I believe it is wrong to believe in Christianity.

[CriticalThought]

And use the terminology all you want. It sounds absurd in context, but if you prefer to argue from an emotional position rather than a logical one...

Thank you for your permission. I already have.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...elieve-being-gay-wrong-65.html#post1059113002

And frankly, I've been around long enough to know that when you start the "back out now cuz you are getting beaten" and "that was so easy" comments, that you are getting tired so I'll let you recooperate.

And given that Christians on this site are free to argue "homosexuality is immoral" without citing that it is simply their belief, I should certainly be free to do the same.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Thank you for your permission. I already have.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...elieve-being-gay-wrong-65.html#post1059113002

And frankly, I've been around long enough to know that when you start the "back out now cuz you are getting beaten" and "that was so easy" comments, that you are getting tired so I'll let you recooperate.

Tired? Not in the least. I just woke up from a nap. I like you CT, and mostly am on the same side of issues with you. You ARE getting beaten badly, so I am giving you the opportunity to back off because I like you and would prefer not to completely massacre your argument... one completely based on emotion. If you'd like me to, I'll gladly stay. Other than taking a break to do some errands, I'll happily hang in this thread to the bitter end. And if you've been around long enough to know me, you know my rather unique position on these two issues. You're not going to come out of this well.

I also notice that you had pretty much nothing to say as a rebuttal for my post, especially where I proved you wrong in your assessment of what I have done. Very telling.

And given that Christians on this site are free to argue "homosexuality is immoral" without citing that it is simply their belief, I should certainly be free to do the same.

Did I say you couldn't?

 

[CriticalThought]

I also notice that you had pretty much nothing to say as a rebuttal for my post. Very telling.

Fine. Let's start here.

You need to word things differently as these statements are doing exactly what you do not want to see from the anti-gay crowd. Think about it. Are homosexuals delusional? Are they not rational? Are the immoral?

Sounds an awful lot like you are arguing that BD and digsbe are anti gay cuz they say homosexuality is immoral. Musta just been a sllip of the tounge.

VERY poorly worded, You are speaking in absolutes, and absolutes in general are illogical. Religious people do niot ALWAYS make leaps of faith, a leap of faith does not always require one to disregard reason. That was REALLY easy. Try again.

Absoultes are illogical eh? 1+1=2, illogical?

By definition, a leap of faith requires that people disregard reason because by definition a leap of faith requires that they disregard evidence. And by self imposed definition, most religous people have to make a leap of faith because they are required to believe in something that cannot be proven.

Well, at least you have admitted your motivation... and admitted that you are OK with doing exactly what others do that get you angry.

My motivation is I hate double standards.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Fine. Let's start here.

Ok.

Sounds an awful lot like you are arguing that BD and digsbe are anti gay cuz they say homosexuality is immoral. Musta just been a sllip of the tounge.

Is there a difference between a belief and a fact? Is there a difference between these two quotes: "Homosexuality is immoral", and "I BELIEVE (or because of my religious beliefs) homosexuality is immoral"? When you answer that question accurately, you'll know why I did no such thing.

Absoultes are illogical eh? 1+1=2, illogical?

We are not talking about mathematical equations, we are talking about concepts, beliefs, and morality. However, I could prove to you that 1+1 does not necessarily equal 2 if you'd like.

By definition, a leap of faith requires that people disregard reason because by definition a leap of faith requires that they disregard evidence. And by self imposed definition, most religous people have to make a leap of faith because they are required to believe in something that cannot be proven.

Here's the flaw in your argument. If something cannot be proven, it is not unreasonable to believe that it is not accurate. Being not proven means that there is some possiblity that the opposing view is still viable, regardless of how small that viablity might be.

My motivation is I hate double standards.

So do I. And that is exactly what I am confronting you on and exactly what you are exhibiting. Because you are angry and arguing from and emotional, not logical position.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Christians do not follow the words of just Jesus. They follow the words of Paul. In fact, pretty much all NT condemnation of homosexuality can be attributed to Paul.

That's a fair criticism. Call me a red letter Christian, but I prefer Jesus to Paul.

It cannot be proven whether that servant was in fact the lover of the Centurion. The word "pais" is translated differently by different people.

Listen to you, you sound like a Christian fundamentalist. Maybe you're just unaware of history and you buy into that claptrap, but there is no serious dispute as to what is going on in that story. The word pais could mean a "servant-boy" in some contexts, but not in this one. A Greco-Roman soldier didn't keep a pais around as a valet.

Do some research into the meaning of the word (and I don't just mean Strong's) to see what I mean.

 

[scourge99]

However, I could prove to you that 1+1 does not necessarily equal 2 if you'd like.

You've peaked my curiosity.

 

[CriticalThought]

Fine, you win CC.

But for the record, I believe Paul was a charlatan, con artist, scammer, and all around cult leader. I have no reason to respect the man who is almost single-handedly responsible for the anti gay sentiment in Christianity. If I see him quoted on this forum as an expert on anything, then I am perfectly entitled to let people know exactly what I think of him.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You've peaked my curiosity.

There are two possible ways to do this. The first is mathematical, using irrational numbers. The second is philosphical, accepting that all concepts, even definitions, are man-made, and therefore subject to change. Neither is necessarily a strong argument that I would use or base a position upon, but both have some viability and would therefore present the idea that there are no absolutes, not even in mathematics.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Fine, you win CC.

Was there any doubt? :2razz: Like I said, I like you CT and often find myself standing along side you against anti-gay bigots. You always do better when you debate from a logical position and take a deep breath before you argue emotionally.

But for the record, I believe Paul was a charlatan, con artist, scammer, and all around cult leader. I have no reason to respect the man who is almost single-handedly responsible for the anti gay sentiment in Christianity. If I see him quoted on this forum as an expert on anything, then I am perfectly entitled to let people know exactly what I think of him.

I'm Jewish. I've never read the NT and know nothing of Paul. Sounds like something I should look into.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm Jewish. I've never read the NT and know nothing of Paul. Sounds like something I should look into.

You would think the people who call themselves "Christians" would follow the man named Jesus Christ, who never said anything bad about homosexuality and arguably, as Guy Icognito suggested, stood up for a gay man. But no, they follow letters written by Paul, which even Paul could never have imagined would end up being compiled with the Bible and treated as infallible scripture. And you want to talk about emotional reactions, Paul wrote them to directly condemn behaviors he felt were wrong, such as people engaging in sex at pagan temples. The dude even plagiarizes Plato but just because some scripture suggests Paul was poor and martyred, Christians all jump on board with him even though he behaved in a fashion reminiscent of Joseph Smith.

 

[scourge99]

There are two possible ways to do this. The first is mathematical, using irrational numbers.

I would venture to guess that this is the equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of a hat or some other magic trick. Do mathematicians accept this proof or is this something amateurs do to impress the otherwise ignorant?

The second is philosphical, accepting that all concepts, even definitions, are man-made, and therefore subject to change.

I've never found appeals to imagination as compelling.

Neither is necessarily a strong argument that I would use or base a position upon, but both have some viability and would therefore present the idea that there are no absolutes, not even in mathematics.

So because you can imagine its possible its "viable"? Lets not stretch too hard.

I'm well aware of theists attempts to level the playing field by claiming NOTHING is absolute true therefore [insert god theory here] is viable/true/re3asonable/etc. You appear to be going down that beaten path. I'm ready to refute that position if necessary.

 

[molten_dragon]

There are two possible ways to do this. The first is mathematical, using irrational numbers. The second is philosphical, accepting that all concepts, even definitions, are man-made, and therefore subject to change. Neither is necessarily a strong argument that I would use or base a position upon, but both have some viability and would therefore present the idea that there are no absolutes, not even in mathematics.

There's other ways as well.

In binary, 1+1 = 10.

Or you could apply the old engineering joke about 2+2 = 5 for large values of 2.

 

[molten_dragon]

As far as the OP goes, I sort of agree. I think that Christianity is wrong, but in a more scientific sense. As in, I don't believe that Christianity puts forth an accurate portrait of the world and how it works. I believe that Christian beliefs are wrong, but as long as their beliefs aren't harming anyone and they aren't trying to convert me to their beliefs, then I have nothing against them.

I do take issue with some religious organizations, specifically the Catholic church, but that has more to do with the actions they have taken in support/defense of their beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves.

 

[scourge99]

As far as the OP goes, I sort of agree. I think that Christianity is wrong, but in a more scientific sense. As in, I don't believe that Christianity puts forth an accurate portrait of the world and how it works. I believe that Christian beliefs are wrong, but as long as their beliefs aren't harming anyone and they aren't trying to convert me to their beliefs, then I have nothing against them.

We live in a society where the general population greatly influences the laws that are passed. There are many example of politicians (even today) who invoke their religious beliefs as justification for the laws they support or wish to pass. Because of this, others beliefs do affect you.

Here is a recent example of "harmless" religious beliefs:

YouTube - Rep. John Shimkus: God decides when the "earth will end"

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I would venture to guess that this is the equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of a hat or some other magic trick. Do mathematicians accept this proof or is this something amateurs do to impress the otherwise ignorant?

No, it's not. Using irrational numbers is a legitimate part of mathematics. Look it up.

I've never found appeals to imagination as compelling.

So because you can imagine its possible its "viable"? Lets not stretch too hard.

That's nice, but it's not what I'm saying.

I'm well aware of theists attempts to level the playing field by claiming NOTHING is absolute true therefore [insert god theory here] is viable/true/re3asonable/etc. You appear to be going down that beaten path. I'm ready to refute that position if necessary.

You tried before and failed. You also never did seem to understand the concept of NOT PROVEN and how that negates something from being an absolute. If you want to try again and show something a bit more original, I'm game. If you come with the same old tired militant atheist arguments, you'll find you are talking to yourself.

 

[scourge99]

No, it's not. Using irrational numbers is a legitimate part of mathematics. Look it up.

You are the one making the claim. Are you going to present this mathematical proof that 1+1=/=2, or will you continue making excuses and other diversions?

You also never did seem to understand the concept of NOT PROVEN and how that negates something from being an absolute.

You don't seem to understand that concepts are developed and understood from an underlying philosophical framework. Within those frameworks absolutes CAN and DO "exist" (but doesn't mean they necessarily apply to reality).

You tried before and failed. If you want to try again and show something a bit more original, I'm game.

Do not project your own failings upon me. You are the one who failed to rationally address the glaring problems within your own worldview.

Do you plan on addressing these criticisms this time around or will you disappear like last time when things get tough?

The flaws in your claims were clearly identified before you disappeared without a response. You poked your nose in again to assert the same argument that was addressed before disappearing for good:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/77796-dear-atheists-40.html#post1058902494

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/77796-dear-atheists-43.html#post1058907209

I predict more excuses and ad-homs as your response.

If you come with the same old tired militant atheist arguments, you'll find you are talking to yourself.

Another example of an excuse to avoid addressing the arguments of others.


Are you unable or unwilling to defend you claims? Are you going to continue bloviating with more excuses, ad-homs, and empty talk?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You are the one making the claim. Are you going to present this mathematical proof that 1+1=/=2, or will you continue making excuses and other diversions?

It's abstract algebra and irrational number theory. I'm not planning on posting the complex proof here.

You don't seem to understand that concepts are developed and understood from an underlying philosophical framework. Within those frameworks absolutes CAN and DO "exist" (but doesn't mean they necessarily apply to reality).

YOU don't seem to understand the contradiction in your statement. If the do not necessarily apply to reality, they are not absolutes.

Do not project your own failings upon me. You are the one who failed to rationally address the glaring problems within your own worldview.

I present your own failings, failings that are quite obvious to everyone but yourself.

Do you plan on addressing these criticisms this time around or will you disappear like last time when things get tough?

I left because it was pointless to debate someone... you... who refused to recognize the lack of logic of your position. I try to avoid debating folks who present things in that way.

The flaws in your claims were clearly identified before you disappeared without a response. You poked your nose in again to assert the same argument that was addressed before disappearing for good:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/77796-dear-atheists-40.html#post1058901003

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/77796-dear-atheists-40.html#post1058902494

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/77796-dear-atheists-43.html#post1058907209

I predict more excuses and ad-homs as your response.

No, my response will continue as it was. You do not understand perception, the subjectivity of perception, how this describes the subjectivity of reality, the absudity of attributing scientific methods to non-scientific questions, and the lack of absolutism. You have neither proven that absolutism is a truism, nor that not proven equals proven false. Your failure was quite complete and I had no reason to continue to beat a dead horse.

Another example of an excuse to avoid addressing the arguments of others.

No, an observation of behavior.

Are you unable or unwilling to defend you claims? Are you going to continue bloviating with more excuses, ad-homs, and empty talk?

Already done, previously. Your responses did zero to dispute anything. Now... it seems like you are doing exactly as I predicted. I'll give you one more post to attempt to present something new. If not, I find no reason to respond to your same old, tired, arguments that haven't made a dent in the past.

 

[scourge99]

It's abstract algebra and irrational number theory. I'm not planning on posting the complex proof here.

As predicted, excuses are offered in place of an argument. Your failure to provide any type of verification or substantiation does not go unnoticed.

You don't seem to understand that concepts are developed and understood from an underlying philosophical framework. Within those frameworks absolutes CAN and DO "exist" (but doesn't mean they necessarily apply to reality).

YOU don't seem to understand the contradiction in your statement. If they do not necessarily apply to reality, they are not absolutes.

That is because they may not apply to reality and instead are only applicable within a different domain, for example, math and logic.


And this is all irrelevant. I don't claim any absolute truths when it comes to reality.

You have neither proven that absolutism is a truism nor that not proven equals proven false.

That is because I do not claim either of those things and thus have no need to defend them.

If you come with the same old tired militant atheist arguments, you'll find you are talking to yourself.

Another example of an excuse to avoid addressing the arguments of others.

No, an observation of behavior.

Which is irrelevant in debate where claims stand on their own merit, independent of their presenter.

Already done, previously. Your responses did zero to dispute anything. Now... it seems like you are doing exactly as I predicted. I'll give you one more post to attempt to present something new. If not, I find no reason to respond to your same old, tired, arguments that haven't made a dent in the past.

I left because it was pointless to debate someone... you... who refused to recognize the lack of logic of your position. I try to avoid debating folks who present things in that way.

Quite often we see a "creative dance" and a flurry of excuses accompanied by sarcastic comments, attempts to demean Forum members personally, and smokescreens to conceal the lack of support for one's claims. All in an effort to avoid a direct answer to sincere questions and criticism. I trust that readers are astute enough to realize that fancy footwork and creative dance are not substitutes for actual debate of ideas and topics WITH substantiation of claims made.

Please support your previous claims with the following:

1) Present the mathematical proof that demonstrates 1+1 does not equal 2.

2) Present the philosophical proof that demonstrates 1+1 does not equal 2 based on the claim that "all concepts, even definitions, are man-made, and therefore subject to change."

 

[molten_dragon]

We live in a society where the general population greatly influences the laws that are passed. There are many example of politicians (even today) who invoke their religious beliefs as justification for the laws they support or wish to pass. Because of this, others beliefs do affect you.

Of course they do. Just as my beliefs affect them. We're all doing our best to assure that our beliefs are foisted on everyone (or anyone who votes is anyway).

And note that I said as long as their beliefs don't hurt anyone, not as long as their beliefs don't affect anyone. This is more on a personal level, rather than a national political level.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

As predicted, excuses are offered in place of an argument. Your failure to provide any type of verification or substantiation does not go unnoticed.

Too bad. I've done the proof. I've done it by hand and have no intention of redoing it and then trying to figure out how to post it. I am uninterested in whether you accept it or not. Your acceptance has no bearing on it's veracity.

That is because they may not apply to reality and instead are only applicable within a different domain, for example, math and logic.

And as I said, then they cannot be absolutes.

And this is all irrelevant. I don't claim any absolute truths when it comes to reality.

Good to know. Seems to contradict what you have claimed in the past. i will remember this comment for the future.

That is because I do not claim either of those things and thus have no need to defend them.

Wait... it was YOU who said this in post #36:

I'm well aware of theists attempts to level the playing field by claiming NOTHING is absolute true therefore [insert god theory here] is viable/true/re3asonable/etc. You appear to be going down that beaten path. I'm ready to refute that position if necessary.

I think you DO need to defend them, unless you now agree that nothing is absolute.

Which is irrelevant in debate where claims stand on their own merit, independent of their presenter.

Not true. You present a pattern of behavior. It's your default. It is similar to your position on the existence of God. Although it is not proven, either way, to you, because of the evidence you have seen, you reject the existence of God... at least until the opposite is proven to you.

You have a pattern of behavior... the same old tired militant atheist debate tactics. Although it cannot be proven that future posts will follow this same pattern, because of the evidence I have seen, I reject that you will post in any other way... at least until the opppsite it proven. I suppose that my perception of you is equal in logic to your belief in the existence of God.

Quite often we see a "creative dance" and a flurry of excuses accompanied by sarcastic comments, attempts to demean Forum members personally, and smokescreens to conceal the lack of support for one's claims. All in an effort to avoid a direct answer to sincere questions and criticism. I trust that readers are astute enough to realize that fancy footwork and creative dance are not substitutes for actual debate of ideas and topics WITH substantiation of claims made.

I'm sure they are. Precisely what they have seen of your posts.

Please support your previous claims with the following:

1) Present the mathematical proof that demonstrates 1+1 does not equal 2.

Already explained.

2) Present the philosophical proof that demonstrates 1+1 does not equal 2 based on the claim that "all concepts, even definitions, are man-made, and therefore subject to change."

Tell us the absolute definition of the word "ONE", both in the past and in the future. When you can do that in absolute terms, you will have proven me wrong.

 

[Tashah]

I believe all religions are wrong and all religious people are very misguided...

I personally consider this sort of broad-brush branding as phobic and contemptible.

 

[Cephus]

I think that you can disagree with and/or even hate a set of beliefs (I hate racism, for instance), without hating individuals who practice those beliefs.

Let me put it like this...my mother, in particular, has some racist beliefs. My kids are half filipino, and my mom distrusts/disdains brown people. In general, she considers people who are brown/black to be lazy/shiftless/untrustworthy/dangerous. It has been very difficult at times to deal with my mom's beliefs, but she is still my mother and I still love her. I can separate how I feel about her beliefs and/or some of her behaviors from her, as a person.

This is exactly how I feel about Christianists. As human beings, I don't hate them, but I find their beliefs loathesome and offensive.

Yeah, I can sympathize with that. Growing up, my mom was reasonably racist. Nothing overt, she just didn't particularly like non-whites. When I started dating a half-Chinese girl, she actually sat me down and had a discussion about "how will people treat your kids if you ever had any?" While the relationship never really went anywhere, at least she ended up getting over her racist nonsense, I think she ended up seeing how ridiculous it was, right about the time she realized just how ridiculous her religious beliefs were. Now, I don't think she'd care who I dated, if I wasn't happily married.

 

[Arcana XV]

I personally consider this sort of broad-brush branding as phobic and contemptible.

That's fine, Tashah. As long as you don't try to shut me up, it's all good. I've stated that I would never do anything to hinder the rights of religious people. And as a matter of fact, I have enourmous respect for many of the world's religions. Yours, most particularly, has always fascinated me. It doesn't change what I've said at all, just shedding a little more light on my perspective. The fact that I think something is wrong and misguided doesn't prevent me from respecting it.

 

[Cephus]

There's other ways as well.

In binary, 1+1 = 10.

Or you could apply the old engineering joke about 2+2 = 5 for large values of 2.

The problem there is that you're no longer arguing about 1+1. If you add anything or take anything away from the equation, you've fundamentally changed the equation and are now playing math tricks. One object plus one object is always going to equal two objects, we've defined it that way. While we could certainly change the definitions, again, you're fundamentally changing the claim by doing so.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I personally consider this sort of broad-brush branding as phobic and contemptible.

Really?

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared stimulus. When the fear is beyond one's control, and if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.

Phobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't see a drop of fear or irrationality in what Arcana XV said. She thinks, on the one hand, that religious have it wrong, but on the other hand would defend the right of the religious to practice their religion so long as that practice doesn't harm anyone. That doesn't sound like a phobia to me. That sounds like strong disagreement.

Isn't that the position that every major monotheism over the course of human history has taken (minus the tolerance, of course) -- that everybody else has it wrong? Isn't that the position taken by even the most peaceful and loving of Christians? How about America's two major political parties -- Arcana's position is essentially the position they take even at their most civilized and respectful.

You know what I think is phobic and contemptible?

The way in which you ignore the portion of her post which proves that you're totally full of ****.