Aztec276

NOTE: So few people on this planet can perform basic reason that I know postulating such a "controversial" question/argument is largely in vain. But since I live for self-amusement, here we go! ;)

We (people opposed to homosexuality) are told that we must accept homosexuality because its natural...the main claim being "I was born this way." Three points. I will focus on the third.

1) First of all, NATURAL and MORAL are antithetical concepts. A rapist's nature is to rape. A liar's nature is to lie. So arguing that something must be accepted on the basis of it being "natural" is absurd.

2) People are born with all sorts of physical conditions: cancer, drug addiction, etc....so the idea that something must be accepted because it is a condition from birth is also absurd.

3) If we are to accept homosexuality on the basis of it being natural, then logically we are to reject anti-homosexuality. Therefore, we can conclude that opposition to homosexuality is not natural. So opposition to homosexuality is supernatural (not bound by the law of material causality.)

So as you can see...you may personally accept homosexuality for whatever superficial reasons you would like to cite, but there is no valid argument on why I have to accept it.

I know my argument is unassailable. Humor me. ;)

NOTE: I do not hate gay people. My best friend in college was bisexual. I slept over at his apartment a few times and even spent a spring break living in the same hotel room. Personally, I am celibate with no interest in sex...its an absurd practice that turns people into fools.

NOTE: I use the word "theory" very loosely to describe both of these belief systems, because neither fits the literal definition of a scientific theory. (Atheists can whine all they want, but its true.)

According to Evolution "Theory" the natural world is so dynamic that human beings and all their seemingly infinite complexities came to exist by a random linear ascension from a puddle of chemical ooze.

Yet...

According to Global Warming "Theory" the natural world is so mindbogglingly static that smoking a cigarette will destroy the planet.

Smells like a contradiction to me.

Another important point is that Darwinian Evolution is an actually extension of natural philosophy...the belief that the material world is an absolute (a central tenet of atheism and of people who think that science is truth...or "fact").

But if you carry out the logic of natural philosophy, then everything (including Global Warming) must be accepted as products of material causality. The proper conclusion of natural philosophy is: everything is natural.

Funny how people who subscribe to natural philosophy (i.e. atheists) never carry out the logic.

And not just the lavish event itself...but think about all the private jets and limousines and expensive wardrobes and gourmet meals...and so on.

And then what about the hundreds of millions more that have already been spent on the Democratic presidential campaign...?

Think of how many starving children there are in the world today.

That is so sad.

If atheists/secularists really believe in "Separation of Church and State" then everyone who is "religious" (i.e. the LDS polygamy cult) should be free from state prosecution. Logically, if you are separating the church from the state then you are also separating the state from the church.

Otherwise you are merely subjugating the church to the state...which is actually what "Separation of Church and State" is...its a one-way separation. Its a farce.

Nowhere in the Constitution does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" appear. The Constitution simply says Congress cannot establish religion.

In order to argue "Separation of Church and State," you must interpret both words "Congress" and "establish" metaphorically.

However, all the atheists/secularists I've seen are celebrating the potential prosecution of the LDS group. Why?

Because "Separation" is a farce, crafted and promulgated by people with no respect for truth?

Atheists, your hypocrisy is showing.

The human reproductive system is incredibly complex...slight problems/variations in the female body can easily result in the death of the egg/fetus AND the woman.

Now, add the male to the equation...Evolution requires that males and females co-evolved in perfect harmony...each change in males was matched by a corresponding change in females...or extinction occurs.

So how can the exact same evolutionary mechanisms (internal and/or external) that cause males to become "more male," simultaneously cause females to become "more female?" (in perfect harmony, mind you)

The only possible (non impossible) explanation is that humans evolved as individuals having BOTH male and female organs...and then once reaching full development...slowly "devolved"...a split...one group becoming only female; the other only male (again, in perfect harmony).

But this is required of ALL animal species. There is no plausible answer.

This is one of the reasons I find Evolution to be absurd.

If so, then support universal health care!

In addition to socialized medicine being an absolute disaster (Cuba, Canada, U.K.), universal health care is going to eventually allow judges to rule (because there is a direct relationship between the federal treasury and your physical being) that the GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUR BODY.

So, if you want that computer chip in your forehead then vote for candidates who support universal health care.

Western civilization is quickly evolving into a Left-Wing police state.

Want a computer chip in your forehead tomorrow? Then vote for a Left-Wing politician today!

Science is not truth; it is a method of establishing conditional truth by defining the cosmos in terms of itself. If we then use science to seek the origin of the cosmos, we are attempting to define the origin of the cosmos in terms of itself...meaning we have ASSUMED Evolution in our philosophical parameters.

So, if Evolution was not true, science would still claim that it was. Arguing "Science is about facts, not truth" is invalid, since scientific "facts" are merely conditional truths...aka variables.

Analogy: If we are defining the Mona Lisa in terms of itself and then seek its origin, we would conclude: 1) it formed by natural process, and 2) there was no Leonardo Da Vinci.

So Evolution is an illusion created by the (mistaken and easily disprovable) belief that science is truth. This is why Evolution is accepted as fact even though the process cannot be explained in ANY detail on ANY level.

If Evolution was not true, science would still claim that it was.

Why?

According to Evolution the natural world is so dynamic that human beings, with all their immense, virtually unfathomable complexities, came to exist by a random, rapid, linear ascension from a puddle of chemical ooze.

Yet, according to Global Warming (now being re-marketed as "Climate Change") the natural world is so static that smoking a cigarette will destroy the planet.

The people who believe in one of these tend to believe in both of these. Hello???

The number of people on this planet walking around in a state of perpetual contradicton is mind-boggling.

When did common sense die?

Isn't it somewhat ironic/amusing/funny that atheists use the concept of God as the foundation of self-identity?

On this topic...if atheism is simply not believing in God, then we are all born atheists. So why do atheists regard themselves as being enlightened, when they have not advanced from their original state? It is religion that post-dates atheism, not vice versa.

Atheism is filled with such oddities and contradictions. Unfortunately atheists never apply any critical thought to atheism (or natural science).

Another example...most atheists base their beliefs on the axiom: "there's a natural explanation for everything." Of course if this is true, then there is also a natural explanation for whether or not people believe in God...which reduces atheism to irrelevancy.

Of course most atheists are not actually atheists...they are anti-theists, not simply not believing that God exists, but rather believing that God does not and cannot exist.

Amusing.

By definition Atheism is simply not believing in God. We are all born atheists. Assuming Evolution, early man was atheist.

And there is nothing wrong with not believing in God. If you don't see a reason then you should not believe. That's valid.

BUT most people who call themselves atheists do not simply not believe in God. They believe that God does not exist... which is profoundly different.

Their lack of belief in God is actually based on belief, not lack of belief (or lack of faith)...chiefly that all claims of divine revelation are false. Most atheists also believe in Evolution and the authority of natural science as disproving the Bible and religion. Most atheists also believe that the existence of God is impossible.

Yet whenever one tries to delineate atheists' actual beliefs to show their fallacious reasoning and completely speculative claims, "atheists" refuse to acknowledge the existence of belief.

You are anti-theists. You BELIEVE. Why the pretense?

In debate "atheists" always insist that the definition of atheist is "one who does not believe in God." So as atheists, they have no faith and no belief to defend.

So using this definition...atheism, being simply a lack of belief in God, does not address the actual existence of God. So if you then form the opinion that God does not exist, then you are beyond atheism and have entered anti-theism (anti-theism being a subset of atheism).

Since the definition of atheist, "one who does not believe in God," does not address the actual existence of God, in order to be a mere atheist you must admit to the possiblity of God's existence. Yet 99% of so-called atheists won't do this, believing that God is a made-up fairy tale.

In fact, most atheists are actually anti-theists, who when challenged will run and hide behind "I simply don't believe in God"...which isn't accurate. This is logically equivalent to Adolf Hitler claiming "I am not a Nazi; I'm a person."

Why do they hide?

I get amused whenever I come across gleeful atheists glowing in a warm sense of personal satisfaction, so happy to be sharing their beliefs with others.

Okay, fine. Let's say there is no God. I know atheists claim that they merely don't believe in God...but that's only a partial truth meant to end debate. The truth is that atheists don't believe in God because most believe he is a fictional character made up by crazy religious people.

Ignoring all that...

Okay...for the sake of argument: Sure. God does not exist.

So what? When we die our consciousness merely ceases. The end. There is no reward for being right, and no consequence for being wrong.

As an atheist, the only "reward" you can claim is the feeling that you are right. Guess what? Religious people also have that feeling, because everybody thinks they are right.

We're all going to die. Humanity will be extinct. It's inevitable.

So how is atheism relevant?

It's only relevant if there is a God

If atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then atheism does not address the actual existence of God...meaning atheism allows for the possibility of God's existence.

If you really are an atheist (one who merely lacks belief in God) then you should be able to admit to the possibility of a God.

Otherwise, you are not an atheist; you are an anti-theist.

So how many of you self-identified atheists will make this honest confession?: "According to atheism it is possible for a God to exist."

Anyone?

Yes, I know atheism also allows for the possibility of blue fairies, et all. Nonetheless atheism allows for the possibility of a supernatural God. So an objective, honest atheist should have no problem admitting it.

Isn't this the ultimate honesty test for atheists?

Because in my experience, most atheists are actually anti-theists, who hide behind a feint of make-believe non-belief, and who base their entire belief system of the impossibility of God's existence.

According to atheists (when challenged), atheism is simply the absence of belief in God (and it is nothing else).

So early man (homo erectus, etc.) was actually atheist.

"Religion" is ridiculed for pre-dating modern science. Yet atheism pre-dates religion AND modern science.

And: how can enlightenment come from mere non-belief?

Doesn't the feeling of superiority, of "rightness," among atheists, along with the feeling of "being offended" by religion expose that atheism is actually belief, not absence of belief?

Furthermore, logically atheism faces two scenarios:

1) Atheism is bound by natural law and therefore is nothing more than an arrangement of brain physiology as determined by either cosmological randomness or predestination. (In this scenario, "religion" is atheism's equal--also created by natural law.)

2) Atheism is not bound by natural law...meaning atheism is supernatural--a concept ridiculed by atheists.

In short, at best: ATHEISM = RELIGION

Every single politically-Left film wins awards...what an amazing coincidence. (Even the pieces of blatantly mediocre cinema like "The Constant Gardner" get awards.)

I was just wondering if a film about homosexual Bush bashers would sweep every award unanimously.

If so, its called "justice." If not, its called "homophobia." Don't you just love liberal objectivity?

Liberalism: "I'm right because I'm right. And you're wrong because you're wrong."

Genius.

First of all, Global Warming is not global warming. I believe in global warming...that the earth is in a warming trend. That is undeniable. (Although the severity of the warming is being oversold by activists.)

But the earth warming does not begin to prove all of Global Warming alarmists' claims. According to natural science the earth is ALWAYS either warming or cooling. According to natural science (on which Global Warming supposedly bases its authority) Europe was covered in Ice in the semi-recent past. This ice melted long before any of the supposed causes of Global Warming existed. How?

Mars is also experiencing planatary warming. How? Man isn't there polluting anything.

As far as greenhouse gases go...the mere coexistence of phenomena does not indicate causality.

And central to a belief in Global Warming is a static view of the earth's environment. The natural world is not static.

I'm open to belief in Global Warming, but the evidence isn't there. Why?

My argument assesses Atheism as a system of belief. Whether a God does or does not exist is irrelevant to this question.

Atheism is based on the central tenet that the cosmos is an absolute. The universe is an autonomous mechanism operating on the law of causality: Everything is both a cause to a future effect and an effect of a previous cause. From this natural science draws its authority to "calculate" all things: origins, morality, etc.

That said, according to this belief you must arrive at a point at which Atheism is not governed by reason. It is the arrangement of your brain physiology which decides what you believe.

Even more laughable, is that Christianity (and all religious belief) is also decided by causality.

So not only is Atheism a contradiction (if you claim it on the basis of "reason"), but Atheism actually justifies Christianity. Once you carry out Atheism's logic, Christianity and Atheism are both equal.

Now, how funny is that?

Am I wrong?

The American public is conservative. If you chart the various ideologies--left, center, and right--America is right-center.

(Only about 33% of Americans support gay marriage, and a slight majority is pro-life.)

However, America is also a Democrat-leaning nation. More people claim to identify with the Democratic Party. Generally speaking, Americans want to vote Democrat.

BUT...the Democratic Party has been taken over by hardcore Leftists (because that's where the money is). The bulk of Democratic funding comes from weathly, very liberal patrons, including the likes of multi-billionaire George Soros, et. all.

It is this hijacking of the Democratic Party that has pushed people into voting Republican...including votes for W in 2000 and 2004.

Bush has made me furious, but I would vote for him again if he was running against any Democratic nominee, because they are all hardcore liberals.

So aren't liberals at least partially to blame?

Now, entertain me. :)