Last post. The one thing I will say is that I don't believe the school's practices came from a bad place. Yes, their teachings on religion are really forced or at least it seems to those who aren't as devoted, but they did not do it out of malice so i hold no grudges. Religion has real value to some, even if I don't see it. In a third world country like Belize, when there is not a whole lot out there to give hope, religion is the one thing people hang on to for promises of a brighter tomorrow.

Fun fact: Belize only had one movie threater  in the whole country (during my stay). It was also a bowling alley, arcade, hotel and casino.

Did you even read over my sources? 100% doesn't exist in science, it is simply the best possible explanation and that certainly is epigenetics. Damn, if you aren't going to read over the research, don't comment. Then you cite anecdotal evidence? Laughably ignorant.

"Turn gay" - yep, done here.

Your genetic information does not change after birth, dude. Wow. Can't believe you even made that argument. But yes, I've already conceded he didn't claim choice. I'm sorry, I was wrong on that matter.

Because due to their non-scientific, faith based beliefs Christians are always trying to deny others their rights. Just look at Washington this week. Christians are wanting to have Roe Versus Wade overturned simply because they think their god is opposed to abortion and women's reproductive rights and they want to deny gays the right to marry because they think their god is ag'n gays marrying though like it says in the op there's nothing scientific about that ( or any evidence to support that position) it's just what their faith tells them.

We're having discussions about these things on a video game site because the video game site's forums allows for conversations on more than just video games.

Where did he say genetic info changes after birth? He said there's an argument to be made that genetics are not the only determining factor. If there was a 100% gay/straight switch in genetics we should have no bisexuals, nor people who switch orientation later in life, but we have both. There are also potential hormonal factors to take into account, as well as environmental factors, upbringing, etc. If somebody is born with a greater propensity to be gay based on genetics, it's possible that certain factors in their upbringing could affect whether they end up being gay or not. How our brain processes information is far to complex to call our sexual attractions a simple genetic on/off switch. Is there a genetic condition that makes me like brunettes or curly hair? What about the fact that I like boobies so much? Or that I don't like super-skinny chicks but prefer a woman who's got curves (in the 8-12 size range like my hot wife). How about foot fetishes, are those purely genetic? How about masculine men who are gay, or effeminate men who are straight?

You say there is no 100%, then you argue that anybody who doesn't agree with you 100% is ignorant. Nice.

And on the 'turn gay' thing, most likely he was bisexual on some level and after his divorce, he was so turned off by women that he went into a homosexual relationship. Just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it's false, this is not the only case where this has happened. There are degrees of attraction, which is why some people are bisexual and can 'switch' what sex they are sexually engaged with. Even though there are clearly genetic factors, it is not an on/off switch in all cases, and there can be factors outside of genetics that influence sexual orientation.

EDIT: How the hell did this turn into a gay/straight discussion? Yeesh.

@OP

Because it is in our nature to either follow or to get others to follow us. So wether you are a religious zealot or a militant atheist you are by instinct driven to make others rationalise in the same manner as yourself.

From what we know in terms of recorded human history, man has been debating the existence of and the manner of divinity since we developed a coherent language.. Hence when it comes to debating we have a rich source of material to reference. Then you throw science in the mix and you end up with a very entertaining but neverending debate.

From a reasoning standpoint I believe in the divine as I find it illogical that life would spring forth from something as violent as the so called big bang. From a religious standpoint while I recognise that religious traditions have changed over the millenia the message is still the same to me which is the belief that life as we know it was created by a divine being.

While I appreciate science and grant that it has led to many advancements I also would argue that it has its limits. Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that as human beings we are fallable in mind and in body and we are limited in how much we can observe even with the aid of technology. I find that it is therefore highly unlikely that we will ever be able to agree on the outcome of the great debate unless it is enforced through arms.

What I find troubling around here is this make mediocre peace of saying that everyone is entitled to their own truth.  Live and let live is a position of resignation.  If you have concern about truth, a proper view of reality, then such talk is not acceptable.  Well that is my take at least.  

In terms of Christianity, I was very troubled by what I read in the book, "when God talks back" (the lower case is how the book does the title), in that how evangelical Christians will end up doing visualization and other mental tricks and create experiences for themselves they believe are interaction with God.  Such individuals then develop a dogmatic certainty that their experiences of God.  And then, when reality doesn't correspond, they practice a bunch of mental gymnatics to justify why very detailed prayer didn't come off as expected.  They will also fracture their thoughts in their brains that some thoughts are somehow of God directly.  I won't speak on maybe there is valid thoughts lining up with the Bible, but it is taken as God directly interacting.  In this, the push for "faith" also made a mess of lives.

As for why people try to do it, you have individuals who got disillusioned by certain religion, and then they take their same dogmaticness they had when in the religion and then go on a crusade for meaning, trying to deconvert others.  It is partly insecurity in what they have, and secondarily, not knowing what else to do with their being.  Some others, n the high end intellectual side, end up making a living of sorts writing books on it.  They are assassins in the manner that Bill O'Reilly mentioned.  And there is also an evangelical/fundie branch of atheism that so much wants something to be there that they go off and make a religion of a lack of belief, in hopes that, somehow, they can form community and have common values seen in religion, while having a basis of common unity on nothing (aka, a lack of a believe = nothing).

If Atheism is a religion, then Health is a disease. 

If atheism is a religion, Off is a TV station.

If atheism is a religion, then Sanity is a mental disorder. 

Get where I'm getting at here.  

I Was going to reply to this post, becuase it seemed for a moment that you had some good points, then I remembered that your arguments are flawed because they hinge on the undeniable existence of something that has no proof of existing, and the accusations are a variant of "if religion needs faith, so does science."  

So I won't bother.  

It is a lack of a religion, which ends up, when getting labelled, and people declare they are it, and do i with others (form groups), begins to increasingly take on religious overtones.  The atom symbol was adopted as the symbol for atheism.  You also have people argue that atheists are so and so (have values).  There is sets of values held common, or sought to be common.  There are certain authors referenced as authorities in regards to atheism, and shown a degree of reverence.  And there is individuals who end up running ads and trying to evangelize a lack of belief.  It all becomes stuff you see that you don't have in regards to people who moved off of believing in Santa.  While Atheism isn't a religion, there is a tendency for some atheists to treat their atheism religiously.

Simple Answer:You are 100% wrong.
If you don't bother people with your religion,if you keep your believe a private thing,than there is no problem.

But if you try to influence other people,if you are a radical,if you become a racist or dangerous for other people than it's time to argue because there is a chance to clean your mind,to bring you back on the right path(not to share my views,but to bring you back to reason)

As example:Islam(i'm from muslim origin)
According to quran and hafith the Islam was founded by an intolerant pedophile(aisha 6 years)enslaver(slavery since 630) genozide massmurderer(banu quayriza massacre).
This guys name:mohammed.
Well-if you realy believe that a good god has sent such a guy to be your prophet,than you are either a satanist or you have a very strange kind of logic.But that's not the problem .It will become a problem if you try to force others to believe such stupid things because of your blind believe.
You think there is no reason to argue?
Yes there is.As soon as you argue you can expose the evil things of a religion.Than people are informed.
Why do you think mohammad is worshipped by muslims though he was an evil guy???
Because most muslim don't know about his crimes.
Why?
It's forbidden for muslims to question what mohammed has done.
It is forbidden for them to argue about their religion.
As result:there is no opposition in islamic world to eg. the wahibis.
the extremist can grow every day.they get bigger and bigger and more powerful.

Now,lets take a look at europe.
Europeans have done exactly what you demand.They haven't argued with muslims.It was just"shut up and be tolerant"to them.
What has happened than?
The muslims imported their believe things to europe.
Meanwhile the sharia is part of the western law(eg in london)
That means:women that were surpressed in muslim countries will still be surpressed even when they live in europe.
Non muslims who are surpressed in muslim countries are now even surpressed in their own countries if they live in western areas that are controlled by muslims.
As thousands of mosques were built in europe in ,0 churches /synagogues or temples were built in muslim countries.
This is a reason to argue.
Muslims call you:kafur(meaning:dog/prostitute.)
Jews call your women:shiksa(rottem meat,abomination,prostitute)
no reason to argue?
do you really think there is no reason to argue about sharia that legalises pedophilia,apartheid and slavery.
Shouldn't we argue that muslim males are allowed to rape infidels ?

I'm pretty sure most people don't know what i'm talking about.
They never have heard about the jiyza,taqqiyya or that the islams final aim is-world domination.
We need to argue,just to inform people.
People will be surprised if they knew that it is forbidden for jews to have an own state.
Yahweh said so-but they don't care.they already have 2 states(israel and jewish autonom oblast)
It's interessting to argue with jews about that(www.naturei karta)
And it is not just about religion:it's about believe systems.
If you think that the USA should dominate the world than we have to argue.

Great guys have been argueing about religion to end evil things like martin luther or to prove that religion is wrong =gallileo gallilei,or to end the inquisition=francesco of ascoli and others.
many of them were killed because of that,but things have changed because they were argueing.