By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - ‘You’ve made your choice’: Man shares dad’s brutal letter disowning him for being gay

happydolphin on 11 August 2012
Player1x3 said:

Again, how is it natural ? Just because it happens to animals. And homosexuality is vastly inferior to heterosexuality in every possible aspect (and before someone jumps the ban hammer, im not saying homosexual people are inferior, they're not.) So how can it be considered normal (''natural'' is debatable, it dependents on your definition of natural ) when its alternative is just plain superior?

Define superior, you mean in the survival of a species?



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 11 August 2012
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:
Mnementh said:
Player1x3 said:

Mnementh said:

Nobody died in the name of atheism. Or did someone made an atheist crusade or an atheist burning of witches or an atheist inquisition? What you mean is, that religions aren't the only ideologies, that cause harm. Facism, Stalinism, Maoism and so on had many victims. Although these ideologies weren't religious, tehy didn't claim they had to kill you because they are atheists.


No, they just killed you because you were theist. That's like saying ''KKK didn't lynch people for being black, they lynched them for not being white''

You're wrong. If you look at this list you can see, that a big number of the deaths can be accounted to famines, produced by completely wrong decisions. Namely the big leap forward in China was a big desaster. Communists killings were mostly against political enemies. Also the different facism killed people mostly because of their race and secondly because they were on a different political side (communists and social democrats mostly). In the atlantic slave trade most people were harmed simply because of profits. Most wars were fought over power. So this leaves the number of people killed from atheist because they were theists very small in comparison to all the other reasons.

And what, you think Inquisition and crusade killings were all just because one wasn't catholic ??? No it was still largely politics,greed and lust for power same as everything. The problem is, religion and politics were irreseperatable back than. In fact, the whole massacre the church committed on friday the 13th 1307 was because the Templars were getting too powerful and the church wanted them dead. The original point was that the regimes who favour atheism also killed tons of people like the institutions that favour religion.

It doesn't work that way. People can, have, and will kill each other for religious reasons. Atheists will never kill because of religion because there is no religious text that will tell them to kill.

It works like this. Religious people can kill because of non-religion factors plus because of religion. Non-religious people can only kill because of non-religious factors. It's as simple as that. And if you look at most societies today, there is a trend that, the more secular the society, the better it works.


Atheists have killed for irreligious purposes and have persecuted people for following a religion. They didn't do it in the name of atheism, but they did it in the name atheist favourable ideology that persecutes religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

And not this was only aimed at christians, which had it easiest of all persecuted groups. Islam and Judism were almost non existent



Player1x3 on 11 August 2012
Jay520 said:


Atheism is defined by many, and probably most, as a LACK of belief. You're just focusing on one of the narrow type of atheism to fit your argument.


My argument was to show him that his logical fallacy can be used against his belief too



Jay520 on 11 August 2012
Player1x3 said:


1.) Again, how is it natural ? Just because it happens to animals.

2.) And homosexuality is vastly inferior to heterosexuality in every possible aspect (and before someone jumps the ban hammer, im not saying homosexual people are inferior, they're not.) So how can it be considered normal (''natural'' is debatable, it dependents on your definition of natural ) when its alternative is just plain superior?


1.) By natural, I mean that it's not a choice amongst people. It just happens to some people. There are many definitions of natural. When I say natural, I don't mean 'ordinary' or 'common' or 'traditional'. By natural, I mean 'inherent', 'built-in', 'spontaneous'.

2.) Depends on what you mean by inferior. You should have defined what you meant by 'inferior'. If you mean by being able to reproduce, then sure, I guess you could say that it's 'inferior'. But even so, that doesn't relate to my point. My point was that homosexuality is okay in society. Because homosexuals can't reproduce doesn't mean they're not okay in society. You didn't disprove my point.



Player1x3 on 11 August 2012
Kantor said:
Player1x3 said:
Runa216 said:

Atheism isn't that illogical at all.  While we live in a world, where, yes, religion is a thing and therefore it forces people to consider the possibility of a divine creator, the fact of the matter is that there's absolutely no logic backing up the idea that the world, or at least the universe, was created by a higher power.  Science does plenty to support the theory that there is no god by taking away all the things he supposedly did.  While we're still left with a 'beginning' or 'origin' to explain, making a higher power explain it just opens up more questions, such as "If god created the universe, what created God?"  Beliving that the universe was not created by a higher power is not illogical, it makes perfect sense from a scientific standpoint. 

frankly, your crusade agaisnt atheism is really not winning you any favors. 

And what does your picture prove?  It has nothing to do with our argument.  Basically it says that people only believe what's convenient for them at the time, which really isn't an argument in favor of anything you seem to believe in. 



...its so logical i just came xD

I'm trying to get angry about that image, but I honestly can't. It's just so illogical and circular that it's hilarious.


Then you should go and read Runa's post... you'll piss your pants xD



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 11 August 2012
Jay520 said:
Player1x3 said:


1.) Again, how is it natural ? Just because it happens to animals.

2.) And homosexuality is vastly inferior to heterosexuality in every possible aspect (and before someone jumps the ban hammer, im not saying homosexual people are inferior, they're not.) So how can it be considered normal (''natural'' is debatable, it dependents on your definition of natural ) when its alternative is just plain superior?


1.) By natural, I mean that it's not a choice amongst people. It just happens to some people. There are many definitions of natural. When I say natural, I don't mean 'ordinary' or 'common' or 'traditional'. By natural, I mean 'inherent', 'built-in', 'spontaneous'.

2.) Depends on what you mean by inferior. You should have defined what you meant by 'inferior'. If you mean by being able to reproduce, then sure, I guess you could say that it's 'inferior'. But even so, that doesn't relate to my point. My point was that homosexuality is okay in society. Because homosexuals can't reproduce doesn't mean they're not okay in society. You didn't disprove my point.


1) So being born with 1 arm and 3 eyes could also be considered natural ?

2) I never made an argument that homosexuality isn't ok in society. I was just pointing out the fallacy in that guy's logic.  But very fact that the society made out of homosexuals of one gender would go extinct while the heterosexual one would continue to live tells you that homosexuality isn't normal



Player1x3 on 11 August 2012
Nem said:
Jay520 said:
happydolphin said:

1.) Currently the answer is we don't know, just like for the believer the answer about how God is the origin of all things material is "we don't know". However, deists believe God is the end of the chain of questions.

2.) For an atheist, is there an end to the chain of questions, or do we just not know?

3.) Also, if there is an end to the chain of questions, would it be a fully naturalistic explanation, completely self sustaining? Something like, in exceptional cases, matter and energy can be spontaneously created out of nothing, for absolutely no reason?


1.) The difference is that athiests don't believe in any entity or idea without justification. There is evidence that suggests the Big Bang has occured. That is justified. However, there is no justified explanation for why the Big Bang occured. There are an inifinite amount of possibilities for why the Big Bang started and there's no justification to put faith into any of them. Simply assuming God is the source with no justification is premature narrow-minded. It hinders plenty of other, equally justified, possibilities. If we simply blamed God for everything we couldn't understand, we would have missed out on a lot scientific breakthroughs.

2.) I don't understand your question. Are you asking "Is there an answer to the chain of questions?" Well yes, of course there are answers. But, with our current knowledge and technology, we don't have those answers. It's better to accept your ignorance than place blind faith into something and be most likely wrong.

3.) Again, I don't know. And I'm probably not intelligent enough to even comprehend the comlpexities of the creation of the universe. 

Some things are just unexplainable and should just be left unexplainable. By using God to explain the unexplainable, you really create a lapse in logic. What you're saying is "I can't explain something...therefore, I can explain it (God)".


Indeed. When will people realise that god just cant exist. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Say even if god was the one that made the big ben, what made god? God just is? Then why cant the universe just be aswell? It was born from nothing, the struggle between matter and anti-mater. God is an uncessary step, there is no point to it. Matter or anti-matter win and the rest of the laws of the universe come into place as the particles interact with each other. As much as we wish there would be a god, there really is no sense to that possibility.

But, here on earth we have a bunch of clowns discriminating, murdering in the name of something that doesnt exist. Its nothing but collective insanity when it gets to that point. The only god there is is chance. The chance that made this star called sun the size it is and this rock called earth forming just at the right distance. Just the same chance that is gonna bring the andromeda galaxy coming crashing down on the milky way or any stray comet or celestial body or gamma burst that can fry us at any time. The gods are us, born in the blink of an eye out of pure chance, with a chance to outgrow the laws of the universe to survive past the blink of luck that spawned us.

So...much...fail...in one post...this post gave me cancer



Pimp3k on 11 August 2012
Player1x3 said:


Atheists have killed for irreligious purposes and have persecuted people for following a religion. They didn't do it in the name of atheism, but they did it in the name atheist favourable ideology that persecutes religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

And not this was only aimed at christians, which had it easiest of all persecuted groups. Islam and Judism were almost non existent


Since your profile states that you are from Yugoslavia, then I'm really hopeful that you understand that nationalism that happened in 90s was VERY much fueled and supported by both Catholic and Orthodox Churches. How many Serbs were killed in name "Bog i Hrvati" and how many Croats in name "Bog čuva Srbe"?

 

 

 



Player1x3 on 11 August 2012
Pimp3k said:
Player1x3 said:


Atheists have killed for irreligious purposes and have persecuted people for following a religion. They didn't do it in the name of atheism, but they did it in the name atheist favourable ideology that persecutes religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

And not this was only aimed at christians, which had it easiest of all persecuted groups. Islam and Judism were almost non existent


Since your profile states that you are from Yugoslavia, then I'm really hopeful that you understand that nationalism that happened in 90s was VERY much fueled and supported by both Catholic and Orthodox Churches. How many Serbs were killed in name "Bog i Hrvati" and how many Croats in name "Bog čuva Srbe"?

 

 

 


Not as many as how many people Tito sent to Goli Otok for not obeying his atheism favoured regime



Jay520 on 11 August 2012
Player1x3 said:


1) So being born with 1 arm and 3 eyes could also be considered natural ?

2) I never made an argument that homosexuality isn't ok in society. I was just pointing out the fallacy in that guy's logic. 

3.) But very fact that the society made out of homosexuals of one gender would go extinct while the heterosexual one would continue to live tells you that homosexuality isn't normal


1.) You realize that natural has multiple definitions. Natural can be a synonym for innate. So yes, someone born with such a disorder would have an innate, or natural, disorder. I advice you to not use ambigious words to prevent confusion.

2.) Let's go back to this post this post

Jay520 said: 
Player1x3 said: 

Mnementh said:

Bolded is debatable. Homosexuality is obviously something natural, as it is observed for many mammals and is far too common to be a mutation or a fuckup in the recombination of genes. So it's probably of some evolutionary benefit amnd very likely our genes hold a usual preference for the other gender but ALSO a preference for the same gender. Which gene is expressed decdes if you are heterosexual, homosexual or even bisexual.

So small percent of animals doing something = completely natural and ok in human society ? So i guess child murder and cannibalism are also ok and natural ?  The very fact that homosexual couples can't reproduce ( the main purpose and goal of sex ) should tell you something

Firstly, he wasn't using animals to prove that homosexuality was okay in society. He was using homosexuality to prove that homosexuality natural among some beings and is not the result of people deliberately forcing themselves to be gay. Secondly, homosexuality is okay in society because it does not harm people's health - very different from murder or cannibalism. 

You're right, you didn't make that argument. But you did misunderstand Mnementh's post. He was never proving that homosexuality is ok in society. But you seemed to think he was, as evidenced by the bolded. I was correcting you and then I later said why he didn't need to explain why homosexuality is ok in human society - by making the argument that homosexuality is okay in society.

3.)  Also, if everyone remained abstinent, the human race would go extinct, so what? 

Normal is an ambigious word. Be more precise. 

 

Again, what is your point? That hetersexuality is the extremely prevalent sexuality? We all know that