Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[sageoftruth]

What verse(s) in the bible led to the understanding that homosexuality is a sin? I currently don't have a bible, so if anyone on the forum does and can answer my question, can you clarify? Thanks.

Oh dear, I tried to edit my response to stop this turning into a flaming match, I fear you've opened the floodgates, I suggest you google it, (and try to stay away from anything by Westboro) to avoid this becoming a federal disaster zone. I'll stop using metaphors now.

Sorry about that. I swear it was a genuine search to learn more about the world, but now that you mention it, I guess this would start a flame war over whether or not those verses really do mean that. That really doesn't matter to me. I just want to know how this all got started.

 

[Archtype]

Very good question kidigus. The answer is of course, yes. Allow me to elaborate.

You see God's law is perfect and unchanging, and he mandated in what everyone acknowledges as a perfect book meant to be taken literally that marriage be restricted to ONLY one man and one set of women that could number as high as the man would like. Well he didn't have to marry them as a set, he could marry one and then pick up a few more later. So just in case you got lost, 1 man and 300 women (and hundreds more concubines) totally okay, but two men, an abomination.

I musta missed something in the billions of times I've read this thing... Because I never noticed the part where 1 man and 300 women was accepted and shown as a good thing to do...

Well how about 2 Chronicles 11. We have the son of Solomon, Rehoboam, a king of Judah has many wives. "11:21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)"

For those of you who don't know what threescore means, that basically says he had eighteen wives and and 60 concubines. The apologist can at best claim that god "allowed" such things and neglected to mention he didn't really like them, but given that OT society was really a nation of laws, they clearly had none against polygamy. It was obviously an acceptable thing.

The Bible is not some magical book in which every good and wholesome thing is described. Just because it shows up does not mean it is good to practice. It tells stories about the people that practiced polygamy. No where does the Bible state that it is good to practice. Solomon's writings reflect how he wished for a single wife and how he regretted the things he had done. Also, it clearly depicts how polygamy created major problems for Abraham. Aside from the many times that God warned against it... Whenever it was depicted, it was depicted in extremely negative light.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Sorry about that. I swear it was a genuine search to learn more about the world, but now that you mention it, I guess this would start a flame war over whether or not those verses really do mean that. That really doesn't matter to me. I just want to know how this all got started.

Don't worry, I got into a discussion with another poster and they challenged me for verses so I had to post them earlier in the thread anyway, from the New Testament there are 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse 10, which lists various sins, among them is homosexuality, and Romans 1:26-27 makes a pretty clear statement that both woman-woman and men-men relationships are seen as sinful to God, described as being "Shameful lusts", "indecent acts", and "perversion".

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Very good question kidigus. The answer is of course, yes. Allow me to elaborate.

You see God's law is perfect and unchanging, and he mandated in what everyone acknowledges as a perfect book meant to be taken literally that marriage be restricted to ONLY one man and one set of women that could number as high as the man would like. Well he didn't have to marry them as a set, he could marry one and then pick up a few more later. So just in case you got lost, 1 man and 300 women (and hundreds more concubines) totally okay, but two men, an abomination.

I musta missed something in the billions of times I've read this thing... Because I never noticed the part where 1 man and 300 women was accepted and shown as a good thing to do...

Well how about 2 Chronicles 11. We have the son of Solomon, Rehoboam, a king of Judah has many wives. "11:21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)"

For those of you who don't know what threescore means, that basically says he had eighteen wives and and 60 concubines. The apologist can at best claim that god "allowed" such things and neglected to mention he didn't really like them, but given that OT society was really a nation of laws, they clearly had none against polygamy. It was obviously an acceptable thing.

The Bible is not some magical book in which every good and wholesome thing is described. Just because it shows up does not mean it is good to practice. It tells stories about the people that practiced polygamy. No where does the Bible state that it is good to practice. Solomon's writings reflect how he wished for a single wife and how he regretted the things he had done. Also, it clearly depicts how polygamy created major problems for Abraham. Aside from the many times that God warned against it... Whenever it was depicted, it was depicted in extremely negative light.

Notice I did not mention Solomon in my last reply. You must be going off of apologetics sites. Polygamy is all over the Old Testament, to say that because it didn't outright say "this is a good thing" that it condemned it is ridiculous. Could you imagine how many things people hold up in the OT and NT as good examples but were not specifically endorsed? How much you really lose by using this argument? Even if you are willing to sacrifice that much, you gain nothing: As I pointed out the Hebrew nation was a nation of laws, and it expressly allowed polygamy, at least in cases where the man was able to fulfill his marital duty to all his wives. Jewish law would not expressly permit over centuries what they believe was against the will of Yahweh.

 

[WolandNYC]

Nothing in the old testament is attributed to Salomon directly ever. Song of Songs may have been written by him but there is not convincing evidence it was... and I do not recall much about regret of anything... his transgressions (from kings) weren't about polygamy they were for allowing strange religions and idol worshiping by his many and varied wives and concubines. He didn't regret polygamy, he regretted polytheism... see Greek can be confusing so if you Bible was printed in the English language under a certain English kind later to become a saint, it was most likely translated by Greeks from ancient Hebrew (that they had at best limited grasp of) then some time into Latin, and then a few centuries passed (and Latin became a dead language) by monks into English. But lets not get caught up on the details this is not a question of religion or theology it's a legal question. We all have our believes and that's why I am proud to live in a country with a disestablishment clause. Where my believes are protected from the government, and government is protected from all of ours.... focus. THIS IS NOT A THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, the white house is not the Vatican, Bob Jones university is not the Supreme Court, and Congress is not Salt Lake City. The question is about equality and the value we place on our rights as citizens by understanding rights of others. Law is not just words, it is like math or physics it is about formulas, and derivatives. How much of your freedom are you willing to give away by restricting others?

 

[NightHawk21]

Couldn't homosexuality also be seen as a sort of population stabilization technique developed through evolution? Obviously I have no real scientific research or anything like that backing the idea, but think about it. Anything or anyone who is gay is far less likely to pass on their genes than someone else, but they still have the ability to be a useful member of their species.

What if it's just a way to control population growth? Too many of a species can be a bad thing, as you have them fighting over resources, mates, etc.

Just a thought.

Funny you should say that, I actually said that earlier. Which if being Homosexual is genetic it would probably make sense. A birth control for society so we don't consume ourselves.

I'd like to know how people would react if this turned out to be true. "Being gay isn't something that's wrong or sinful, it's just a beneficial genetic trait that evolved over millions of years for population control and preservation of various species."

Probably met with instant denial. There are still people who think the Earth is flat after all, even though all you need is a two foot stick and 8 inches of string to prove it's round.

Ignorance does come with lack of education, so I'm sure eventually if we can properly separate Religion from state and make home schooling illegal most of this crap will go away.

Removing home schooling wouldn't really solve the problem, IMO. You also have private schools and the like, and really, there's not much we can do about those. The only thing we CAN do is promote rational, scientific thought in our society and the schools we currently have.

My friend seems to think we can simply educate everyone into a perfect world. I don't see that happening any century soon.

Not in our lifetime, but it's happening. At the speed of a glacier but hey, better than nothing right?

You guys might be right, and the birth control model makes sense, but I'm just saying that homosexuality can't evolve because evolution requires sexual reproduction. Still very interesting and well thought out idea.

 

[NightHawk21]

I saw 'em, and it's a little depressing tbh. The mental gymnastics that modern christianity basically presupposes break your logic center.

Well I think Nighthawk might be a Christian, not entirely sure but at least he's got a pro-theist argument that's at least decent. The whole 'cultural context' thing is really easy to refute, but its still a more solid argument then Archtype's.

Not sure what to believe yet. Seems attributing oneself to a particular flag brings about more problems than its worth. Still can't argue that the bible for the most part provides a pretty decent model for leading a "good" life.

Again, I just say what I've learned and the conclusions I've drawn.

 

[NightHawk21]

Now I think this has gone on far enough. Firstly both of you calm down. Now since I don't feel like scrolling through 30 or so pages to find all the unquoted sections I only provide statements in relations to your last post Blind Sight. In relation to predating written history, you're probably right, but a lot of that has to do with your definition of marriage. If you consider it a relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating children than their is substantial evidence to support a monogamous lifestyle going back millions of years into our descendants, maybe as far as the Australopithecines. Marriage as a sacred union is a bit trickier to define since no single definition of God exists and a lot of religious texts have been lost.

Sacred does not specifically mean important to God or any particular religion (or as you and most other people seem to think solely Christianity). Also it is quite vital to remember that you have to think about the issues you address through the eyes of the people that lived during that time (Cultural Anthropology 101). It is perhaps important to remember that women were not even considered persons (legally) until not too long ago, and as such the trading of one's daughter to someone else to be his wife was a god way of drawing both families closer together. This strategy, I would like to point out has had a major impact on the breakdown of states in today's modern world due to colonization and the like, and has ended or halted quite a few wars. I would also like to point out that even nowadays couples in arranged marriages are just as happy as couples who married for love after 9 years, and the couples that married for love see a steeper drop in satisfaction than those whose unions were arranged.

For the next part I will use the religious point of view of the 2 largest religions (Christianity and Islam)(This view is also held by Judaism, but I can't say if any of the other religions have similar views). The holy book(s) were written by prophets, men who were spoken through by God. Now I understand you might not believe this but I'm telling you what the view of these religions is, that being said their is no concrete proof and no one is telling you what to believe (Also, just an fyi the Torah is the holy book of Judaism and basically contains 5 books of the old testament, the same one which is in the Bible. In addition, I would imagine that the Qur'an also contains a good deal about Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament seeing as how Islam broke away from Christianity after Jesus and considers him a prophet). I encourage you however to refrain from calling other as you did by the end of your paragraph as it doesn't do anything to support your case, as a good athiest or otherwise.

In addition, I would also like to point out that all the passages you referenced come from the Old Testament, which while is a part of the Bible, is not looked to as much as the New Testament (which was written after the death of Christ and is the foundation of Christianity, not the Old Testament). If you want a religious argument, it might be worth noting that entry into heaven was not possible until the death of Christ. It was only when Christ died and was resurrected that sins were forgiven and entry into heaven was granted. That being said it might stand to reason that striking fear into others might have seemed like a good way of keeping them in line more or less (A tactic employed by the Gods of many religions I would like to point out).

Now I realize that what I said won't change your mind and hell I'm not even saying you should, but I've attempted to provide you with a relatively thorough explanation to your issues. As I final word too, and one that applies to more than just you, I would encourage you guys to not just group Christians together and blast Christianity altogether. Not every Christian is as stubborn or a bigot like members of the Westboro Baptist Church. It seems unfair that you guys should rip on a whole religion just because of a select few bigots give it a bad name, especially when Christianity has given so many people hope when they've had nothing. Anyways to each their own, and if you wanna have an educated level headed debate, I'll be listening, but keep it civil, save the bitchin for something that's worth getting angry over.

Several points about this. Firstly, I wasn't the one who began the notion of 'sacred=From God' in the Christian context. That was Archtype who set down that little clause there, you can see it from the previous discussion and I did not challenge it for the sake of not over-complicating the debate. I do not considering sacred to be constructed from that notion. I discussed things in a Christian context because that's what Archtype was arguing for.

Secondly, you bring up cultural anthropology, which is a good call. But the excuse that 'you have to consider the cultural aspects of the times' completely refutes Archtype's use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality as well. If you can call ownership of women an aspect of the cultural context, then condemnation of homosexuality by 'God's will' can also be interpreted as an aspect of cultural context. That was my point by highlighting those various Bible verses at the end of my statement, obviously those practices are part of an older culture and I was inferring that the condemnation of homosexuality was of the same vein. This is what I meant by cherry picking passages from the Bible, all the terrible stuff in the Bible is in a 'cultural context' while everything that supports their own opinion is relevant. They can just hand-wave things they don't like because of cultural context. I reject that notion. If you're using the Bible as any kind of moral guideline and system, you'd better be ready to admit when even passages you favour are cultural context, which Archtype did not do.

Also, you don't need to lecture to me about the Torah and the Quran, I'm well aware of the history of both.

Thirdly, actually yes, if you are completely devoted to a religious text as truth and use it to back up your arguments with 'because God said so' you are an anti-intellectual slave. Surrendering to such a dogmatic stance completely invalidates any attempt at logic or reason. The use of 'God says so' is an immature stance that is simply you pushing away responsibility for your own opinions. It is a cowardly and irrational position. As other people have pointed on this thread, Archtype ignores critical thinking by using selective evidence in order to back up his claims. He hand-waves off criticism of his beliefs without actually considering them. Despite what you think from my post, I actually do consider the other side constantly. I'm a libertarian, but I don't treat Ayn Rand's works as dogmatic belief. I regularly read a communist newspaper called Spartacus and several liberal media blogs. I'm an atheist, but I've also read works such as 'the Signature of God' which attempts to explain how the Bible represents an absolute truth. I do consider the other side, but when I find their arguments lacking I will call them out on it. I mean, hell, go look up the 'when will religion die out?' thread where I actively defend the concept of spirituality against a more militant atheist (might be locked though). When Archtype completely dismisses subjective morality by saying that atheists changes their minds quickly (can be seen above in his discussion with someone else) this shows his lack of critical thinking or even his ability to comprehend what he's arguing against. I mean, just look at his counter-argument to the same statement that you quoted. It's filled with dogmatic faith that absolutely disregards actual evidence and he completely ignores points that confirmed by historians and theologists, such as mistranslations of the Bible. He then has the gall to call me ignorant of Biblical teachings despite offering no successful counterargument. His argument is not one of reason. It doesn't matter what your book of choice is: the Bible, Torah, the Communist Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, etc. if you use that as dogma that you feel somehow validates your opinion then yes, you are an anti-intellectual slave to a dogmatic faith.

Fourthly, your comment on the New Testament interests me. Have you read the New Testament? It has many questionable passages as well. For example, Jesus Christ shows support of slavery multiple times, including Ephesians 6:5, where he says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Of course you'll say this is merely cultural context again, but my point is this: how exactly do you determine what is cultural context and what isn't in the Bible? It seems that consistently its a case of 'when God says something good and moral, that's legitimate, when he says something bad or immoral to our standards, that's just cultural context.' This is a horribly questionable means of determining this and I reject it.

Also, to your comment about 'no proof': well, this is no problem when it is a personal belief in spirituality. But when you're attempting to force your own morality on other people, in this example, gay marriage, then yes, I expect you to have some evidence. Why should religion be immune to this? If it is an individual belief in some power or what-not, that's fine. But when you actively argue that society or institutions should be shaped towards your moral beliefs then yes, you require evidence. If Archtype doesn't want to marry a man, that's completely fine. But when he argues that other people should conform to his belief simply because it's in the Bible, he needs to back that up with some actual logic, not just 'lol secularism' and saying my points are wrong when they are not. I can back this shit up with academic, peer-reviewed sources, I doubt he can do the same.

Finally, note how I did not say anything openly against moderate Christians in general (cept possibly the cherry picking comment, but even you admit that cultural context is used to shift through passages). If someone reads the Bible, critically thinks about it, and accepts aspects of it as truth then I have no problem. But as I said before, the use of 'because of the Bible said so' reasoning is not an intellectual argument by any means. It's a dogmatic one. I did, however, offer up a critique on the relationship between modern Christians and the Bible, which you attempted to counter. I can't say that I haven't heard these arguments before and they can't be refuted easily, but your argument was far more effective then Archtype's because you did expand on your points with evidence that is actually legitimate. You stated theological facts, rather then just using the 'God said so' argument, which is a far more effective means. If you are Christian, you do attempt to convey your arguments constructively. What I don't understand is why you would back up someone who is clearly part of that group giving Christians a bad name. Why don't moderate Christians challenge the fundamentalists and the absolutists more? Instead, Archtype gets to use your post as a nice little defensive shield against criticism. If you guys really want atheists to stop grouping Christians together, take a stand and challenge the irrationalists.

Firstly, let me say, I like you sir, and I don't use sir lightly. I find it overwhelming welcome to find an intelligent intellectual to discuss with, and for that I thank you. I think however, the way in which I presented myself and as to where I interjected into yours and Archtype's argument may have put me in a tricky spot. Like I said before, I didn't read all the comments since this thread has 30 pages at the time of this post, so if it seems like I'm defending Archtype that certainly wasn't my intention. I try not to side with any one individual, but I pick a side, usually the one opposing the side who sees the strong support of knowledgeable individuals, in his case you. I argue for the sake of arguing, mainly because I like to. That being said lets get down to business.

1. I'm sorry I just defined it because I didn't know it had been brought up before, and it seemed like an issue that could be discussed.

2. Again, I'm not defending his view, I sought only to provide a reasonable argument to the issues you raised. Now I agree with you that the contents of the Bible were written in the past and as such their writers experienced a different set of cultural norms than we do now, and that the writings need to be examined in regard to those views, all the writings. However, for the sake of argument, I would like to point out that as Western culture has evolved some of the norms of out society have shifted away from those found within the bible, to the degree that they fall on opposite sides of the spectrum now. Taking that into consideration, it may be argued that some of the passages are no longer applicable due to changes in contemporary Western culture.

Not a number because you didn't put one here
It wasn't my intention to lecture you about the history of either of those holy books. This I admit was probably an oversight on my part relating specifically to the use of "how is it the word of God instead of these other works" in your post (the one I initially replied to), because they contain a lot of overlap, I always consider them together quite closely and I probably misunderstood that part. Sorry again.

3. All I have to say is that their are different ways of practicing each faith, resulting in more strict and less strict sects. Its not my place to judge how another person wishes to practice his religion. As for the rest with of the argument with Archtype, that's between the two of you. Besides it wouldn't be fair if I joined the other team.

4. See 2

In relation to "no proof":
I can't argue with you here. Everyone has a right to practice their own religion. That being said, if the country as a whole (or at least a vast majority) embraces a particular religion, it may be rationalized that the laws of that religion get incorporated into the laws of that country.

Finally
I didn't mean this argument at you specifically, I just felt it would have more weight on the end of a decent set of arguments. Again, I didn't do this to defend any individual on this side of the debate, I merely felt like having an educated argument. With that said, I can't stop Archtype from using it as a shield, even if that's not the reason for writing the post. Also internal struggles are never good for any group, but there are a lot of people who would seek to distance themselves from groups like the WBC.

This is Off-Topic from the main argument, but I realized I did not give my personal opinion on the issue. No supporting sides, just what I believe.

Personally, I think gay marriage should be legal. I see no problem with it. As long as no one tries to force it on me, what two people do in their own house is none of my concern. However, I don't think that any religious institution should have to agree to marry homosexuals if it goes against their beliefs. In addition, I personally am still debating the issue about whether homosexuals should be allowed to have kids, and am still undecided, but I'm slowly presenting arguments for and against in my head, till I reach some sort of conclusion.

 

[Archtype]

Now I think this has gone on far enough. Firstly both of you calm down. Now since I don't feel like scrolling through 30 or so pages to find all the unquoted sections I only provide statements in relations to your last post Blind Sight. In relation to predating written history, you're probably right, but a lot of that has to do with your definition of marriage. If you consider it a relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating children than their is substantial evidence to support a monogamous lifestyle going back millions of years into our descendants, maybe as far as the Australopithecines. Marriage as a sacred union is a bit trickier to define since no single definition of God exists and a lot of religious texts have been lost.

Sacred does not specifically mean important to God or any particular religion (or as you and most other people seem to think solely Christianity). Also it is quite vital to remember that you have to think about the issues you address through the eyes of the people that lived during that time (Cultural Anthropology 101). It is perhaps important to remember that women were not even considered persons (legally) until not too long ago, and as such the trading of one's daughter to someone else to be his wife was a god way of drawing both families closer together. This strategy, I would like to point out has had a major impact on the breakdown of states in today's modern world due to colonization and the like, and has ended or halted quite a few wars. I would also like to point out that even nowadays couples in arranged marriages are just as happy as couples who married for love after 9 years, and the couples that married for love see a steeper drop in satisfaction than those whose unions were arranged.

For the next part I will use the religious point of view of the 2 largest religions (Christianity and Islam)(This view is also held by Judaism, but I can't say if any of the other religions have similar views). The holy book(s) were written by prophets, men who were spoken through by God. Now I understand you might not believe this but I'm telling you what the view of these religions is, that being said their is no concrete proof and no one is telling you what to believe (Also, just an fyi the Torah is the holy book of Judaism and basically contains 5 books of the old testament, the same one which is in the Bible. In addition, I would imagine that the Qur'an also contains a good deal about Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament seeing as how Islam broke away from Christianity after Jesus and considers him a prophet). I encourage you however to refrain from calling other as you did by the end of your paragraph as it doesn't do anything to support your case, as a good athiest or otherwise.

In addition, I would also like to point out that all the passages you referenced come from the Old Testament, which while is a part of the Bible, is not looked to as much as the New Testament (which was written after the death of Christ and is the foundation of Christianity, not the Old Testament). If you want a religious argument, it might be worth noting that entry into heaven was not possible until the death of Christ. It was only when Christ died and was resurrected that sins were forgiven and entry into heaven was granted. That being said it might stand to reason that striking fear into others might have seemed like a good way of keeping them in line more or less (A tactic employed by the Gods of many religions I would like to point out).

Now I realize that what I said won't change your mind and hell I'm not even saying you should, but I've attempted to provide you with a relatively thorough explanation to your issues. As I final word too, and one that applies to more than just you, I would encourage you guys to not just group Christians together and blast Christianity altogether. Not every Christian is as stubborn or a bigot like members of the Westboro Baptist Church. It seems unfair that you guys should rip on a whole religion just because of a select few bigots give it a bad name, especially when Christianity has given so many people hope when they've had nothing. Anyways to each their own, and if you wanna have an educated level headed debate, I'll be listening, but keep it civil, save the bitchin for something that's worth getting angry over.

Several points about this. Firstly, I wasn't the one who began the notion of 'sacred=From God' in the Christian context. That was Archtype who set down that little clause there, you can see it from the previous discussion and I did not challenge it for the sake of not over-complicating the debate. I do not considering sacred to be constructed from that notion. I discussed things in a Christian context because that's what Archtype was arguing for.

Secondly, you bring up cultural anthropology, which is a good call. But the excuse that 'you have to consider the cultural aspects of the times' completely refutes Archtype's use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality as well. If you can call ownership of women an aspect of the cultural context, then condemnation of homosexuality by 'God's will' can also be interpreted as an aspect of cultural context. That was my point by highlighting those various Bible verses at the end of my statement, obviously those practices are part of an older culture and I was inferring that the condemnation of homosexuality was of the same vein. This is what I meant by cherry picking passages from the Bible, all the terrible stuff in the Bible is in a 'cultural context' while everything that supports their own opinion is relevant. They can just hand-wave things they don't like because of cultural context. I reject that notion. If you're using the Bible as any kind of moral guideline and system, you'd better be ready to admit when even passages you favour are cultural context, which Archtype did not do.

Also, you don't need to lecture to me about the Torah and the Quran, I'm well aware of the history of both.

Thirdly, actually yes, if you are completely devoted to a religious text as truth and use it to back up your arguments with 'because God said so' you are an anti-intellectual slave. Surrendering to such a dogmatic stance completely invalidates any attempt at logic or reason. The use of 'God says so' is an immature stance that is simply you pushing away responsibility for your own opinions. It is a cowardly and irrational position. As other people have pointed on this thread, Archtype ignores critical thinking by using selective evidence in order to back up his claims. He hand-waves off criticism of his beliefs without actually considering them. Despite what you think from my post, I actually do consider the other side constantly. I'm a libertarian, but I don't treat Ayn Rand's works as dogmatic belief. I regularly read a communist newspaper called Spartacus and several liberal media blogs. I'm an atheist, but I've also read works such as 'the Signature of God' which attempts to explain how the Bible represents an absolute truth. I do consider the other side, but when I find their arguments lacking I will call them out on it. I mean, hell, go look up the 'when will religion die out?' thread where I actively defend the concept of spirituality against a more militant atheist (might be locked though). When Archtype completely dismisses subjective morality by saying that atheists changes their minds quickly (can be seen above in his discussion with someone else) this shows his lack of critical thinking or even his ability to comprehend what he's arguing against. I mean, just look at his counter-argument to the same statement that you quoted. It's filled with dogmatic faith that absolutely disregards actual evidence and he completely ignores points that confirmed by historians and theologists, such as mistranslations of the Bible. He then has the gall to call me ignorant of Biblical teachings despite offering no successful counterargument. His argument is not one of reason. It doesn't matter what your book of choice is: the Bible, Torah, the Communist Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, etc. if you use that as dogma that you feel somehow validates your opinion then yes, you are an anti-intellectual slave to a dogmatic faith.

Fourthly, your comment on the New Testament interests me. Have you read the New Testament? It has many questionable passages as well. For example, Jesus Christ shows support of slavery multiple times, including Ephesians 6:5, where he says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Of course you'll say this is merely cultural context again, but my point is this: how exactly do you determine what is cultural context and what isn't in the Bible? It seems that consistently its a case of 'when God says something good and moral, that's legitimate, when he says something bad or immoral to our standards, that's just cultural context.' This is a horribly questionable means of determining this and I reject it.

Also, to your comment about 'no proof': well, this is no problem when it is a personal belief in spirituality. But when you're attempting to force your own morality on other people, in this example, gay marriage, then yes, I expect you to have some evidence. Why should religion be immune to this? If it is an individual belief in some power or what-not, that's fine. But when you actively argue that society or institutions should be shaped towards your moral beliefs then yes, you require evidence. If Archtype doesn't want to marry a man, that's completely fine. But when he argues that other people should conform to his belief simply because it's in the Bible, he needs to back that up with some actual logic, not just 'lol secularism' and saying my points are wrong when they are not. I can back this shit up with academic, peer-reviewed sources, I doubt he can do the same.

Finally, note how I did not say anything openly against moderate Christians in general (cept possibly the cherry picking comment, but even you admit that cultural context is used to shift through passages). If someone reads the Bible, critically thinks about it, and accepts aspects of it as truth then I have no problem. But as I said before, the use of 'because of the Bible said so' reasoning is not an intellectual argument by any means. It's a dogmatic one. I did, however, offer up a critique on the relationship between modern Christians and the Bible, which you attempted to counter. I can't say that I haven't heard these arguments before and they can't be refuted easily, but your argument was far more effective then Archtype's because you did expand on your points with evidence that is actually legitimate. You stated theological facts, rather then just using the 'God said so' argument, which is a far more effective means. If you are Christian, you do attempt to convey your arguments constructively. What I don't understand is why you would back up someone who is clearly part of that group giving Christians a bad name. Why don't moderate Christians challenge the fundamentalists and the absolutists more? Instead, Archtype gets to use your post as a nice little defensive shield against criticism. If you guys really want atheists to stop grouping Christians together, take a stand and challenge the irrationalists.

This is getting absurd, I am really starting to wonder if you actually read everything I say, or if you just try to imagine it in the most negative way possible.

I who started sacred = from God? Really? What other way is there to describe "sacred"? If you consider something being sacred you must believe in some sort of deity is the conclusion I was trying to reach when I brought that up. I am only saying that using the word sacred to describe a practice does not make much sense if you don't believe in any deity.

As I have stated numerous times. The only reason I started taking it from a Christian perspective is because anti-homosexuality always boils down to religion.

Rofl, wow, I'm ignoring critical thinking by using selective evidence? Where? When? I'll happily back up anything I have said with just as much "evidence" (lol) as you can conjure. Also, what makes you think I will not adhere to cultural context? Any half decent Bible scholar should be able to distinguish between a practice that God has ordered and the everyday weakness of another human being that the Bible depicts in its narrative. Unfortunately, it appears that is a very difficult thing to figure out for the vast majority of critics. You speak of cherry-picking but it simply depicts your own achieved level of hypocrisy, I very rarely hear specific critique of Bible verses without having hemorrhages from the lack of context. You continue to refer to the OT teachings when I have already stated that unless reinforced with NT teachings, I really could not care less.

Dogmatic faith? Sure, why not lol but it is faith established on reason. Show me your mistranslations and I will argue them. I would be most pleased to reason with your reason and show you that you must have just as much faith to NOT believe in a god, as I do in order to believe in a god. It is what all of these arguments boil down to eventually anyway.

I use the Bible to validate my opinion because there is evidence to support that the Bible is the ONLY thing that I need. When did I ever say that atheists change their mind over night on moral values? I was simply trying to make the point through reasoning that there is no true reason that an atheist should care about moral values.

When did I ever try to "force my beliefs" on anyone? We have just been having a debate and I was expressing views in accordance with the Bible. If anything you have been preaching to me and desperately trying to force me to accept your beliefs rofl. Which is incredibly ironic personally.

 

[kamcorder]

This is going slightly off-topic, but I just can't let this slide, and considering almost every contra-argument is based on religion, I have to do this:

Rofl, wow, I'm ignoring critical thinking by using selective evidence? Where? When? I'll happily back up anything I have said with just as much "evidence" (lol) as you can conjure. Also, what makes you think I will not adhere to cultural context? Any half decent Bible scholar should be able to distinguish between a practice that God has ordered and the everyday weakness of another human being that the Bible depicts in its narrative. Unfortunately, it appears that is a very difficult thing to figure out for the vast majority of critics. You speak of cherry-picking but it simply depicts your own achieved level of hypocrisy, I very rarely hear specific critique of Bible verses without having hemorrhages from the lack of context. You continue to refer to the OT teachings when I have already stated that unless reinforced with NT teachings, I really could not care less.

Well, Jesus said, he did not come to change any rules or laws made in the OT. If that's the case, every teaching from the OT that has not been talked about in the NT should still apply as a law by God. So, in your case I would stop eating lobsters.

Also, it's still cherry-picking: 200 years ago many passages in the Bible were considered God's word, even those, that we reject today. How do you know that these passages, that you still think of being God's word truly are God's word? Because you like them or what? Maybe they also aren't God's word?
In the end, it's still cherry-picking, which means, your arguments, based on a book, while you decide which passages are true and which not, are not good arguments.
No, wait... they aren't arguments, at all. It's just you, saying what you like and what you don't like.

Dogmatic faith? Sure, why not lol but it is faith established on reason. Show me your mistranslations and I will argue them. I would be most pleased to reason with your reason and show you that you must have just as much faith to NOT believe in a god, as I do in order to believe in a god. It is what all of these arguments boil down to eventually anyway.

I call BS on that one: You DON'T have to have just as much faith to not believe in God, as you do to believe in him. Do you need to have just as much faith to not believe in BigFoot, the Noch Less monster or leprechauns as you do to believe in them?

There is something called the burden of proof: The one making a claim has the burden of proof to show one's claim is true. As long as it has not been proven to be true, the most reasonable thing to do is to not believe the claim is true (note: i didn't say "believe it's wrong", because the possibility is still there, though unlikely), until proven otherwise.
And no, the Bible is not proof of the existence of God, as much as Joane K. Rowling's work is proof of the existence of Harry Potter.

So no, you don't require as much faith to not believe a thing, as to believe a thing.
And (just in case you'd make this argument) no, Atheism by the way is not a claim: They don't claim, there is no God (although some of them might). Atheism is a response to the theistic claim of "there is God", this response being "I have not seen enough evidence in favour of your claim, thus I don't believe you/it". Anything else like the claim "there is no God" is not atheism in and of itself (you might call it "gnostic atheism" or what not, but anything "gnostic" is total bollocks if you ask me).


And btw, maybe I sound like an atheist, but I'm more of a deist, really. As I said, if you argue about who needs more faith, yes, you do need more faith to believe in God than not to, so do I. Is it reasonable? As I said, no it's not, but it also depends on how much your belief affects your life. For example, if I said my name is John, technically it would be unreasonable to believe me, because I haven't shown any evidence for it yet. But because it doesn't really matter in the end (at least in an open forum it doesn't) it's not really that big of a deal (and btw, no, my name is not John).
As a deist, I don't have any specific dogma on which I base my actions like most religious people tend to do, so in the end, it doesn't really matter if my beliefs are reasonable or not. I just choose to believe so. In your case, if you base any kind of actions on the Bible, because you think, it's God's word, than your actions are quite unreasonable and in your case it does matter, considering you're just taking other people's word for it, while affecting other non-believers with your actions.

I use the Bible to validate my opinion because there is evidence to support that the Bible is the ONLY thing that I need. When did I ever say that atheists change their mind over night on moral values?

First off, I'd like to see that evidence please. A book that is kind of schizophrenic (i know, wrong definition of schizophrenia, but everybody uses it in this context) about it's moral teachings, that are nonetheless outdated (and i mean it as a whole, just because there are lines like "thou shall not kill" doesn't proof otherwise)is not really a good source for moral advice. Maybe for you, but not for a reasonable human being.
Secondly

I was simply trying to make the point through reasoning that there is no true reason that an atheist should care about moral values.

I don't know how it's over there in the US, but do you guys have any kind of ethics class in high school or are you just a rare case of the whole lot over there that has no idea about social structures of society, the social contract and how people don't go crazy, just because they have no god?

Let's begin with morality:
I know this is either going to blow your brain, because religious people tend to say "WHAT? If that's the case than everybody is going on a rampage!", or maybe somebody has already pointed that out and you just don't give a shit, but morality is subjective, not objective.

People define what is morally in/correct based on their own reasoning of what kind of restrictions/actions are beneficial/counterproductive to society as a whole. For example, killing is most of the time considered to be immoral, because if everybody would kill each other in a society and nobody would give a shit, the human race probably would not die out, but certainly begin to decrease in numbers, and we wouldn't have it easy to survive.
Humans are social beings, we have a better chance of survival when we work together than against each other; that's where morals come in.

That's the whole reasoning behind morals, as to "why Atheists don't go on a murderous rampage"? Because morals aren't made by God it doesn't really matter if someone believes in God or not. But in the end, it's called "social contract [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract]".For a quick explanation, what this contract stands for:

The notion of the social contract is that individuals unite into a society by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by certain rules and to accept duties to protect one another from violence, fraud, or negligence. Although developed for understanding human societies, sociobiologists have adapted it to societies of other social species or even to interspecies symbiotic relationships. Among humans, it implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.

People in a society are trying to uphold this contract by obeying the law, because they want the society to flurish so that they temselves have a better life.

This has of course nothing to do with morals per se, but if a society agrees on murder being immoral (as in "counterproductive for society") for example, a reasonable person, whether religious or not, is going to act according to societal standards to uphold this social contract.

To sum up, maybe atheists aren't accountable for their actions to God, but they are accountable to other people.
That's really it.


Of course my abrevation of the whole social contract- idea is very short and I possibly left out a lot of arguments, explanations and what not, but I'm not gonna' hold an ethics class on the forums just for your education: Look it up on Wikipedia and other sites, go to your ethics class or read a book about ethics. It's not always as easy as saying "God did it".
It's a very broad subject, but in the end, God is not required for a person to have any kind of morals (justifiable ones or not), and so God is also not required for a person to act according to these own morals.

Also, the whole concept of morality being objective because God said so (which would be subjective after all, but anyway) is totally idiotic. That's what I guess Blind Sight was trying to tell through that one paradox (which name i've forgotten).
If God decides what's moral, and what's not, what would you do, if God said, raping and killing children is a-ok? You can't argue that would be immoral, because than you would have a morality that is outside of God, thus making God in the whole morality issue unnecessary.
And if you'd say, "well if God says so, who am I to judge", then you are immoral.

And I think somebody pointed this out already, but, if you say, you are only moral because you believe in God, you are also stating that you yourself are immoral without the possible punishment for being immoral and the possible reward for being moral given out by God.

When did I ever try to "force my beliefs" on anyone? We have just been having a debate and I was expressing views in accordance with the Bible.

Kudos for not forcing your beliefs on others.
Btw, what kind of world do we live in to give out a kudos to people for not forcing their beliefs on someone else? (don't answer my question, it's a rhetorical one)

If anything you have been preaching to me and desperately trying to force me to accept your beliefs rofl. Which is incredibly ironic personally.

?
If you define his arguing as preaching and forcing you to believe him, firstly, so what? Regardless of that being a poor definition of preaching and forcing somenone to believe it, that's what discussions are about. Talking and trying to convince somebody with arguments, while being open to someone else's reasoning and his/her arguments.
Secondly, you are doing the same by participating in this discussion. You aren't really in a position to critisize him about a non-issue you are doing yourself.
And thirdly, he said, if you have an impact on other people, like voting in favor of prop 8 or something like that, than your are forcing your beliefs on others. Likewise, even if you don't go vote against gay marriage, if you encourage other people to vote against it, you are still imposing your beliefs on others, whether directly or indirectly.






Also,could you explain to me one thing from the religious point of view:
Why does God hate gay people? I still don't get it. I always hear "Because it's in the Bible" or some other argument that is either illogical ("it's unnatural!" No, it's not, and so is medicine and vaccines for that matter, so what? Unnatural =!= Immoral) or circular("it's in the Bible, because it's God's word, because it's in the Bible; etc."), but really?
Shouldn't God at least have some kind of explanation for why gay people should be stoned to death and then go to hell? If you are a reasonable person, you shouldn't accept someone else's reasoning without explanation, just because of his authority (in this case the authority being God).


And one last advice, if you want people to take you seriously, stop using things like "lol" or "rolf", or at least write them between brackets (like you did in one case).It just takes a part of your credibility if you write them mid-sentence. Abrevations are fine, but this is just a little bit annoying.




Edit: wow, I think I wrote a little bit too much for my first post...so yeah, Hi Escapist forums!

 

[Blind Sight]

Firstly, let me say, I like you sir, and I don't use sir lightly. I find it overwhelming welcome to find an intelligent intellectual to discuss with, and for that I thank you. I think however, the way in which I presented myself and as to where I interjected into yours and Archtype's argument may have put me in a tricky spot. Like I said before, I didn't read all the comments since this thread has 30 pages at the time of this post, so if it seems like I'm defending Archtype that certainly wasn't my intention. I try not to side with any one individual, but I pick a side, usually the one opposing the side who sees the strong support of knowledgeable individuals, in his case you. I argue for the sake of arguing, mainly because I like to. That being said lets get down to business.

1. I'm sorry I just defined it because I didn't know it had been brought up before, and it seemed like an issue that could be discussed.

2. Again, I'm not defending his view, I sought only to provide a reasonable argument to the issues you raised. Now I agree with you that the contents of the Bible were written in the past and as such their writers experienced a different set of cultural norms than we do now, and that the writings need to be examined in regard to those views, all the writings. However, for the sake of argument, I would like to point out that as Western culture has evolved some of the norms of out society have shifted away from those found within the bible, to the degree that they fall on opposite sides of the spectrum now. Taking that into consideration, it may be argued that some of the passages are no longer applicable due to changes in contemporary Western culture.

Not a number because you didn't put one here
It wasn't my intention to lecture you about the history of either of those holy books. This I admit was probably an oversight on my part relating specifically to the use of "how is it the word of God instead of these other works" in your post (the one I initially replied to), because they contain a lot of overlap, I always consider them together quite closely and I probably misunderstood that part. Sorry again.

3. All I have to say is that their are different ways of practicing each faith, resulting in more strict and less strict sects. Its not my place to judge how another person wishes to practice his religion. As for the rest with of the argument with Archtype, that's between the two of you. Besides it wouldn't be fair if I joined the other team.

4. See 2

In relation to "no proof":
I can't argue with you here. Everyone has a right to practice their own religion. That being said, if the country as a whole (or at least a vast majority) embraces a particular religion, it may be rationalized that the laws of that religion get incorporated into the laws of that country.

Finally
I didn't mean this argument at you specifically, I just felt it would have more weight on the end of a decent set of arguments. Again, I didn't do this to defend any individual on this side of the debate, I merely felt like having an educated argument. With that said, I can't stop Archtype from using it as a shield, even if that's not the reason for writing the post. Also internal struggles are never good for any group, but there are a lot of people who would seek to distance themselves from groups like the WBC.

This is Off-Topic from the main argument, but I realized I did not give my personal opinion on the issue. No supporting sides, just what I believe.

Personally, I think gay marriage should be legal. I see no problem with it. As long as no one tries to force it on me, what two people do in their own house is none of my concern. However, I don't think that any religious institution should have to agree to marry homosexuals if it goes against their beliefs. In addition, I personally am still debating the issue about whether homosexuals should be allowed to have kids, and am still undecided, but I'm slowly presenting arguments for and against in my head, till I reach some sort of conclusion.

Good points, the only thing I completely disagree with is the notion of incorporating religious laws into a country's legal system if there is some kind of large majority. For some systems, that's a logical conclusion, but in the context of a liberal democracy it creates what is known as the 'dictatorship of the majority' argued by Mills. As John Rawls puts forward in his work Political Liberalism, a liberal democracy must construct itself on a system of overlapping rational comprehensive doctrines in order to ensure some kind of legitimacy. Any doctrine that accepts the 'laws of the land' is welcomed but not openly supported by the government. Attempting to broadly apply any kind of legal measures based on the subjective morality of a faith undermines this key principle by ensuring that justice is a concept based on the biased viewpoints of a group, and not on a solid objective backing. The ideal of 'justice as fairness' is an important institution within a liberal democracy, and installing measures based on religion is very counteractive to this notion. The result is a rejection of the system by those who do not share the beliefs of the majority.

As to my third point, that was just a response to your statement that I should not say things like 'anti-intellectual slave' so broadly. I feel I fully detailed what it is to be an anti-intellectual slave in that paragraph for the sake of definition.

This is getting absurd, I am really starting to wonder if you actually read everything I say, or if you just try to imagine it in the most negative way possible.

I who started sacred = from God? Really? What other way is there to describe "sacred"? If you consider something being sacred you must believe in some sort of deity is the conclusion I was trying to reach when I brought that up. I am only saying that using the word sacred to describe a practice does not make much sense if you don't believe in any deity.

As I have stated numerous times. The only reason I started taking it from a Christian perspective is because anti-homosexuality always boils down to religion.

Rofl, wow, I'm ignoring critical thinking by using selective evidence? Where? When? I'll happily back up anything I have said with just as much "evidence" (lol) as you can conjure. Also, what makes you think I will not adhere to cultural context? Any half decent Bible scholar should be able to distinguish between a practice that God has ordered and the everyday weakness of another human being that the Bible depicts in its narrative. Unfortunately, it appears that is a very difficult thing to figure out for the vast majority of critics. You speak of cherry-picking but it simply depicts your own achieved level of hypocrisy, I very rarely hear specific critique of Bible verses without having hemorrhages from the lack of context. You continue to refer to the OT teachings when I have already stated that unless reinforced with NT teachings, I really could not care less.

Dogmatic faith? Sure, why not lol but it is faith established on reason. Show me your mistranslations and I will argue them. I would be most pleased to reason with your reason and show you that you must have just as much faith to NOT believe in a god, as I do in order to believe in a god. It is what all of these arguments boil down to eventually anyway.

I use the Bible to validate my opinion because there is evidence to support that the Bible is the ONLY thing that I need. When did I ever say that atheists change their mind over night on moral values? I was simply trying to make the point through reasoning that there is no true reason that an atheist should care about moral values.

When did I ever try to "force my beliefs" on anyone? We have just been having a debate and I was expressing views in accordance with the Bible. If anything you have been preaching to me and desperately trying to force me to accept your beliefs rofl. Which is incredibly ironic personally.

Fine, I'll explain what sacred actually means. Sacred has multiple definitions. Sacred can also infer reverence in a non-religious context as well. Respecting the graves of great men, for example, is treating them in a 'sacred' manner, even if you are not religious. It has nothing to do with a religion, it has to do with respecting the person and their memory enough that you believe they deserve it. By dictionary definition, sacred does not instantly infer a religious context, despite your viewpoint.

By your 'any half-decent Biblical scholar' comment it's just proof that it is a case of cherry-picking. Tell me, how do they successfully determine what is the weakness of men and what is the practices of God? What is their process of determining which is which? There is no objective means to do so, therefore, it is a purely subjective field (reading the Bible in this context also proves that Christians are just as subjective as atheists in their morality but I think I'll avoid that point for now) that requires the personal bias of scholars in order to determine what they believe is relevant and what is not. There is no way to separate out the 'word of God' from the cultural context in any sort of 'true' manner, and thus, yes, it is a system of cherry picking based on personalized preference of documentation. As Dr. Peter Beyer (theologist at the University of Ottawa) put it: "Get a dozen Biblical scholars in one room and there will be a dozen different versions of what God truly means in a single passage."

The argument that atheism requires just as much faith as religion has been discredited many, many times. Put it this way, the question of 'Is there a God?' has two basic answers: Yes (the theist, or positive response) and No (the atheist, or negative response). Since there is no solid, physical evidence of any kind that points to a God existing, the negative response is the conclusion that can be drawn via Burden of Proof analysis. The positive response is the one that requires proof, because it is inferring something exists, while the negative response is the initial template due to the lack of evidence. Atheism isn't about having faith that there's no supernatural beings, its about LACKING faith in any of them. Do you have faith that the world is not flat, or that the sky isn't just a painted ceiling? No, you come to that conclusion based on the lack of evidence for both. If you can't see the distinction between 'faith' and 'lack of faith' then there's really no point in discussing it.

"I use the Bible to validate my opinion because there is evidence to support that the Bible is the ONLY thing that I need." Well that's just poor reasoning based on an overly biased viewpoint. You're drawing what's known as a 'pre-determined conclusion'. Basically, you draw your conclusion before you actually critically analyze any kind of evidence (alternatively, it is also a case of taking initial evidence at face value, and then drawing a conclusion while lacking the greater picture), and instead then use selective evidence to support your pre-determined conclusion that the Bible is the only thing you need. There's also a lot of evidence to support that the Bible is NOT the only thing you need, but you ignore that because of your pre-determined conclusion.

"If anything you have been preaching to me and desperately trying to force me to accept your beliefs rofl." Um, no. If that's the conclusion you've gotten then clearly you haven't been reading my posts. What I am asking you to do is to prove your reasoning with something OTHER then the Bible (well that and pointing out all the fallacies in your logic). As I said to Nighthawk, if you don't want to marry a man, that's fine. If you don't want your religion to marry homosexuals, that's fine. But when you're discussing a form of marriage that extends into secular society you have to back up your viewpoints with more then just your religious views. I don't think anyone here is talking about forcing religions to marry gay people. This thread is about state marriage/'civil unions' which is a legally defined form of marriage. That is to say that it is an established concept of civil society, and thus has as much legitimacy as any form of religious marriage. Obviously you can argue the point that marriage has been traditionally a religious concept, but the fact is that governments have had legislation detailing marriage as far back as Hammurabi. Marriage can be a secular concept as much as it can be a religious concept. And when it's a case of secular marriage, religious reasoning does not work as a concrete argument.

 

[Archtype]

This is going slightly off-topic, but I just can't let this slide, and considering almost every contra-argument is based on religion, I have to do this:

Rofl, wow, I'm ignoring critical thinking by using selective evidence? Where? When? I'll happily back up anything I have said with just as much "evidence" (lol) as you can conjure. Also, what makes you think I will not adhere to cultural context? Any half decent Bible scholar should be able to distinguish between a practice that God has ordered and the everyday weakness of another human being that the Bible depicts in its narrative. Unfortunately, it appears that is a very difficult thing to figure out for the vast majority of critics. You speak of cherry-picking but it simply depicts your own achieved level of hypocrisy, I very rarely hear specific critique of Bible verses without having hemorrhages from the lack of context. You continue to refer to the OT teachings when I have already stated that unless reinforced with NT teachings, I really could not care less.

Well, Jesus said, he did not come to change any rules or laws made in the OT. If that's the case, every teaching from the OT that has not been talked about in the NT should still apply as a law by God. So, in your case I would stop eating lobsters.

Show me the passage where he stated that he did not come to change any rules or laws made in the OT. I think I already know, but just to make sure.

Also, it's still cherry-picking: 200 years ago many passages in the Bible were considered God's word, even those, that we reject today. How do you know that these passages, that you still think of being God's word truly are God's word? Because you like them or what? Maybe they also aren't God's word?
In the end, it's still cherry-picking, which means, your arguments, based on a book, while you decide which passages are true and which not, are not good arguments.
No, wait... they aren't arguments, at all. It's just you, saying what you like and what you don't like.

My friend, you are lumping me into a group that should be considered autonomous. So basically what someone else thinks is true does not necessarily fly with me. Which passages am I allegedly rejecting?

I call BS on that one: You DON'T have to have just as much faith to not believe in God, as you do to believe in him. Do you need to have just as much faith to not believe in BigFoot, the Noch Less monster or leprechauns as you do to believe in them?

Bit of a leap? Bigfoot claims do not have mountains of archeological evidence supporting them. Not to mention that there are many historical eyewitness accounts that reinforce the NT's narrative.

There is something called the burden of proof: The one making a claim has the burden of proof to show one's claim is true. As long as it has not been proven to be true, the most reasonable thing to do is to not believe the claim is true (note: i didn't say "believe it's wrong", because the possibility is still there, though unlikely), until proven otherwise.
And no, the Bible is not proof of the existence of God, as much as Joane K. Rowling's work is proof of the existence of Harry Potter.

If that is the case then nothing can be "proven", or at least to the degree that there is no doubt whatsoever. Especially your argument/philosophy thus far.

So no, you don't require as much faith to not believe a thing, as to believe a thing.
And (just in case you'd make this argument) no, Atheism by the way is not a claim: They don't claim, there is no God (although some of them might). Atheism is a response to the theistic claim of "there is God", this response being "I have not seen enough evidence in favour of your claim, thus I don't believe you/it". Anything else like the claim "there is no God" is not atheism in and of itself (you might call it "gnostic atheism" or what not, but anything "gnostic" is total bollocks if you ask me).

Atheism cannot be proven, the existence of God can not be dis-proven. You can call it what you wish, but Atheism is still a philosophy on life, which in turn makes it a belief. Because you believe it is correct.

And btw, maybe I sound like an atheist, but I'm more of a deist, really. As I said, if you argue about who needs more faith, yes, you do need more faith to believe in God than not to, so do I. Is it reasonable? As I said, no it's not, but it also depends on how much your belief affects your life. For example, if I said my name is John, technically it would be unreasonable to believe me, because I haven't shown any evidence for it yet. But because it doesn't really matter in the end (at least in an open forum it doesn't) it's not really that big of a deal (and btw, no, my name is not John).
As a deist, I don't have any specific dogma on which I base my actions like most religious people tend to do, so in the end, it doesn't really matter if my beliefs are reasonable or not. I just choose to believe so. In your case, if you base any kind of actions on the Bible, because you think, it's God's word, than your actions are quite unreasonable and in your case it does matter, considering you're just taking other people's word for it, while affecting other non-believers with your actions.

I use the Bible to validate my opinion because there is evidence to support that the Bible is the ONLY thing that I need. When did I ever say that atheists change their mind over night on moral values?

First off, I'd like to see that evidence please. A book that is kind of schizophrenic (i know, wrong definition of schizophrenia, but everybody uses it in this context) about it's moral teachings, that are nonetheless outdated (and i mean it as a whole, just because there are lines like "thou shall not kill" doesn't proof otherwise)is not really a good source for moral advice. Maybe for you, but not for a reasonable human being.
Secondly

I was simply trying to make the point through reasoning that there is no true reason that an atheist should care about moral values.

I don't know how it's over there in the US, but do you guys have any kind of ethics class in high school or are you just a rare case of the whole lot over there that has no idea about social structures of society, the social contract and how people don't go crazy, just because they have no god?

Come on man, try harder to insult me without insulting me. It is so amusing when small people like you attempt to make themselves look intelligent by throwing in degrading remarks.

Anyway, first off I am a bit tired of being on the defensive. So I'll try to make this short. Please, show me some NT teachings that are outdated and not fit for "modern morals", ugh such a disgusting phrase. As if morality changes.

Ah yes, a jab at America. Classic. What a clown. Come on, lets keep it civil please. These pointless little side remarks are so childish. I mean, did your mother never get around to teaching you manners?

Let's begin with morality:
I know this is either going to blow your brain, because religious people tend to say "WHAT? If that's the case than everybody is going on a rampage!", or maybe somebody has already pointed that out and you just don't give a shit, but morality is subjective, not objective.

People define what is morally in/correct based on their own reasoning of what kind of restrictions/actions are beneficial/counterproductive to society as a whole. For example, killing is most of the time considered to be immoral, because if everybody would kill each other in a society and nobody would give a shit, the human race probably would not die out, but certainly begin to decrease in numbers, and we wouldn't have it easy to survive.
Humans are social beings, we have a better chance of survival when we work together than against each other; that's where morals come in.

That's the whole reasoning behind morals, as to "why Atheists don't go on a murderous rampage"? Because morals aren't made by God it doesn't really matter if someone believes in God or not. But in the end, it's called "social contract [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract]".For a quick explanation, what this contract stands for:

The notion of the social contract is that individuals unite into a society by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by certain rules and to accept duties to protect one another from violence, fraud, or negligence. Although developed for understanding human societies, sociobiologists have adapted it to societies of other social species or even to interspecies symbiotic relationships. Among humans, it implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.

People in a society are trying to uphold this contract by obeying the law, because they want the society to flurish so that they temselves have a better life.

This has of course nothing to do with morals per se, but if a society agrees on murder being immoral (as in "counterproductive for society") for example, a reasonable person, whether religious or not, is going to act according to societal standards to uphold this social contract.

To sum up, maybe atheists aren't accountable for their actions to God, but they are accountable to other people.
That's really it.


Of course my abrevation of the whole social contract- idea is very short and I possibly left out a lot of arguments, explanations and what not, but I'm not gonna' hold an ethics class on the forums just for your education: Look it up on Wikipedia and other sites, go to your ethics class or read a book about ethics. It's not always as easy as saying "God did it".
It's a very broad subject, but in the end, God is not required for a person to have any kind of morals (justifiable ones or not), and so God is also not required for a person to act according to these own morals.

Also, the whole concept of morality being objective because God said so (which would be subjective after all, but anyway) is totally idiotic. That's what I guess Blind Sight was trying to tell through that one paradox (which name i've forgotten).
If God decides what's moral, and what's not, what would you do, if God said, raping and killing children is a-ok? You can't argue that would be immoral, because than you would have a morality that is outside of God, thus making God in the whole morality issue unnecessary.
And if you'd say, "well if God says so, who am I to judge", then you are immoral.

And I think somebody pointed this out already, but, if you say, you are only moral because you believe in God, you are also stating that you yourself are immoral without the possible punishment for being immoral and the possible reward for being moral given out by God.

That was a gob-full, no doubt. I appreciate you leaving out the rest of the explanation as I was already familiar with the "contract" and it made for a very dull read. Okay first of all, I think if an all powerful being that created every atom we posses states that something is now "wrong" that is normally "right" we would not be in a righteous uproar about it. Considering basic truths like "don't kill" are things people generally don't question, I believe the aforementioned being would just instantly program our preference to his will and we would not even have a clue. The type of God that I believe to exist is objective, which means what he says is automatically objective. If a being allegedly creates the universe and everything inside, it stands to reason that he makes the rules. Both physically (like gravity) and mentally (like morals). Stating that this same being (GIVEN THAT THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE) can be what we would consider "wrong" or "mistaken" is thus very, very, very silly.

When did I ever try to "force my beliefs" on anyone? We have just been having a debate and I was expressing views in accordance with the Bible.

Kudos for not forcing your beliefs on others.
Btw, what kind of world do we live in to give out a kudos to people for not forcing their beliefs on someone else? (don't answer my question, it's a rhetorical one)

If anything you have been preaching to me and desperately trying to force me to accept your beliefs rofl. Which is incredibly ironic personally.

?
If you define his arguing as preaching and forcing you to believe him, firstly, so what? Regardless of that being a poor definition of preaching and forcing somenone to believe it, that's what discussions are about. Talking and trying to convince somebody with arguments, while being open to someone else's reasoning and his/her arguments.
Secondly, you are doing the same by participating in this discussion. You aren't really in a position to critisize him about a non-issue you are doing yourself.
And thirdly, he said, if you have an impact on other people, like voting in favor of prop 8 or something like that, than your are forcing your beliefs on others. Likewise, even if you don't go vote against gay marriage, if you encourage other people to vote against it, you are still imposing your beliefs on others, whether directly or indirectly.

[/quote]

Yay! And the beauty of this entire paragraph ladies and gentlemen is that you can turn the entire thing around and repeat it right back to them!

Also,could you explain to me one thing from the religious point of view:
Why does God hate gay people? I still don't get it. I always hear "Because it's in the Bible" or some other argument that is either illogical ("it's unnatural!" No, it's not, and so is medicine and vaccines for that matter, so what? Unnatural =!= Immoral) or circular("it's in the Bible, because it's God's word, because it's in the Bible; etc."), but really?
Shouldn't God at least have some kind of explanation for why gay people should be stoned to death and then go to hell? If you are a reasonable person, you shouldn't accept someone else's reasoning without explanation, just because of his authority (in this case the authority being God).

I would be honored to educate you my dear boy. First of all, (I know this is going to literally make your head implode) please read the following quote.

"Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the LORD,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,? says the LORD.
?For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts."

In case this passage just went completely over your head, and you don't quite understand my point, please allow me to clarify. God is basically telling us that we are fairly thick and ignorant.

Why is it that it is more "intelligent" to believe in a human's definition of right/wrong? Especially when history tells us that humans are complete idiots in general when it comes down to wise decisions. Why is it at least not equally reasonable to believe in a set of rules that has been laid down by an almighty infallible being? At least I can say that I have some kind of foundation.

And one last advice, if you want people to take you seriously, stop using things like "lol" or "rolf", or at least write them between brackets (like you did in one case).It just takes a part of your credibility if you write them mid-sentence. Abrevations are fine, but this is just a little bit annoying.

And one last bit of advice, if you want people to take you seriously, stop acting the part of a snobby little brat and simply state your opinion. Instead of throwing in little insults and jabs in the hope that you will appear intelligent. Halfway through your argument I was completely dis-enchanted due to this.

 

[kamcorder]

Show me the passage where he stated that he did not come to change any rules or laws made in the OT. I think I already know, but just to make sure.

Matthew 5:17-19

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You still shouldn't eat lobsters.

My friend, you are lumping me into a group that should be considered autonomous. So basically what someone else thinks is true does not necessarily fly with me. Which passages am I allegedly rejecting?

You don't care what other people think is true? But that's the whole foundation on which you base your morals at! You are pointing towards the Bible, a book, written by people 2000/4000 years ago, what they think God's views are.

Also, I don't know what kind of things you reject from the NT, but I know that you reject the OT, which already proves my case. Centuries ago, people considered the OT as God's word, today many christians don't, but also many christians do. It's still cherry-picking, what you consider to be God's word and what you don't, qed.

Also, did you know that the oldest document in the NT was written approx. 50-70 years after Jesus' Death? Additionally to that, up from the 4th century, the Bible was rewritten(i.e. passages were taken out or phrased differently) to fit to the agenda of the christians at the time? So even if it were God's word (which is highly doubtable) it still got changed over time.

Bit of a leap? Bigfoot claims do not have mountains of archeological evidence supporting them. Not to mention that there are many historical eyewitness accounts that reinforce the NT's narrative.

There is no evidence supporting any of the miracles mentioned in the Bible. Heck, people are even debating if Jesus himself existed or not, let alone if his miracles were real.
And eyewitnesses? Really? Even today's eyewitnesses aren't worth much, let alone those 2000 years ago. Also, you do realize that people sometimes lie? Maybe those 2000 year old documents aren't true.

If that is the case then nothing can be "proven", or at least to the degree that there is no doubt whatsoever. Especially your argument/philosophy thus far.

Exactly, you finally got it!

Atheism cannot be proven, the existence of God can not be dis-proven. You can call it what you wish, but Atheism is still a philosophy on life, which in turn makes it a belief. Because you believe it is correct.

...or not.
First off, a belief might be a philosophy on life, but not vice versa. You can have a philosophy on life without having a belief.
And your "Because you believe it is correct." doesn't work at all. Is your "belief" (which is a belief according to your definitions) that BigFoot doesn't exist ABigFootism? That is ridiculous.

Secondly, atheism is not a claim. It's a position on the theisitc claim.
I'll give you an anology to understand it better:

Imagine, I tell you, that I have 5$ in my pocket. Then I ask you if you believe me or not. You could say, you believe that I have 5$ (theism), or you could say, you don't believe me to have 5$ (atheism).
If you say, you don't believe me, you are not saying, that I don't have any money on me, you are just saying, there is not enough evidence to support my claim. In other words, you don't believe, but are inclined to believe me, when I show you evidence. You are not saying, it's impossible for me to have 5$ (that would be a claim).

And if you'll say "Well, if you don't know if there is a God, you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic" you are partially wrong and partially right.

Gnosticism is about knowledge, Theism about belief, both are not mutually exclusive.

A gnostic theist states, he not only believes in God, but he also knows he exists.
An agnostic theist states, he believes in God, but he can't be sure if he does exist.
An agnostic atheist states, he doesn't believe in God, but he can't be sure there is no god.
A gnostic atheist states, he not only doesn't believe in God, he also knows he doesn't exist.

In other words, both gnostic sides are making a claim. If it's about atheism and theism, regardless of gnosticism, the theistic side is making a claim, the atheistic side is dismissing it, because it has not shown any proof (yet).

As I already said, the gnostic stance on both sides is ludicrous, because, even though there is no evidence to support either claim, both sides think most of the time, that this question is not open for discussion (thankfully, most people are agnostics than gnostic, otherwise that would be a horrible world...).
That being said, the theistic side always claims the existence of God, thus they have the burden of proof.
The atheistic side only responses to that claim with "I don't believe you, show me evidence, then I'll believe you".

Come on man, try harder to insult me without insulting me. It is so amusing when small people like you attempt to make themselves look intelligent by throwing in degrading remarks.

Anyway, first off I am a bit tired of being on the defensive. So I'll try to make this short. Please, show me some NT teachings that are outdated and not fit for "modern morals", ugh such a disgusting phrase. As if morality changes.

Ah yes, a jab at America. Classic. What a clown. Come on, lets keep it civil please. These pointless little side remarks are so childish. I mean, did your mother never get around to teaching you manners?

I wasn't "jabbing" America. You yourself know that the education in high schools in the US is not really of highest quality, and I was only asking if you guys have ethics classes in high school. It would be unfair of me to presume you have that kind of knowledge, if you didn't have it as a curriculum in high school, that's why I spent 3 whole paragraphs explaining the social contract and morality. As a foreigner to your country, I have no idea about the curriculum in American high schools, don't take my lack of knowledge about that subject as an insult.

And insulting? Because I said you are unreasonable? Maybe I should have clarified in saying "unreasonable in regards to morals", but my point still stands.

You are basing your morals on a book that is 2000-4000 years old, was rewritten many times over the centuries and has immoral stances on a lot of issues. Also,you don't even know if these are God's word, let alone if God exists.

So yeah, if you are going through life, basing all your actions and all your morals on a book, just because someone told you it's God's word, then yes, you are being unreasonable. And how is that an insult? I'm unreasonable on many things, mostly in believing in God, the same way you are unreasonable on your stance of morality. Only you being unreasonable has an impact on other people's lives, while my unreasonableness is just between me and a possibly imaginary being, that's why I'm pointing yours out.

And outdated NT :

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

As much as I know, we're in the 21st century, where slavery is illegal and frowned upon.

That was a gob-full, no doubt. I appreciate you leaving out the rest of the explanation as I was already familiar with the "contract" and it made for a very dull read. Okay first of all, I think if an all powerful being that created every atom we posses states that something is now "wrong" that is normally "right" we would not be in a righteous uproar about it. Considering basic truths like "don't kill" are things people generally don't question, I believe the aforementioned being would just instantly program our preference to his will and we would not even have a clue. The type of God that I believe to exist is objective, which means what he says is automatically objective. If a being allegedly creates the universe and everything inside, it stands to reason that he makes the rules. Both physically (like gravity) and mentally (like morals). Stating that this same being (GIVEN THAT THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE) can be what we would consider "wrong" or "mistaken" is thus very, very, very silly.

If you already knew this, than why did you ask why atheists are acting according to their morals?

Even if this social contract theory might be "not true" (which I highly doubt, so do most people), you at least know there are atheists and other people out there who "believe" (I can't believe I'm using this word in this context) this stuff. So why did you ask in the first place? Kind of a redundant question to ask, unless you'd like to smear them in an open debate, where most people don't know anything about the "social contract".


Also, was that your answer to the Euthyphro dilemma ( I actually found the name), being, is something moral because God said so, or is it moral and God is just pointing it out?
Your answer being, because God created the universe, he's the ultimate moral judge, and anything he says is moral? Regardless of his existence, you just said you yourself are immoral. If for example you'd think God would say it's moral to rape and kill children, you wouldn't condemn it, because God says so.
Just for the record: Might =!= right.

And why did God create us with "something" "right" and "wrong"? Why not only right? He is all powerful, is he not? He could do such a thing. And what is this something?

And by the way: Do you believe in a literal hell? It seems like it. How can you say, God is moral, when he punishes his own creation for something he himself did? After all, as an example, God said we should use our wisdom he granted us, why should he condemn an atheist, for the only thing he did was using his wisdom to see, there is no reason to believe in God (note: not to see, there is no god!)? Why is he condemning gay people, for the way they were born/created?
Why is he condemning people, at all? Did he not love the sinner, hate the sin? Shouldn't he be able to seperate the sinner from the sin after their death to grant him a way to God? He is allmighty after all, it's not about the question of possibility.
Or, better yet, why is he incapable of forgiving the sinner all his sins? I thought he was all loving and allmighty? He surely could do it, why doesn't he? He loves his creation, wouldn't a loving father give his "lost" son everything he could to help him, even after his death, even if the son didn't come back while he was still alive? Wouldn't a loving father forgive his son, even for all the mistakes he did during his lifetime, but had not the possibility to repent for his sins?

There are just so many fallacies if you cling to both ideas of God loving all of his creation and God punishing them for all eternity, because punishing someone for a finite crime for all eternity is in and of itself an immoral act.

Yay! And the beauty of this entire paragraph ladies and gentlemen is that you can turn the entire thing around and repeat it right back to them!

Of course the difference being, that we don't have opinions about restricting other people's rights, while you do.

Of course you said you wouldn't go vote against gay marriage, but your opinion is still intolerant and ignorant and is shared by all of the people that are voting against it. So you, going on the internet to state your opinion, are also working, though indirectly, against gay marriage.

I would be honored to educate you my dear boy. First of all, (I know this is going to literally make your head implode) please read the following quote.

"Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the LORD,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD.
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts."

In case this passage just went completely over your head, and you don't quite understand my point, please allow me to clarify. God is basically telling us that we are fairly thick and ignorant.

So in conclusion, "God moves in mysterious ways", and we are to thick to understand this. I thought you said he "programmed" morality into us? If he did, he clearly sucks at programming.
You are also saying, that God is incapable of explaining morality to us human beings. If we're to stupid to understand his teachings, he either should have made us more intelligent or he should work on his social skills, so that he could better explain it to us. In the end, it just shows how God is not perfect, so why take morals from a being that isn't perfect?
Scratch that, why even bother taking morals from an authority, without thinking for yourself?

Why is it that it is more "intelligent" to believe in a human's definition of right/wrong? Especially when history tells us that humans are complete idiots in general when it comes down to wise decisions. Why is it at least not equally reasonable to believe in a set of rules that has been laid down by an almighty infallible being? At least I can say that I have some kind of foundation.

Yeah, a foundation based on probabilities and appeal to authority, which is never a good argument. In the end, you don't know if the Bible is still the way it was written 2000/4000 years ago, you don't know if the Bible is truly God's word, you don't even know if God exists, but "thank God", you have a foundation on which you base your morals.

At least I base my morals on reasoning, while you base your morals on actually nothing but guesses, without even questioning these beliefs. Your foundation is no foundation, that could be in any way justifiable, at all.

And one last bit of advice, if you want people to take you seriously, stop acting the part of a snobby little brat and simply state your opinion. Instead of throwing in little insults and jabs in the hope that you will appear intelligent. Halfway through your argument I was completely dis-enchanted due to this.

Hey, good to see you took to my advice. I can't see any usage of lols or rofls in your posting, so I guess it was a success.

On a side note:
Why the hate? I was just telling you how you could improve your arguments.
If you would write the most intelligent message in a posting somewhere on the internet half in 1337-speak, with incorrect grammar and some lols and rofls now and then mid-sentence, noone will take you seriously (I know that you didn't make any grammatical mistakes (at least as I can see) nor used 1337-speak, this is just an overdramatization of an example). I was just pointing that out.
And shouldn't you, according to the Bible, love thy neighbour, or if you don't consider me to be a neighbour, your enemies? Because it seems to me your posting has more insults than mine (Though I disagree, that I was insulting. Maybe a little bit harsh with "blow your brain", but nowhere near insulting).

 

[ikimevol]

idk what i was thinking about sorry bout that

 

[Archtype]

Firstly, let me say, I like you sir, and I don't use sir lightly. I find it overwhelming welcome to find an intelligent intellectual to discuss with, and for that I thank you. I think however, the way in which I presented myself and as to where I interjected into yours and Archtype's argument may have put me in a tricky spot. Like I said before, I didn't read all the comments since this thread has 30 pages at the time of this post, so if it seems like I'm defending Archtype that certainly wasn't my intention. I try not to side with any one individual, but I pick a side, usually the one opposing the side who sees the strong support of knowledgeable individuals, in his case you. I argue for the sake of arguing, mainly because I like to. That being said lets get down to business.

1. I'm sorry I just defined it because I didn't know it had been brought up before, and it seemed like an issue that could be discussed.

2. Again, I'm not defending his view, I sought only to provide a reasonable argument to the issues you raised. Now I agree with you that the contents of the Bible were written in the past and as such their writers experienced a different set of cultural norms than we do now, and that the writings need to be examined in regard to those views, all the writings. However, for the sake of argument, I would like to point out that as Western culture has evolved some of the norms of out society have shifted away from those found within the bible, to the degree that they fall on opposite sides of the spectrum now. Taking that into consideration, it may be argued that some of the passages are no longer applicable due to changes in contemporary Western culture.

Not a number because you didn't put one here
It wasn't my intention to lecture you about the history of either of those holy books. This I admit was probably an oversight on my part relating specifically to the use of "how is it the word of God instead of these other works" in your post (the one I initially replied to), because they contain a lot of overlap, I always consider them together quite closely and I probably misunderstood that part. Sorry again.

3. All I have to say is that their are different ways of practicing each faith, resulting in more strict and less strict sects. Its not my place to judge how another person wishes to practice his religion. As for the rest with of the argument with Archtype, that's between the two of you. Besides it wouldn't be fair if I joined the other team.

4. See 2

In relation to "no proof":
I can't argue with you here. Everyone has a right to practice their own religion. That being said, if the country as a whole (or at least a vast majority) embraces a particular religion, it may be rationalized that the laws of that religion get incorporated into the laws of that country.

Finally
I didn't mean this argument at you specifically, I just felt it would have more weight on the end of a decent set of arguments. Again, I didn't do this to defend any individual on this side of the debate, I merely felt like having an educated argument. With that said, I can't stop Archtype from using it as a shield, even if that's not the reason for writing the post. Also internal struggles are never good for any group, but there are a lot of people who would seek to distance themselves from groups like the WBC.

This is Off-Topic from the main argument, but I realized I did not give my personal opinion on the issue. No supporting sides, just what I believe.

Personally, I think gay marriage should be legal. I see no problem with it. As long as no one tries to force it on me, what two people do in their own house is none of my concern. However, I don't think that any religious institution should have to agree to marry homosexuals if it goes against their beliefs. In addition, I personally am still debating the issue about whether homosexuals should be allowed to have kids, and am still undecided, but I'm slowly presenting arguments for and against in my head, till I reach some sort of conclusion.

Good points, the only thing I completely disagree with is the notion of incorporating religious laws into a country's legal system if there is some kind of large majority. For some systems, that's a logical conclusion, but in the context of a liberal democracy it creates what is known as the 'dictatorship of the majority' argued by Mills. As John Rawls puts forward in his work Political Liberalism, a liberal democracy must construct itself on a system of overlapping rational comprehensive doctrines in order to ensure some kind of legitimacy. Any doctrine that accepts the 'laws of the land' is welcomed but not openly supported by the government. Attempting to broadly apply any kind of legal measures based on the subjective morality of a faith undermines this key principle by ensuring that justice is a concept based on the biased viewpoints of a group, and not on a solid objective backing. The ideal of 'justice as fairness' is an important institution within a liberal democracy, and installing measures based on religion is very counteractive to this notion. The result is a rejection of the system by those who do not share the beliefs of the majority.

As to my third point, that was just a response to your statement that I should not say things like 'anti-intellectual slave' so broadly. I feel I fully detailed what it is to be an anti-intellectual slave in that paragraph for the sake of definition.

This is getting absurd, I am really starting to wonder if you actually read everything I say, or if you just try to imagine it in the most negative way possible.

I who started sacred = from God? Really? What other way is there to describe "sacred"? If you consider something being sacred you must believe in some sort of deity is the conclusion I was trying to reach when I brought that up. I am only saying that using the word sacred to describe a practice does not make much sense if you don't believe in any deity.

As I have stated numerous times. The only reason I started taking it from a Christian perspective is because anti-homosexuality always boils down to religion.

Rofl, wow, I'm ignoring critical thinking by using selective evidence? Where? When? I'll happily back up anything I have said with just as much "evidence" (lol) as you can conjure. Also, what makes you think I will not adhere to cultural context? Any half decent Bible scholar should be able to distinguish between a practice that God has ordered and the everyday weakness of another human being that the Bible depicts in its narrative. Unfortunately, it appears that is a very difficult thing to figure out for the vast majority of critics. You speak of cherry-picking but it simply depicts your own achieved level of hypocrisy, I very rarely hear specific critique of Bible verses without having hemorrhages from the lack of context. You continue to refer to the OT teachings when I have already stated that unless reinforced with NT teachings, I really could not care less.

Dogmatic faith? Sure, why not lol but it is faith established on reason. Show me your mistranslations and I will argue them. I would be most pleased to reason with your reason and show you that you must have just as much faith to NOT believe in a god, as I do in order to believe in a god. It is what all of these arguments boil down to eventually anyway.

I use the Bible to validate my opinion because there is evidence to support that the Bible is the ONLY thing that I need. When did I ever say that atheists change their mind over night on moral values? I was simply trying to make the point through reasoning that there is no true reason that an atheist should care about moral values.

When did I ever try to "force my beliefs" on anyone? We have just been having a debate and I was expressing views in accordance with the Bible. If anything you have been preaching to me and desperately trying to force me to accept your beliefs rofl. Which is incredibly ironic personally.

Fine, I'll explain what sacred actually means. Sacred has multiple definitions. Sacred can also infer reverence in a non-religious context as well. Respecting the graves of great men, for example, is treating them in a 'sacred' manner, even if you are not religious. It has nothing to do with a religion, it has to do with respecting the person and their memory enough that you believe they deserve it. By dictionary definition, sacred does not instantly infer a religious context, despite your viewpoint.

By your 'any half-decent Biblical scholar' comment it's just proof that it is a case of cherry-picking. Tell me, how do they successfully determine what is the weakness of men and what is the practices of God? What is their process of determining which is which? There is no objective means to do so, therefore, it is a purely subjective field (reading the Bible in this context also proves that Christians are just as subjective as atheists in their morality but I think I'll avoid that point for now) that requires the personal bias of scholars in order to determine what they believe is relevant and what is not. There is no way to separate out the 'word of God' from the cultural context in any sort of 'true' manner, and thus, yes, it is a system of cherry picking based on personalized preference of documentation. As Dr. Peter Beyer (theologist at the University of Ottawa) put it: "Get a dozen Biblical scholars in one room and there will be a dozen different versions of what God truly means in a single passage."

The argument that atheism requires just as much faith as religion has been discredited many, many times. Put it this way, the question of 'Is there a God?' has two basic answers: Yes (the theist, or positive response) and No (the atheist, or negative response). Since there is no solid, physical evidence of any kind that points to a God existing, the negative response is the conclusion that can be drawn via Burden of Proof analysis. The positive response is the one that requires proof, because it is inferring something exists, while the negative response is the initial template due to the lack of evidence. Atheism isn't about having faith that there's no supernatural beings, its about LACKING faith in any of them. Do you have faith that the world is not flat, or that the sky isn't just a painted ceiling? No, you come to that conclusion based on the lack of evidence for both. If you can't see the distinction between 'faith' and 'lack of faith' then there's really no point in discussing it.

"I use the Bible to validate my opinion because there is evidence to support that the Bible is the ONLY thing that I need." Well that's just poor reasoning based on an overly biased viewpoint. You're drawing what's known as a 'pre-determined conclusion'. Basically, you draw your conclusion before you actually critically analyze any kind of evidence (alternatively, it is also a case of taking initial evidence at face value, and then drawing a conclusion while lacking the greater picture), and instead then use selective evidence to support your pre-determined conclusion that the Bible is the only thing you need. There's also a lot of evidence to support that the Bible is NOT the only thing you need, but you ignore that because of your pre-determined conclusion.

"If anything you have been preaching to me and desperately trying to force me to accept your beliefs rofl." Um, no. If that's the conclusion you've gotten then clearly you haven't been reading my posts. What I am asking you to do is to prove your reasoning with something OTHER then the Bible (well that and pointing out all the fallacies in your logic). As I said to Nighthawk, if you don't want to marry a man, that's fine. If you don't want your religion to marry homosexuals, that's fine. But when you're discussing a form of marriage that extends into secular society you have to back up your viewpoints with more then just your religious views. I don't think anyone here is talking about forcing religions to marry gay people. This thread is about state marriage/'civil unions' which is a legally defined form of marriage. That is to say that it is an established concept of civil society, and thus has as much legitimacy as any form of religious marriage. Obviously you can argue the point that marriage has been traditionally a religious concept, but the fact is that governments have had legislation detailing marriage as far back as Hammurabi. Marriage can be a secular concept as much as it can be a religious concept. And when it's a case of secular marriage, religious reasoning does not work as a concrete argument.

Sorry man, not trying to ignore ya but I've been really busy. I still plan to respond! ;D

 

[Archtype]

Okay, considering the amount of people that responded I'm a bit lost as to where to start. If you guys want to pursue this lets start a separate thread and start fresh.

Also, lets try to debate one thing at a time instead of splitting into a bunch of different facets. Because everyone trying to read can easily be lost amid the myriad of replies.

Cheers!

PS: Sorry about the massive silence but east/southeast has been hammered here in America, so I've been distracted to say the least -_-