Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[dan964]

If you do not have anything positive or neutral to say about homosexuality, then do not say anything about it at all.

I am sorry, but what makes you think that disagreeing, is negative?
And last time I checked you weren't a humanist?

 

[braintic]

homosexuality should be made illegal again before it leads western civilization to collapse

homos have higher suicide rates
homos are a direct threat to our way of life
homos have higher murder rates
homos are a cancer to society

Wow .... what impeccable logic. You must be a christian.

 

[Paradoxica]

I am sorry, but what makes you think that disagreeing, is negative?
And last time I checked you weren't a humanist?

You're claiming the way some people's minds work is inherently wrong (A.K.A., you're saying our very existence is wrong.) If that's not the slippery slope basis for all discrimination, then I don't know what is.

Last time you checked was never.

 

[Paradoxica]

Wow .... what impeccable logic. You must be a christian.

Homophobia and Christianity aren't causative, but a correlation does exist.

There are plenty of people who follow religion (of whatever choosing) and are homosexual.

 

[RenegadeMx]

Wow .... what impeccable logic. You must be a christian.

pls i will not belittle myself into inferior religious worshipping of christianity

 

[Drsoccerball]

Homophobia and Christianity aren't causative, but a correlation does exist.

There are plenty of people who follow religion (of whatever choosing) and are homosexual.

Going against it's teachings isn't really following the religion.

 

[Paradoxica]

Going against it's teachings isn't really following the religion.

Don't start splitting hairs now, you had your chance.

 

[dan964]

Wow .... what impeccable logic. You must be a christian.

Just because his logic is bad doesn't mean Christian. The correlation is terrible. While I would avoid certain websites myself.
Bad logic does not equal religious.

 

[dan964]

You're claiming the way some people's minds work is inherently wrong (A.K.A., you're saying our very existence is wrong.) If that's not the slippery slope basis for all discrimination, then I don't know what is.

Last time you checked was never.

Your argument is:
1. I say the way some people's minds work is inherently wrong because I disagree or find homosexuality morally wrong.
2. Hence from 1, that person has no right to exist; or that there is existence is wrong.
3. Hence from 2, discrimination.

(1) Addressing no 1. The science that somehow "proves" people were born this way, is at times sketchy, and when it isn't it is inconclusive. No, I don't think it is necessary a choice either. People tend to discover sexuality than to be born with that. Secondly, from most religious views and probably any non-humanistic world-view, it is probably impossible to say that anyone's mind functions perfectly, anyway.
But that is not my main issue with your statement...

(2) The main problem I have with this, is this presumes a lot, and unfortunately for the me, the logic flows as badly as the supposed "Christian logic" that braintic was going on about.
***Firstly, most Christians, even more reserved/conservative ones like myself, in order so not to be misunderstood, have to clarify the difference between same-sex attraction, which is not the issue from our perspective, and homosexual actions as the like. It is the latter, that is morally wrong; the former is not viewed as morally wrong. So even your claim that I am somehow denying a part of their existence or saying that for them to exist is wrong is a stretch in the argument.

So #2 does not hold. It is part of the rhetoric to say, that somehow we are denying a part of their existence or calling it wrong (well the former is definitely not the case). And even if that was the case, which it isn't (that is assuming you understand, which you might not, the clarification earlier ***), #3 does not hold anyway.

===
In summary to say that, if I was saying "the way some people's minds work" is wrong is a very loaded statement to then say "your very existence is wrong", in fact the correlation is not there. (That is of course, this even assumes that you accurately were portraying what I was saying)

What I was actually addressing is a known tendency from some perspectives (which your original comment made very aware) to presume, that a person cannot consciously object to something like homosexuality (there are more issues than that), and hence not be allowed to share his opinion, within reason. It doesn't matter whether you disagree or think it is illogical. This is something that is notably the case with this issue, but it certainly isn't the only one. Imagine if we applied that to other issues, for instance the very topic of this thread.

So yes, balance is needed. But allowing only side of the argument is not balanced. Yes, there are people on both sides, who are narrow-minded and genuinely bigots. But disagreeing with your opinion, does not quantify that. Be careful not to jump to rash conclusions, and I have tried not to as well.

If you wish to continue this, suggest you post on the thread already allocated to this topic, or create your own. But I don't have any need to say more.

 

[dan964]

Don't start splitting hairs now, you had your chance.

He does have a point though (whether it is valid from your POV is a different story, you need not comment), but that is something that needs to be worked out amongst those who claim to be a part of the faith; does the religion teach X or does it teach Y on the issue. The factors that come into play, are what authorities do you (*) trust, do you use a religious text, tradition or experience for instance, or some combination? How does one interpret such authoritative texts, or customs etc. in today's context and a wider "unchanging" context?

(*) for the religious person, that is. Not you specifically.

 

[braintic]

Just because his logic is bad doesn't mean Christian. The correlation is terrible. While I would avoid certain websites myself.
Bad logic does not equal religious.

I have tried debating on YouTube with ignorant yank christians. Believe me - there IS a correlation.
Ten years ago I taught a Muslim kid who stated that the reason for Islamic terrorism was lack of education and not belief. I personally believe that such a lack of education stems from a religious belief. Clearly it is only a tenuous connection and the people on this site certainly buck that trend. But those American christians are the most ignorant anti-science anti-education nutjobs I have come across. You know - the type of person who believes that Trump will represent them well.

And don't get me started on those Hillsong criminals.

 

[Drsoccerball]

I have tried debating on YouTube with ignorant yank christians. Believe me - there IS a correlation.
Ten years ago I taught a Muslim kid who stated that the reason for Islamic terrorism was lack of education and not belief. I personally believe that such a lack of education stems from a religious belief. Clearly it is only a tenuous connection and the people on this site certainly buck that trend. But those American christians are the most ignorant anti-science anti-education nutjobs I have come across. You know - the type of person who believes that Trump will represent them well.

And don't get me started on those Hillsong criminals.

Can you quote something from the Quran or Sahih hadith which actually confirms your statement ?

 

[nerdasdasd]

I have tried debating on YouTube with ignorant yank christians. Believe me - there IS a correlation.
Ten years ago I taught a Muslim kid who stated that the reason for Islamic terrorism was lack of education and not belief. I personally believe that such a lack of education stems from a religious belief. Clearly it is only a tenuous connection and the people on this site certainly buck that trend. But those American christians are the most ignorant anti-science anti-education nutjobs I have come across. You know - the type of person who believes that Trump will represent them well.

And don't get me started on those Hillsong criminals.

Sample size is insufficient to come to an conclusion,

 

[dan964]

I have tried debating on YouTube with ignorant yank christians. Believe me - there IS a correlation.
Ten years ago I taught a Muslim kid who stated that the reason for Islamic terrorism was lack of education and not belief. I personally believe that such a lack of education stems from a religious belief. Clearly it is only a tenuous connection and the people on this site certainly buck that trend. But those American christians are the most ignorant anti-science anti-education nutjobs I have come across. You know - the type of person who believes that Trump will represent them well.

And don't get me started on those Hillsong criminals.

[1]
Firstly, I have found Youtube is a terrible place to figure out things generally; even if you are religious (and non-liberal**) like myself. [**liberal here means progressive/left-wing]

Most of the trolls exist here on Youtube (and there are some here, and no they aren't religious specifically).
Secondly, Youtube is a breeding ground for "heresy" if you like and speculation.
So I can understand if on YouTube that is your experience. I have found that 90% of the Christianity that is on YouTube (don't quote me on this), is partially-off; or completely-off (especially all the end-times speculation and that)

Edit: I found that patheos (which I mostly steer clear of) is also much the same but for different reasons.

[2]

I personally believe that such a lack of education stems from a religious belief.

Yes it is a very tenuous connection, there are those who are non-religious and ignorant, there are those who are religious and ignorant; and then there are those, religious or non-religious; who aren't ignorant. Some use atheism and others use religion as covers if you like. It depends also what you quantify as education.

It is very easy to I guess overlook that some people are like this; but it also very easy to then say, well I think that religion is the only cause, which it isn't. Anyone who takes any ideology to the extent of extremism, whether religious or non-religious, is likely to be a cause of lack of "education".

I personally see certain strains of religion, or certain religions that may lend themselves to that.

[3]
Which means I personally don't see all religions in the same light.

I have found a lot of people, religious or not, don't feel the need or desire to speak about these things on YouTube for instance and are actually very respectful - but also there are groups where, yes it is shameful the way that some people behave online, both the religious and non-religious.

[4]
American evangelism is to be honest, a mess. It is a little bit better here in Australia (although that might be because I am biased).

On the one hand, you have the liberals, who don't take the Bible seriously enough** as I see it, or some who don't even use the Bible at all (which is strange if they are called Christians); and then you have the fundamentalists: who couldn't give a ... about anyone else, and tend to take the Bible too literalistic, forgetting that certain things aren't word-for-word as is, but like in any text, conveying through different language forms.

**Ironically both stem somewhat from a lack of properly studying the text, and realising things like context, structure, meaning, form, language etc. Things you learn in English to look at, when reading for instance a newspaper article; or a political cartoon. These groups do study the text, and some quite vigorously, but I found they do with a particular "unhelpful" agenda (sometimes political), to justify some political opinion on some issue for instance.

[5]
Personally, I am somewhere in the middle (probably a bit to the right), although I am more likely (and have been in the past) to be characterised as "fundamentalist" purely because of my opinions on certain topics (which are evident on the other threads I guess), are very much against the grains of certain people's thinking.

[6] Finally...
So you have a little bit of agreement for me, not much; it is important to understand that some view atheism in the same light. So it is very much comes down to, the terms that are defined. Terms such as "educational", "truth", "ignorance" etc. Understandably everyone comes from different world-views so it will be different.

And yes, don't start on Hillsong, there is enough "discernment ministries" dedicating, entire sites if you like, dedicated to exposing this church; to the extent it is an obsession for some of these.

[7]
And no I don't favour sites like AIG or creatio/n.com highly either. I find that you take it a bit too far, trying to construe certain things to fit in the Bible, when the Bible is not intended to be a scientific manual.
But at the same time, I do have a healthy scepticism of what some scientists say as well; and even how certain people try to do the exact polar opposite.

For instance, I personally, am not too familiar with what the current theory on evolution actually is*; but the theory I was taught in school, I saw no issues with; obviously there are technical questions like "well, what about this?" and simply I don't feel the need to address [here] what is often just "ad hoc" objections from both sides, because I simply see no problem. (*there are parts I disagree because of >>> below)

My main issue I take is actually with "scientism" or "naturalism" not science.

[8]
One final thing, I personally found it ironic, you saying "believe me" though...
Simply, because I expected something else. It goes to show that "faith" statements are made all the time, the real questions, which are reasonable? (rhetorical)

 

[dan964]

Can you quote something from the Quran or Sahih hadith which actually confirms your statement ?

I think you very well know the answer to that.
All you have to look to is, how certain people in the media dodge that question and start saying that ISIS for instance was caused due to whole "Islamophobia" thing... which is a very similar claim to make.

 

[braintic]

Can you quote something from the Quran or Sahih hadith which actually confirms your statement ?

Huh??? I am supposed to quote from the Quran to prove that this was said to me??

 

[braintic]

[1]
Firstly, I have found Youtube is a terrible place to figure out things generally; even if you are religious (and non-liberal**) like myself. [**liberal here means progressive/left-wing]

Of course you are non-liberal - you are christian.
Why did you avoid saying 'conservative'?
Are you someone who believes that christian laws should be forcibly imposed on everyone?

 

[Drsoccerball]

Huh??? I am supposed to quote from the Quran to prove that this was said to me??

I wasn't asking you to prove what the kid said. Prove what you said by quoting something from the text to support your answer. "I personally believe that such a lack of education stems from a religious belief. "

 

[Kolmias]

Of course you are non-liberal - you are christian.
Why did you avoid saying 'conservative'?
Are you someone who believes that christian laws should be forcibly imposed on everyone?

I'm a Christian as well as a social liberal. Not all Christians are Bible bashers mate

 

[Paradoxica]

I'm a Christian as well as a social liberal. Not all Christians are Bible bashers mate

Yeah. Such a shame loudness is inversely proportional to rationality.