Former LGBTQers Testify: If You No Longer Want to Be Gay or Transgender, You Don't Have to Be

Nope!

Atheists say that there is NO EVIDENCE for any deities.

 

The ENTIRE duration of that study was done while gays were being DISCRIMINATED against!


That just establishes that discrimination is a MAJOR CAUSE of depression and suicide among those that are being discriminated against!

Too bad theists have this bad habit of taking SCIENCE OUT OF CONTEXT because they have trouble understanding how scientific studies are done and what the findings actually mean!

 

How the hell do you figure it oughta be legal for adults?

So how exactly does homosexual behavior in creatures that cannot sin imply God's approval of it in creatures who can?

Non sequitur, if for no other reason than that humanity implies the ability to rise above animal instincts.

So has murder, so what's your point?

Yes he did. When someone on your ignore list gets quoted, it often appears no one is being quoted.

 

That's true. There is no evidence for any deities. No evidence, no proof. But as an Agnostic, I realize that doesn't mean it/they do not exist. That's the difference and I guess it comes down to faith .... belief without evidence. Religious people say there is a god (without any evidence to prove it) and atheists say there is no god (without any evidence to disprove it). They are lost people.

 

Atheists do NOT "believe" that there is no god!

Atheists KNOW that there is NO EVIDENCE of any deities. That does NOT require any belief and it is disingenuous to impose a belief where none exists.

 

The Brits were also the first to come out with the "men can have periods too" BS along with other 'inclusive' brain spasms.

 

Even if it could be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, scientifically, that gender dysphoria is merely a mental disorder and that hormones and surgery do little to actually improve the individual's mental health... I don't see how it could be banned for adults on a constitutional basis.

 

I disagree with that.

 

I know this wasn't directed at me but...why shouldn't it be legal for adults? Who are you to say what an adult does or does not do to their own body?

1: Just because humans have the ability to ignore instinct doesn't mean that we don't have it. And even then we can't always ignore it. The "fight or flight" response is a perfect example of such.

2: My mentioning that had to do with showing evidence that God created homosexuality. If he hadn't then no other species would be able to have homosexual tendencies. Remember, God created everything.

Murder is a purely human thing. No other species murders. They kill on instinct for survival, but they do not kill just to kill. That is how you know the difference between humans and animals. Animals only do what is natural. Only does what God created them to do. That is why humans can sin while animals cannot.

Got it, thanks. Unless someone tells me then I guess I won't really ever know. I only have one person on ignore so... :shrugs:

 

I uphold your right to disagree but as an atheist I do NOT have the "belief" that you are alleging that I have.

Furthermore I have never encountered any atheist or atheist literature that proclaims that atheists "believe that there is no god". Atheism just doesn't work that way.

 

Is our difference of opinion based upon the definition of the word "belief"?

 

Is your definition the same as the one in the dictionary?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/belief

 

I use it in this topic as "conviction". What about you?

 

In which case you are wrong in that respect because there are no atheists ,or atheist literature ,to the best of my knowledge that espouses a "conviction" that there is no god.

Furthermore it does NOT require any "conviction" to KNOW that there NO EVIDENCE for the existence of any deity since that is based upon KNOWLEDGE, not "conviction".

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

How about a simple definition.

: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods


I know i know.. Its RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA!!!! Scream at the sky!!!!!!

 

You may be confusing atheism with agnosticism.

I think you are "losing it" because you are mixing "evidence" and "conviction" and "knowledge". That is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. Lack of evidence proves nothing at all.

 

Yup, in my experience it always comes to that when you demonstrate the other posters errors and contradiction with their own posts ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

Have a wonderful day!

 

Nope!

Let me put this in simple terms.

Theists BELIEVE that a deity exists and have CONVINCED THEMSELVES without any EVIDENCE whatsoever but instead rely entirely on superstitions that probably originated around Stone Age campfires.

Agnostics acknowledge that there is NO EVIDENCE but HEDGE their bets instead by sitting on the fence because Theists pretend that their superstitions are the "truth".

Atheists are PRAGMATISTS and acknowledge that there is ZERO EVIDENCE for any deity and that the superstitions have been superseded by scientific knowledge.

It is no accident that Atheism was first documented among the Ancient Greek Philosophers who were Observing the Natural World around them in a similar manner to how science does it today. They were surrounded by a plethora of deities and realized that none of them had any substance outside of the superstitions about them while the Observable Natural World showed no evidence of their existence.

Which brings us to the inane THEIST "argument" that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that you paraphrased above. This is commonly known as the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy and it fails because it relies entirely upon negating the validity of skepticism in order to egregiously shift the Burden of Proof. Those making EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS, such as the existence of a deity, MUST provide extraordinary EVIDENCE to support their claims. The self referencing bible, imaginary "miracles" and hearsay "testimony" does not even rise to the level of ordinary evidence.

So to summarize Theists have convinced themselves into believing something in spite of there being ZERO EVIDENCE to support that belief. When you consider that there is a snake oil "promise" of an "afterlife" in return for enslaving themselves to a fictitious deity it comes as no surprise to discover that they are ruthlessly exploited by those intent upon enriching themselves at their expense.

Atheists are Pragmatists and choose KNOWLEDGE over superstitions. They recognize a con game when they see it and want no part of it.

Which brings us back to the fence sitting Agnostics who are honest enough to acknowledge that there is ZERO EVIDENCE but still want to BELIEVE that there might be an "afterlife" so they are essentially in a self imposed form of Limbo being neither one thing or the other.

 

Nonsense, there are entire libraries written about evidence for God, it would be more truthful to say you don't find those arguments convincing. You want to believe nothing x nobody = everything, knock yourself out.

Agnosticism is a more honest position.

 

Appeal to Authority Fallacy combined with Circular Argument Fallacy!

 

no, there is no evidence for god. If you are talking about books, then I can show you evidence that wizards, hobbits, trolls etc exist.

 

That's what I have been trying to tell him.

 

I'm not aware of any, but go ahead.

 

Wrong, just pointing out your statement that there is no evidence for God is wrong. Where is your evidence for how the first non-life became life, or what set off the Big Bang? Both of our positions are in a sense not proved, IMHO the evidence for God makes His existence more likely than not. I choose to take a step towards Him, you choose a step in the opposite direction.

 

OK.

So far, so good.

Huh? We don't "hedge" anything. We accept that man does not know if there is a god or not. Maybe someday we will know or maybe we never will know but we don't care. We don't think about it.

Why do you side-step the question of god? You said that you were going to make this simple but you repeatedly insist (again and again and again) to refuse answering the main question.