really weren’t old white patriarchs, more like Arab/Asian/Greek/etc.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.
What part of “I have several gay friends who believe in god” did you not understand? Religion and homosexuality aren’t mutually exclusive. Just because your particular fairy tale belief system hates gays doesn’t mean they all do.
If I was into telling myself stories in order to feel good about who I am, I would choose to believe in a gay-affirming god. And I would be equally justified in my fairy tale belief as you are in yours, since neither of them has an ounce of supporting empirical evidence.
I know…it’s all about faith. But that’s the nice thing about faith; since it doesn’t require any actual facts, you can mold it to be whatever you want it to be.[/quote]
Actually it doesn’t hate gays, it hates homosexuality. Sin, not the person. Get it correct.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
So then I guess you believe that you where not born gay then right? Or does your logic only work when it doesn’t affect you?
There is solid supportive evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation, but I think that as with most human characteristics, environment probably plays a role as well. For example:
In the early 1990s Bailey and Richard Pillard coauthored a series of twin studies which examined the rate of concordance of sexual identity among monozygotic twins (52% concordance), dizygotic twins of the same sex (22%), non-twin siblings of the same sex, and adoptive siblings of the same sex (11%)
If it was 100% genetic, you would expect monozygotic twins to have 100% concordance. But if it was 100% environmental, you would expect monozygotic, dizygotic, and adoptive siblings to be the same.
Are you really going to put Bailey and Pillard’s twin studies on the same level as one of hundreds of belief systems, which by their own admission, are driven by faith rather than facts?[/quote]
Are you really going to put a study done during modernistic times, against 4 millennium of knowledge.
I wouldn’t waste too much time with those two, they each have a lifestyle agenda and God deosn’t exactly fit in. I wonder if they’d believe if the Bible encouraged homosexuality, and a host of other “fun” things that they like?
I bet we’d not be having this debate huh? Some people are easy to figure out, they want what they want and anything that tells them the can’t just can’t be real.
Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the Bible is one of the most well researched ancient documents of all time. More accurate than all the works of Socrates, Plato and many other well respected ancient writers. One only has to use google, it’s not a hidden secret.
The Bible is true and It’s the word of God.
I’ve had many prayers answered in my life and I know many others who have as well. Some very amazing things have happened just from prayer alone. We don’t need a scientist to stand by measuring the perceived accuracy to know that prayers are indeed answered.
However, it is all about faith and you cannot argue science to confirm faith.
One last thing, many if not most of the “atheists” on this site are between the ages of about 21 and 30’s. When they grow up and stop playing “know it all” they just might come around. For those who don’t maybe a life changing event or two will bring them around, maybe not.
As my grandfather used to say " I never saw an atheist in a foxhole."
Take care Pat and God Bless!
So your grandfather was unoriginal as well?
You are more deluded than I thought if you really believe that the Bible is a historically accurate document. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Just a short list of inacuracies.
The Jews were from Judea area originally, they didn’t come in from Egypt.
The Jews were never enslaved.
Herod never masacred any babies.
Solomon and David never existed as powerful kings.
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who’s name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
If Jesus even existed, he certainly wasn’t born in Nazareth as it didn’t exist at the time.
[/quote]
Out of all of the posts that have been posted, or probably ever be posted about Christian history this is by far the silliest and the most entertaining.
[quote]Buff HardBack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.
Hmmm…nope. Doesnt interfere with my lifestyle. Guess that only applies to certain people huh. Whats my reason for not being among the faithful?
I already addressed your situation, you’ll have to pay better attention.
Actually no you didnt.[/quote]
But, I did. Go back to my first post and read it carefully.
So many? Tell me how many first then I’ll answer your question. Fair enough?
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.
What part of “I have several gay friends who believe in god” did you not understand? Religion and homosexuality aren’t mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Oh I see you have several friends that call themselves Christian, I see. And what exactly does that mean? Nada!
Wow, the harshness toward religion, the name calling it seems to always be that way with you guys huh? It’s not enough that you are “free” of this horrible thing you call God, you also have to insult it.
Odd, almost like you’re mad or something. Shouldn’t you be happy now? Your dumped your wife, kids, God and heaven (oops sorry) knows what else. But, that’s not enough you have to spend hours every day ranting on a message board about homosexuality and how God doesn’t exist. Tell me are you happy? It seems that happy people behave differently.
I mean, I hope your happy now, but it seems there’s still turmoil.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have one question, how is our faith uncomfirmable? Which is not a word by the way, but I get your gist. You can very well see if you look at the earth that there has to be some creator.
I was referring to claims about divine intervention, which supposedly affect the material world.
On the reason for the earth’s existence, there are many possible hypotheses, none of which requires a supernatural explanation.
Except and uncaused cause, the rest would be illogical since they are statistically impossible.[/quote]
You keep on using this term. It does not mean what you think it means.
Statistics, as a discipline, provides tremendous insight when studying phenomena that occur repeatedly. The smaller the sample size, the harder it is to draw statistical conclusions. For example, if I survey a thousand people at random about some political issue, it is very likely that their opinion is representative of the whole population. If I ask one guy at random, it isn’t.
But when we’re talking about the beginning of the universe, none of this is relevant. Are there other universes? Are there other possible-universes that never began for some reason? We don’t know, so our sample size is one. So talking about “statistics” is just meaningless here.
[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Pat,
I wouldn’t waste too much time with those two, they each have a lifestyle agenda and God deosn’t exactly fit in. I wonder if they’d believe if the Bible encouraged homosexuality, and a host of other “fun” things that they like?
I bet we’d not be having this debate huh? Some people are easy to figure out, they want what they want and anything that tells them the can’t just can’t be real.
Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the Bible is one of the most well researched ancient documents of all time. More accurate than all the works of Socrates, Plato and many other well respected ancient writers. One only has to use google, it’s not a hidden secret.
The Bible is true and It’s the word of God.
I’ve had many prayers answered in my life and I know many others who have as well. Some very amazing things have happened just from prayer alone. We don’t need a scientist to stand by measuring the perceived accuracy to know that prayers are indeed answered.
However, it is all about faith and you cannot argue science to confirm faith.
One last thing, many if not most of the “atheists” on this site are between the ages of about 21 and 30’s. When they grow up and stop playing “know it all” they just might come around. For those who don’t maybe a life changing event or two will bring them around, maybe not.
As my grandfather used to say " I never saw an atheist in a foxhole."
Take care Pat and God Bless!
So your grandfather was unoriginal as well?
You are more deluded than I thought if you really believe that the Bible is a historically accurate document. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Just a short list of inacuracies.
The Jews were from Judea area originally, they didn’t come in from Egypt.
The Jews were never enslaved.
Herod never masacred any babies.
Solomon and David never existed as powerful kings.
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who’s name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
If Jesus even existed, he certainly wasn’t born in Nazareth as it didn’t exist at the time.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Pat,
I wouldn’t waste too much time with those two, they each have a lifestyle agenda and God deosn’t exactly fit in. I wonder if they’d believe if the Bible encouraged homosexuality, and a host of other “fun” things that they like?
I bet we’d not be having this debate huh? Some people are easy to figure out, they want what they want and anything that tells them the can’t just can’t be real.
Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the Bible is one of the most well researched ancient documents of all time. More accurate than all the works of Socrates, Plato and many other well respected ancient writers. One only has to use google, it’s not a hidden secret.
The Bible is true and It’s the word of God.
I’ve had many prayers answered in my life and I know many others who have as well. Some very amazing things have happened just from prayer alone. We don’t need a scientist to stand by measuring the perceived accuracy to know that prayers are indeed answered.
However, it is all about faith and you cannot argue science to confirm faith.
One last thing, many if not most of the “atheists” on this site are between the ages of about 21 and 30’s. When they grow up and stop playing “know it all” they just might come around. For those who don’t maybe a life changing event or two will bring them around, maybe not.
As my grandfather used to say " I never saw an atheist in a foxhole."
Take care Pat and God Bless!
So your grandfather was unoriginal as well?
You are more deluded than I thought if you really believe that the Bible is a historically accurate document. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Just a short list of inacuracies.
The Jews were from Judea area originally, they didn’t come in from Egypt.
The Jews were never enslaved.
Herod never masacred any babies.
Solomon and David never existed as powerful kings.
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who’s name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
If Jesus even existed, he certainly wasn’t born in Nazareth as it didn’t exist at the time.
Sources, please?
Erm, the Bible.[/quote]
Ha ha ha wahaha hoo hee Please post more, and thank you in advance.
