Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

Castiel · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:03

RDM said:
Fixed the above.

Opps!

RDM said:
No, but then I wasn't arguing that someone should do that with religion I was just pointing out (probably futilely) that kedge was incorrect that homosexuality was a choice.

I do not think people should have to hide their faith or indeed their lack of faith.

Indeed, but practicing is a choice and in response to Shoes suggestion of what intelligent people should do in the face of persecution, the comparison is a valid one as in our own society we have (and to some extent still are) recently moving out of an age where homosexuals made the choice to hide their homosexuality either by secrecy or by pretence to avoid persecution (and prosecution). For many people their faith and what they believe is no more a valid choice decision than what gender you are attracted to, or what food you like and so on.

Anyway, I don't want to get tied up in yet another futile discussion of religion and atheism and the respective attitudes of each to each other, I just though Shoe's statement was rather daft.

Jason2 said:
It doesn't matter whether it harms anyone or not. It's an abomination. If God wanted two men to reproduce he would have given them the means to do so.

(If you believe) Then God did give homosexual couples the ability to reproduce, IVF and surrogacy, and also if we speculate a little, Gods Plan also gives us the opportunity in time to allow two men to reproduce within a single offspring without any maternal DNA at all.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704447604576008031376020012.html

It seems rather presumptive of you to say what God wants or what he has planned for Humanity..don't you think?

Jason2 · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:04

estebanrey said:
When did you choose to be straight?

God made woman for man. I am man and therefore should be with a woman. If god wanted me to be with a man he would have made me female.

Inquizitor · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:08

Jason2 said:
God made woman for man. I am man and therefore should be with a woman. If god wanted me to be with a man he would have made me female.

There's an idea. Let's make you female.

estebanrey · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:09

Jason2 said:
God made woman for man. I am man and therefore should be with a woman. If god wanted me to be with a man he would have made me female.

Sure I get all that, but you are [trying to] explain why are you straight. I'm asking you when you sat down and considered the options and made the choice that you would be straight.

Let's put it another way, forgetting your religious mumbo jumbo could you see yourself being gay and attracted to men out of choice?

P.S. You might want to check your bible, there is actually very little in there covering homosexuality.

In fact I advise you watch this.....

You probably won't though so I'll just paraphrase Russell and ask you the same question he does. Don't you think the "love your neighbour" bit is more important and the actual message from the Bible rather than the "hate all the gays" mentality you seem to be fond of?

LOAM · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:10

Jason2 said:
I think.

If only this part was actually true :rolleyes:

Castiel · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:12

Jason2 said:
God made woman for man. I am man and therefore should be with a woman. If god wanted me to be with a man he would have made me female.

You can get that fixed these days....ask Lucy Bee!

I wonder if that was part of Gods Plan?

shoes · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:13

Jason2 said:
Homosexuals always have a choice. I am sick of people not wanting to take responsibility. That's what is wrong with society today. No one wants to be wrong. It was him, not me. That kind of attitude gets us into trouble I think.

Jason2 said:
God made woman for man. I am man and therefore should be with a woman. If god wanted me to be with a man he would have made me female.

Argh this is quite frustrating. I really really really love the idea that when you die you'll be really disappointed when you find out there is no god and no afterlife, but due to the fact there is no afterlife you won't know it and thus won't be disappointed. Never mind.

The fact still stands that you deserve to be bitterly disappointed as you're 'faith' and beliefs are frankly disgusting.

mrk · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:14

I don't know why you guys are continuing on with trying to make these guys see things rationally because nothing has worked nor will it ever work. People like that don't change and will only see things their way.

Haggisman · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:14

Jason2 said:
Science should just stay the hell out of moral matters. Degrading human beings to mere animals. It makes me sick. We're worth so much more. Making excuses for killers by saying "they had no choice, just the way they're wired". Please. Concentrate on looking at the stars and stay out of personal matters.

To the contrary, moral matters should be based on science and not religion. Science at least is based on fact, rather than beliefs which differ from person to person. The morals of a muslim differ to those of a christian, which differ to those from a hindu, which differ to those of a buddhist. If moral and personal matters should be based on religion, which one should we follow?

Jason2 said:
It doesn't matter whether it harms anyone or not. It's an abomination. If God wanted two men to reproduce he would have given them the means to do so.

We're not talking about reproduction - we're talking about attraction.

You realise animals can also display homosexuality? But I've never heard of animals believing in a deity. So which is really the abomination? :rolleyes:

RDM · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:14

Castiel said:
Indeed, but practicing is a choice and in response to Shoes suggestion of what intelligent people should do in the face of persecution, the comparison is a valid one as in our own society we have (and to some extent still are) recently moving out of an age where homosexuals made the choice to hide their homosexuality either by secrecy or by pretence to avoid persecution (and prosecution). For many people their faith and what they believe is no more a valid choice decision than what gender you are attracted to, or what food you like and so on.

I completely agree. I hadn't read shoes post but it is pretty obviously a silly proposition regardless of whether relgion is a choice or not.

RDM · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:16

Jason2 said:
God made woman for man. I am man and therefore should be with a woman. If god wanted me to be with a man he would have made me female.

Why does God make people homosexual then? Seems a touch cruel don't you think?

asim18 · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:28

RDM said:
Why does God make people homosexual then? Seems a touch cruel don't you think?

Ah that reminds me of a dude that got in touch with me online. He found me on YouTube after I left a comment on a religious video.

He was extremely worried. Said something to me along the lines of "I'm Muslim but I cant help it I like boys" and "I've never told anyone but you seem like you know your stuff and you're anonymous so please help me" This dude was utterly terrified of going to hell. Why was this poor man born to sin?

I didn't want to stop this guy being a Muslim, as he was pretty suicidal, so I used that to his advantage by reiterating that suicide is the biggest possible sin he could do. But I reassured him by telling him he is one of God's creations and that he couldn't have been created just to go straight to hell. I told him to do whatever he wants because he's made that way and he can only blame God for making him like that not himself.

I was like.. "Dear God

"

Jason2 · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:39

Haggisman said:
To the contrary, moral matters should be based on science and not religion. Science at least is based on fact, rather than beliefs which differ from person to person. The morals of a muslim differ to those of a christian, which differ to those from a hindu, which differ to those of a buddhist. If moral and personal matters should be based on religion, which one should we follow?

We're not talking about reproduction - we're talking about attraction.

You realise animals can also display homosexuality? But I've never heard of animals believing in a deity. So which is really the abomination?

You've just committed the natural fallacy. Animals also commit infanticide. Should that be legal?

Haggisman · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:44

Jason2 said:
You've just committed the natural fallacy. Animals also commit infanticide. Should that be legal?

Infanticide isn't illegal because it's "an abomination", it's illegal because it hurts others. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.*

*Except those unfortunate enough to be persecuted by believers in backwards faith systems. :rolleyes:

Jason2 · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:50

Haggisman said:
Infanticide isn't illegal because it's "an abomination", it's illegal because it hurts others. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.*

*Except those unfortunate enough to be persecuted by believers in backwards faith systems.

So why is abortion legal? What's the difference between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb?

Haggisman · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:51

Jason2 said:
So why is abortion legal? What's the difference between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb?

At what point does a foetus become a baby?

estebanrey · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:52

Jason2 said:
So why is abortion legal? What's the difference between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb?

You do know the Christian God did a fair bit of child killing himself you know?

Inquizitor · 30 Jan 2013 at 15:54

Jason2 said:
So why is abortion legal? What's the difference between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb?

Brain function, ability to suffer.

RDM · 30 Jan 2013 at 16:01

Jason2 said:
So why is abortion legal? What's the difference between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb?

Because the harm done by abortion is less than the harm done by forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term.

I am assuming that you are once again ignoring difficult questions?

Jason2 · 30 Jan 2013 at 16:09

Inquizitor said:
Brain function, ability to suffer.

An unborn baby at 20 weeks is capable of feeling pain. Have you not seen the videos of abortion, whereby the baby does everything to get away from the item that abortionists use to crush the babies skull?

In fact, babies at 20 weeks feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.

Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:

The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days.
Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that “thinking” is taking place in the brain.
The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days.
All organs are functioning—stomach, liver, kidney, brain—and all systems are intact at 56 days.
By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches.

Three main methods are used to kill the unborn baby. They are as follows:

Partial-birth abortion (D&X): The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (This method was outlawed in the United States in 2007.)
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.
Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body.

And you want to tell me this is not immoral and the baby doesn't suffer. And in regards to your ability to suffer, what about those who can't feel pain? Are they less of a human being, and therefore should be killed?