bennychico11

Then don't expect me to care about your beliefs. Or rather, your personal choice.

devnet - I'd like to respond to a lot of what you said above...but don't think I have the time tonight/this weekend. And I'm sure this thread will move on before I do Can I just PM you later?

I can agree with that That seems to fit the definition. That's kind of what I was back in college after my 3rd year as a religion major...I planned on becoming a minister for my religion and once I discovered a few things, my faith kind of went the way of the dodo...but I wasn't going to give up completely on a higher power...I just wasn't sure God was it. That fit me to a T then so +1 on the definition 'cause then you also get into gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, etc. It can get kind of confusing. This may help: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis. That makes you agnostic..not an atheist. a·the·ist noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ It's fair to say I fall into that category. Honestly though, in my day to day life, I have no use for any such monikers. I don't have a special word to signify that I don't believe in chupacabras. maybe more of an agnostic atheist. As some prefer to call themselves. I don't know for certain a god exists. AND I don't accept the claim that he does until I have sufficient evidence. Knowledge and belief.

{sigh} We've gone of this many many times. I'm sure several times in this thread alone. Again, I'll start from the bottom up. Do you realize this makes no sense? You're basically saying "I think atheists have a belief without evidence about a lack of belief without evidence" Unless you're going back to the drawing board and asking us to prove a god doesn't exist again. Atheism is purely a response to a question. Someone offers a god claim. An atheist says "I don't believe that because I don't see evidence for it." That person is an atheist. Another example. The Dinka people of Sudan believe in Denka a sky, rain and fertility god in their culture. If someone was to present this god to you...you, as a Christian (I'm assuming), would reject this and say, "I don't believe in this god." Therefore, you are an atheist with regard to the god Denka. As the old quote goes: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" Atheism is not a belief system because it only makes an assertion in response to a single claim. "Do you believe in X." There are no tenants, dogma, rituals, belief structure, hierarchy, deities...anything that you can associate with a religion. And at the same time, not all religions accept a god. Raelism IS an atheistic religion. They are a belief structure that doesn't believe in a god. Many say 'coolstorybro' because they can't debate using logic. I won't say that I can either 100%. Logical absolutes can get kind of confusing. But if you are constructing a logical fallacy, and a person does call you out on it...don't take offense to it, just try and bring the discussion back around and restate what you're saying. For TAG's argument and it's counter argument see this In the end, there are going to be atheists who just downright don't want to discuss things and shout at you...but there are also Christians who do the same. Still, don't confuse those who do want to have a discussion as people dismissing everything you say purely because you are a Christian...versus someone who is just refuting you based on the merits of your claims.

Must have been that same guy who stole my whole box of Jameson bottles!!

Except (and I know we've talked about this before)....if Heaven's Gate people were in political (and social) power, I think you might. I personally enjoy religious conversations because I think it's good for us as human beings to discuss issues like this. I find it intriguing why people believe some of the things they do. Religion has always historically had an enormous impact on human beings and society.

I disagree. Give me an example of something I take on faith? That I take on without evidential support. I have reasonable expectations on why I accept something. But give me something I believe in without evidence...and I'll stop believing it. In your above definition of faith, I don't think any scientist would say "I have faith that my hypothesis will be substantiated by fact." First of all...I would say scientists look for substantiated evidence...NOT fact. Secondly, especially if you're defining faith in this context as something not based on proof (which, I think even in the scientific world they would have issues with the use of 'proof' in this sentence)...a reasonable scientist would say that he has reasonable confidence in his hypothesis because of his scientific background. Because of how he sees the scientific method/model work every day. He has his past experiences that allows him to conclude he has a good chance of getting his hypothesis supported by evidence. There's a big difference between that...and believing without evidence.

Anyone making a decent profit from rental properties? I've always wondered how much it takes to actually consider it a worthwhile business. Maybe commercial leasing is more profitable? My dad rents out the house I grew up in (I also rented from him for a time being). He doesn't do it himself though...he uses a company to handle all the applications, tenant issues, etc. Although he's not 100% happy with that company. He's actually not allowing his current tenant to renew his lease because the guy was always late in payments. When my dad originally told me about this guy, I told him he had way too many demands and that he might be a problem tenant. He had requests of my dad to paint the stairs going to the basement so he could see them better...replace light fixtures on the ceiling, etc. Then the guy moves in, hires someone to install a GFI outlet on the outside without requesting permission! Basically drilling a hole in the wall (from an inside outlet) without asking. He wanted to plug in a refrigerator on the deck. When my dad was over doing some work on the property, he noticed the outdoor refrigerator was plugged into a power strip on the deck! Talk about fire hazard. You get weird people. I'm the type who is a little over-protective of the things I buy and I'm not sure I could trust other people with them. I think I'd have to purchase a property knowing that it would probably be messed up by the tenant.

I have not decided whether or not I will buy a new computer. Does that mean I've made a decision? But, I don't understand what that had to do with what I said earlier anyway.

I hope you just mean it's not worth it on this message board. Because I tend to actually believe inalienable rights of human beings in this country...IS worth arguing for. Especially when the predominant reason why a group of people in our society are not allowed to have the same rights as everyone else...is because a single, but majorly influential, religious group in our country says their deity finds those people sinful. If we're going to start making laws based on sins in the Bible...then get out the pad and paper, because this is going to be a long night! And not to side the topic...but atheism is not a faith system

Yes, I know I'm not speaking to Christians as a whole. There are very kind and accepting Christians who don't judge homosexuals or even think that god judges them as less than equal. I know there are many homosexuals who also identify themselves as Christians also. And that's great. My post was more towards the Christians who like to publicly condemn homosexuality as a sin and the sinners themselves as less-than-Christian in god's eyes.

I LOVE YOU I love this forum!

Okay, I'm going to work from the bottom up on your quote. I'm going to flat out say it. To me, your religion and it's beliefs are based on MYTH. On anecdotal stories in an anonymously written book that is not based on any factual evidence whatsoever. And YOU are in the majority in this country for some reason. YOU are the ones who make laws preventing homosexuals from having the same rights as the rest of us...YOU are the ones holding signs and declaring homosexuals as sinners...YOU are the ones making commercials condemning the lifestyle as doing damage to the fabric of society. Your supposedly "inclusive" religion is anything but. You pick and choose what to follow while ignoring anything that you disagree with or don't feel good about. You preach about how Jesus loves everyone and "only god can judge the sinner"...but then continue to make threats of hell and warn how sinful another person's life is publicly...while, again, ignoring parts of your book that would tell you to do the same towards other sins. His thoughts on homosexuality are only formed by his faith in the biblical god. I'm all for Brown saying what he wants to say. But I'm also free to say his opinion is stupid. If he was a white guy saying that black people shouldn't have special laws for equal protection...or that black people are sinners...would you not consider that a bigoted statement that no one should complain about? Regarding the link: http://www.huffingto..._n_1340228.html yes, we've heard the "god can't stand any sin" argument. It's brought up time and time again when you try and rationalize why you only pick on homosexuals. (I love how intimately you know your god's reason for everything). When was the last time Brown spoke out publicly against divorces in this country? Or Blasphemy? Or other religions? Or the hundreds of other sins in the Bible that are apparently just as equal? I'm sorry if I seem heated on this. But I have close family members and friends who are gay and when I hear other people try to rationalize their bigotry and belief system towards this issue...it just really irks me.

What is the difference between the love heterosexuals experience and the feelings homosexuals experience? If a homosexual only has an affection for the same sex are they doomed to live their life without a committed relationship if they want to live up to the expectation that homosexuality is a sin? In my opinion, asking a homosexual to not be homosexual is the equivalent of requesting a heterosexual to not be heterosexual. I agree. Why is a homosexual feeling considered a temptation...while heterosexual tendency is not? btw, JJHusker...I tried to put it back on topic!

Quite right. "Jesus is my shepherd" and all that...protecting the sheep until slaughter. And if nakedness shouldn't be considered sinful, why did Noah curse Ham for seeing him naked? Cursing Ham's son Canaan to be punished as the lowest of slaves to his brothers. *Which actually side tracks me and gets me thinking about the Bible's endorsement of slavery...so we'll avoid that

lol, I think that's how all our 7+ page discussions go on this board. But back to topic, I guess I have nothing more to add than what's already been said earlier.

Explain how two human beings who had no knowledge of right and wrong could make such a decision for themselves BEFORE eating of the Tree of Knowledge. No. You. What I mean is...I don't have to because it is not part of what we're talking about. Doing so derails the conversation even more than I already have derailed it with all this talk of Adam and Eve. It is a part of what we're talking about if you're trying to establish what sin is and why humans are inherently "sinful" from birth. AND why I should care about the concept of "sin" with regard to homosexuality

And you just gave us a straw man argument for why homosexuality shouldn't be normal in animals by equating it to murder.

Again, you're equating rape, murder, theft and physical abuse....all acts that do actual harm to another living creature...you're equating that to the love one creature (animal, human, etc) has towards another. How do you justify that leap? To me, you've just proven that homosexuality actually is on a higher pedestal than those other acts of violence since it doesn't harm anyone.

Explain how two human beings who had no knowledge of right and wrong could make such a decision for themselves BEFORE eating of the Tree of Knowledge.

Maybe this helps? http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/becker.htm

First off, Adam and Eve did not become aware of their "sexuality". They became aware of their nakedness. If anything, it was shame of being naked (of course, you need to explain to me why receiving "knowledge" is a sin in the first place...to me it seems like god wanted man to remain dumb). But no where does it say "sexuality" as if Adam got a boner the moment he realized Eve was naked. Also, how is lust considered a sin? I'm assuming you're talking about Matthew 5:28? If so, why isn't it a lustful act for a woman to look at a man? Or a man to look at a man? If looking at someone with lust is a sin, then we'd probably never have any couples getting together in the first place!

Just because you haven't witnessed it...doesn't mean it doesn't happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

The potter isn't asking the pot to worship and love him purely because he created it. If a god wants us to assume he's benevolent and loving of all his creatures, he'd respect what his creation considers moral. Because if you're right and your god demands love and worship purely because he created us...I'm sorry, but I can't give him that. Love is earned, not given at demand.