I wanted to post this yesterday but the interchatz died on me.

Jay, I feel like you didn't understand my question. Should I reword it? Maybe I'm being too brief... I'll try to restate them because your answers don't address my questions, so here I go.

1) Currently, the atheist answer to "why did the Big Band occur" is "we don't know", what do you think about the fact that, for the deist, the answer to "how is God the origin of all things" is also "we don't know"? What footing are they on, the same, or not? Is one more or less fulfilling than the other in terms of the need for answers?

b) How do you feel about the fact that deists consider "God being the origin of all things" as being the end of answers, while for the atheis, once the answer to "why the big bang occured" is answered, a new question may need to be posed.

This led to my 2nd question:

2) a) Does a new question need to be posed, or will there be a point where an answer will be self-fulfilling, in that it won't require an answer to be explained? Or do we just not know? In other words, is the question of origins recursive for the atheist, or will there ever be an end to the chain?

To rephrase, is the question on origins a never-ending quest for answers, for the naturalist? In other words, is there just no bottom line answer? Is it a quest for infinity? It seems that whenever we find an origin for something, in the natural world, that something needs an origin, and so on. If that were true, what would be the position to take, since as a naturalist, there should be an answer to absolutely everything. Would there ever be no answer?

3) I wasn't saying that. I was just trying to understand both sides and compare them. I wasn't using God as a patch, I personally believe in God regardless of the question marks life has presented to me. I believe in God for greater reasons than that. But I was just trying to understand the atheist and the deist position, and to compare them, and try to see if Runa's initial statement was a fair one, and I still don't believe it is. Maybe you can help me find out.

While we're at it, The earth is the center of the universe, evolution is a myth, and the world is flat!  

He could say the same thing to you.

I love how we live on an internet where there is no such thing as right or wrong. 

No he can't, as I am right, and he is wrong.  Believe it or not, there is a right, and there is a wrong in this situation, pointing out that he is wrong is not a matter of arrogance, aggression, or inconsideration, it's a fact.  If he was saying Evolution wasn't real, I'd be just as condescending becuase he'd be just as wrong. 

Science, bitches. 

You are wrong, because you're using your own life experience to base your opinion on. To demonstrate, let me ask you a question.

What about people who are not inherently gay, but who decide to live that life-style by nurture?

What about those who are inherently gay, and live a monogamous heterosexual life-style, by nurture?

Also, how gay is a person inherently (genetics)? 100%, 80%, 50-50%, ...? In which case is it enough for an individual to say "I'm going gay all the way"?

Food for thought.

Fixed. 

Dude, I'm not making science up to fit with my own personal agenda, nor am I picking and chosing.  Homosexuality is natual. We may not know WHAT causes it in humans (at least not conclusively), but we do know it happens and it is beyond our control.  Science is science.  Do you hate science or do you just pick and chose what facts you want to believe. 

I never said I disagreed with you. I only said that your PoV is too strict and doesn't consider cases where the person may be confused about his sexuality (say 70-30 or 80-20). Which way he may choose is still uncertain, considering the person is monogamous. If not, then well the person could end up bisexual.

All I'm saying is that it isn't, scientifically speaking, as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The person still always has that choice. Also, abigenetics and nurture as a part of the sexual development are things that affect sexual orientation greatly as well. Actually little of it has anything to do with genetics, most of it has to do with feotal development.

I was just saying, you saying he was a flat-earthist is a very unfair thing to do, simply because he has a different opinion on a matter. It's very "burn the witch" kind of mentality, the very thing most anti-religious accuse the religious of.

What's my caviar is junk food to you. Nouveau riche?

that's called bisexuality.  Believe it or not, if you're attracted to both that doesn't mean you have to pick one.  

Stop backpedaling. 

If you want to be monogamous and stick to one lifestyle, then you have to pick one. Of course not everyone has that need.

Did you even read the post? Now that you (hopefully) understood that I'm not backpedaling, can I get a good answer please?

I read it, my response was accurate.  

Why are you so insistent on twisting things around just so you can say it's a choice?  first it's just a choice, then it's a choice in certain circumstances, then it's a choice only when the person HAS a choice (when they're bisexual); had you just come out and said "Sometiems it's a choice" in the beginning, we wouldn't be having this argument and you wouldn't be flailing about trying to find  a way to justify your statement. 

so yes, when a person is bisexual and has an option to be attracted to either gender and choses to be monogamous to the point of chosing one sexuality over another, then sure, he has that choice.  An awfully specific example, but yes, in that rare case, it can be a choice.