Runa you are quickly provong your the kind of person your complaining about

Your list in terms of scientific fact is shoddy as hell due to the fact theres vrry little science behind it

Youve researched a bunch of stuff, read some people opinions, and then agreed with them.

A scientific fact is something that can be proven with raw data with out opinion being placed whatsoever.

The earth is spherical in shape. The earth revolves around the sun. Humans need oxygen to survive. Fish need to be submerged in water to survive. These are scientific facts.

Things like gun laws, whether gay is right or not, religion, or most of the other stuff you posted arent facts because there is zero conclusive data on either side to completly debunk the opposit sides argument.

You have strong opinions.......and that is all

Hilarious.

Let's go over your list again:

Circumcision is a barbaric act and has no medical benefits.

Actually, it does have medical benefits. Are there risks as well? Absolutely. But the whole point of your statement is that you have an "Infalliable truth". That is false, as there are some possible benefits of circumcision. You may disagree with said benefits, but they do exist, and have been verified by multiple studies on the effects of male circumcision.

Your sexuality is not a choice.

If its not a choice, then that would mean there are no bisexuals, correct? After all, they choose which orientation they want to have from time to time, correct? And of course, the availability of any statement that suggests that someone has chosen to be gay, may, in fact prove your argument is invalid, no? Again, you assume that your point of view is indisputable, despite research and some statements to the contrary.

Forcing yourself to do or be something that is against your nature is harmful.

What if the action is harmful to someone else? Charles Manson did something in his nature. I would assume that you wouldn't dispute that him killing others was, in fact, harmful?

Your skin color does not dictate your actions.

I would agree. But that doesn't change the cultural aspects of how and why people act. One can correlate a lot of things to skin color, culture, race, and other things.

Evolution is conclusively proven and has been witnessed.

Could you give me a citation of an eyewitness account of macroevolution?

Climate Change is most certainly a thing and needs to be addressed.

Climate change has been occurring since the Earth was formed billions of years ago, no? Your second statement, however, is the real problem. How are you wanting to address such percieved changes? I imagine that, given your other statements, they involve using power to harm others financially in the name of "Climate Change".

Guns are tools that are specifically designed to kill.

What about the rifles used in the olympic games for sport? What about paintball guns? What about all the guns my brother owns which have never once been used to kill another living entity? Furthermore, even if some firearms were designed to kill, what of it?

Mrstickball just completly won this thread. Hands down end of story.

Runa is simply using opinions with little to no science which is why this thread is so terrible. If he had put in the OP that these were things he strongky believed in I wouldnt arge with him but the fact hes trying to pass them off as scientific facts is hilarious

Micro-evolution is a lot easier to discuss than macro.  Micro-evolution is a fact.  Sorry I don't have much to add or debate about macro right now.

At the cost of crass, I usually say this when Infantile Circumcision comes.

"You should remove the eyelids while you're at it."

Surely the line between child abuse and long term hygienic/religious practices is blurred for more than I'd like it to be. At the same time, I'm not a big fan of genital piercings but I would like it to be considered abuse if a parent decided to give their child one.

I do think external forces shape sexual preferences more than say.. biology or one's choice. For instance, a person in prison that becomes gay or bisexual due to their interactions with prison mates and their sexual desires can't say they really CHOSE to be gay but at the same time say that they have a subconscious or genetic disposition to desiring men or women. That isn't to say that sexuality is determined exclusively by external forces. For instance, my older brother used to get a lot of female attention in middle school and high school but he was gay then and is gay now.

I really wanted to get to guns as well. Much like how people say outlawing drugs does not prevent people from getting access to them or using them, I think guns should be held in a similar regard. Guns kills, yes, as do knifes, hammers, ropes, crossbows and cars but it's far less the tool's fault as it is the person's. I think the main reason guns are demonized is because unlike the previously stated, guns have range (unlike knifes and hammers) and ease of use (unlike crossbows and cars). Based on that I think it's asinine to ban guns outright. Ban guns from felons and the mentally ill, sure. Ban guns from everyone, that would be as effective as banning cars on the off chance my neighbor might get drink and crash into my family room.

There's a very simple solution to this. Stop being full of yourself. I don't mean this as an insult, I used to be the same way (although I have traditionally sided more with religion). You only think the way you do because you have the same faith in science that others have in their own beliefs. Science is only as infallible as the men behind it. New developments constantly change what was previous thought a certainty and many people choose to treat theories as if they are proven fact.

Furthermore, consider the idea that you may one day be proven wrong (factually) about one of your beliefs (particularly one important to you). Would you so easily accept this outcome and choose to live accordingly? I'm not saying this should change anything, merely pointing out that the issue is likely not a matter of right or wrong at all, but rather what one wishes to believe (which is made easier if you claim that you are right). You would be better off questioning why someone may continue to choose ignorance rather than assuming you have the intellectual advantage.

I do agree with you partially on one point though. That is the idea of living in a world that is fashioned by those contrary to your own views. This is something I have often reflectd on, even going so far as to consider the idea of building a community where I could be surrounded by like-minded individuals. Personally, I feel borders should be drawn between ideologies, not on land or resources. This way people would not be forced to condone views that they are deeply opposed to. This may actually key you in on why people would so readily oppose you on matters that seem obvious, especially in the area of religion. in many ways Christianity is a dieing religion. What were once prominate beliefs among nearly everyone are now only seen in a vocal minority (this may not seem the case in America but it is very much the case across most of Europe and the world as a whole). The few who are left holding onto these beliefs are watching the world progress away from those beliefs and likely very fearful of what their place will be in such a future, particularly since many harbor hostility toward religion associating it with ignorance/oppression/bigotry. it is likely the case that many would continue to live by Christian ideals with or without God. God is simply what grants them the authority to label their way of life as "right", just as science is what you use to deem your own views "right".

Micro evolution is simply a fancy word for adaptation. In every case of micro evolution ever observed the changes found in the organism were already pre baked into said creatures DNA

Ther has never in the history of human life been an observation of an organisms genetic code radically changing to the point where it or its decendants can cross species.

In fact every observation we have shows zero evidence os such a thing being possible. The VAST majority of actual mutations to the DNA code of an organism are hugely catastrophic and almost always result in said organisms death.

In fact the entire theory of cross species evolution is beyond shoddy due to the things I already listed as well as the fact that in every fossil we find they are fully formed organisms. Every shark we find is still a shark. Ther is zero transitional species found in the entire fossil record. And dont come posting a damn picture of a reptile with feathures because it means nothing. It was a fulky formed reptile not a transit species.

While I mostly agree with most of your points, the only thing you've really proven with this thread is that you grossly overestimated your own intelligence and/or knowledge. There are so many holes in your arguments they fell apart before people were even reacting to them. The most glaring issue being that you're trying to factualize normative statements, which is in fact impossible to do on a scientific level.

Oh, I fully agree that micro-evolution is easy and proven. I don't dispute that. However, you can't really say all evolution is proven and witnessed, when (as BenV put it) only adaptation has been witnessed. That's why I have a problem with that aspect of what Runa is saying - he's trying to state that everything is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, when it really hasn't. Can you inferr a lot? Absolutely. Is it plausible that evolution is true? Yes. Is there some empircal evidence to lend credence to evolution? Yes. Is it absolute fact? No.

I don't agree with circumcision, especially when it involves infants, but that is a bad comparison.

We need our eyelids and removing it has abosultely no positive upside, just negatives.