Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sexual deviancy is no different. And it's not just limited to homosexuality, it includes fetishes and other things of all kinds that I really don't need to spell out here...
it is true. historically, the more sexual freedom that is allowed, the weaker the state becomes....
You add to your deceit by calling punishment "oppression." In a nation with a future, punishment of homosexuality is self-defenseA Sexually Confused Generation Loses the Will to Survive
Things work both ways, not just the bossy fairyphile Liberals' way. Therefore, "It is not a sin (or a practice that threatens a healthy society)" is also a minority group's personal dogma being forced on the majority through tyrannical methods such as legislative or judicial elitism.
What a bunch of embarrassing garbage.... somewhere along the line you cultist weirdos got confused into thinking that not letting you oppress people is oppression of you. You're losing big time, check the scoreboard.
What cannot be proved is why the Big Bang happened and whether or not life can spontaneously generate out of non-living matter.Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"The answer, of course, is there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.God created everything and everything was perfect. Therefore God created Satan and he was perfect too. When did Satan become imperfect? How does imperfection come from perfection? If God is omniscient, and knows what is to come, why did he create Satan? Why did he create people and then be surprised that they were imperfect and wipe them out except for Noah and his family? Where did the concept of sin come from? If God created everything, did he also create sin? Was sin perfect too? If everything was perfect, why were some animals forbidden to eat? If animals used to live together peacefully, what did carnivores eat?Again, GOD created a perfect universe. When Adam and Eve decided to listen to Satan, they corrupted not only themselves but the entire Creation. Nature groans under the weight of sin. Animals now attack each other, insects carry diseases, plants are poisonous and give rashes, mountains and oceans now separate people. What you are trying to promote is corrupted lies and half-truths. You either never read the Bible or you simply close your eyes and ears to those things that annoy you!
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
The same way you prove someone is a drug-dealer.Bad analogy since stamp collecting is, indeed, a hobby. It can be proved to be a hobby and someone who isn't a stamp collector can be proved to not collect stamps. Believing or disbelieving in something completely intangible and unprovable is a matter of faith since whether or not there is anything beyond the physical universe cannot be proved or disproved..Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"The answer, of course, is there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.God created everything and everything was perfect. Therefore God created Satan and he was perfect too. When did Satan become imperfect? How does imperfection come from perfection? If God is omniscient, and knows what is to come, why did he create Satan? Why did he create people and then be surprised that they were imperfect and wipe them out except for Noah and his family? Where did the concept of sin come from? If God created everything, did he also create sin? Was sin perfect too? If everything was perfect, why were some animals forbidden to eat? If animals used to live together peacefully, what did carnivores eat?
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
How do you prove that someone does not collect stamps? Certainly you can search for proof that they do collect stamps- but you can't really prove that someone doesn't collect stamps.
Now let us try another thought experiment.
A child is raised without any exposure to religion, without being told fairy tales, without any tales of the supernatural- with no exposure to the concept of gods or religion or faith.
That child- if she developed her own faith- would indeed have a faith. But if she didn't- she would be a clean slate- absent of any faith. She would be an atheist. She would lack a belief in god.
Just like I do.
By taking their word for
The same way you prove someone is a drug-dealer. .Bad analogy since stamp collecting is, indeed, a hobby. It can be proved to be a hobby and someone who isn't a stamp collector can be proved to not collect stamps. Believing or disbelieving in something completely intangible and unprovable is a matter of faith since whether or not there is anything beyond the physical universe cannot be proved or disproved..Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"The answer, of course, is there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
How do you prove that someone does not collect stamps? Certainly you can search for proof that they do collect stamps- but you can't really prove that someone doesn't collect stamps.
Now let us try another thought experiment.
A child is raised without any exposure to religion, without being told fairy tales, without any tales of the supernatural- with no exposure to the concept of gods or religion or faith.
That child- if she developed her own faith- would indeed have a faith. But if she didn't- she would be a clean slate- absent of any faith. She would be an atheist. She would lack a belief in god.
Just like I do.
By taking their word for
Bad analogy since stamp collecting is, indeed, a hobby. It can be proved to be a hobby and someone who isn't a stamp collector can be proved to not collect stamps. Believing or disbelieving in something completely intangible and unprovable is a matter of faith since whether or not there is anything beyond the physical universe cannot be proved or disproved..Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"The answer, of course, is there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
How do you prove that someone does not collect stamps? Certainly you can search for proof that they do collect stamps- but you can't really prove that someone doesn't collect stamps.
Now let us try another thought experiment.
A child is raised without any exposure to religion, without being told fairy tales, without any tales of the supernatural- with no exposure to the concept of gods or religion or faith.
That child- if she developed her own faith- would indeed have a faith. But if she didn't- she would be a clean slate- absent of any faith. She would be an atheist. She would lack a belief in god.
Just like I do.
By taking their word for
Most people, regardless of culture and upbringing, have some kind of spiritual beliefs. It's part of being human. OTOH, like some people are born blind or deaf, some being born "blind" to their own spirituality is, no doubt, part of the human condition. Not their fault. Just the way it is.
As others have pointed out and as I've alluded before, "religion" is a tool towards learning about one's own spirituality just like learning TKD or Jujitsu is a tool towards learning self-defense. The Bible, IMO, is man's perceptions of a power that created the Universe. The caveat is that a power capable of creating the Universe is beyond our mortal ability to comprehend that even comparing it to an ant trying to comprehend the Solar System would be greatly underestimating the problem. Still, we can try to understand what we can. If someone just wants to believe WYSIWYG and that's all there is, that's their choice.What cannot be proved is why the Big Bang happened and whether or not life can spontaneously generate out of non-living matter.Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"The answer, of course, is there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.God created everything and everything was perfect. Therefore God created Satan and he was perfect too. When did Satan become imperfect? How does imperfection come from perfection? If God is omniscient, and knows what is to come, why did he create Satan? Why did he create people and then be surprised that they were imperfect and wipe them out except for Noah and his family? Where did the concept of sin come from? If God created everything, did he also create sin? Was sin perfect too? If everything was perfect, why were some animals forbidden to eat? If animals used to live together peacefully, what did carnivores eat?
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
I agree- we can't yet prove those things- and frankly I expect that there were be major tweaks to both theories.
That doesn't mean I have to believe that there might be a god.
Close and constant observation for 30 years should provide some clues.The same way you prove someone is a drug-dealer. .Bad analogy since stamp collecting is, indeed, a hobby. It can be proved to be a hobby and someone who isn't a stamp collector can be proved to not collect stamps. Believing or disbelieving in something completely intangible and unprovable is a matter of faith since whether or not there is anything beyond the physical universe cannot be proved or disproved..Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
How do you prove that someone does not collect stamps? Certainly you can search for proof that they do collect stamps- but you can't really prove that someone doesn't collect stamps.
Now let us try another thought experiment.
A child is raised without any exposure to religion, without being told fairy tales, without any tales of the supernatural- with no exposure to the concept of gods or religion or faith.
That child- if she developed her own faith- would indeed have a faith. But if she didn't- she would be a clean slate- absent of any faith. She would be an atheist. She would lack a belief in god.
Just like I do.
By taking their word for
How do you prove someone is not a drug dealer?
Hence my point. Across all cultures, all history, no matter how diverse or how isolated.Bad analogy since stamp collecting is, indeed, a hobby. It can be proved to be a hobby and someone who isn't a stamp collector can be proved to not collect stamps. Believing or disbelieving in something completely intangible and unprovable is a matter of faith since whether or not there is anything beyond the physical universe cannot be proved or disproved..Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
How do you prove that someone does not collect stamps? Certainly you can search for proof that they do collect stamps- but you can't really prove that someone doesn't collect stamps.
Now let us try another thought experiment.
A child is raised without any exposure to religion, without being told fairy tales, without any tales of the supernatural- with no exposure to the concept of gods or religion or faith.
That child- if she developed her own faith- would indeed have a faith. But if she didn't- she would be a clean slate- absent of any faith. She would be an atheist. She would lack a belief in god.
Just like I do.
By taking their word for
Most people, regardless of culture and upbringing, have some kind of spiritual beliefs. It's part of being human. OTOH, like some people are born blind or deaf, some being born "blind" to their own spirituality is, no doubt, part of the human condition. Not their fault. Just the way it is.
Most people have some kind of spiritual beliefs- because of their culture and upbringing.
Virtually no one is raised without some exposure to culture and upbringing- but like i said- this is a thought experiment.
You believe that is someone was raised without any exposure to religion or religious faith they would somehow automatically and inevitably invent some spiritual beliefs.
I don't.
Understood, but disagreed. If a bunch of babies were placed on an island and raised by machines, I believe they'd not only invent their own culture, but as they went through pubescence, would do what came natural. Similarly, since spirituality not only seems to be a natural part of ourselves, including genetically (a dicey subject for some!), I think they'd become spiritual.Most people have some kind of spiritual beliefs- because of their culture and upbringing.
Virtually no one is raised without some exposure to culture and upbringing- but like i said- this is a thought experiment.
You believe that is someone was raised without any exposure to religion or religious faith they would somehow automatically and inevitably invent some spiritual beliefs.
I don't.
As others have pointed out and as I've alluded before, "religion" is a tool towards learning about one's own spirituality just like learning TKD or Jujitsu is a tool towards learning self-defense. The Bible, IMO, is man's perceptions of a power that created the Universe. The caveat is that a power capable of creating the Universe is beyond our mortal ability to comprehend that even comparing it to an ant trying to comprehend the Solar System would be greatly underestimating the problem. Still, we can try to understand what we can. If someone just wants to believe WYSIWYG and that's all there is, that's their choice.What cannot be proved is why the Big Bang happened and whether or not life can spontaneously generate out of non-living matter.Which is a belief in itself....Yes, I know atheists looooove to say "No, dammit, it's disbelief!!!"The answer, of course, is there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.
No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
I agree- we can't yet prove those things- and frankly I expect that there were be major tweaks to both theories.
That doesn't mean I have to believe that there might be a god.
Let's not forget that besides "religion", philosophy is a very big subject among human cultures. It's often as intangible as spirituality and is often related to it.
An oldie but a goodie:
Understood, but disagreed. If a bunch of babies were placed on an island and raised by machines, I believe they'd not only invent their own culture, but as they went through pubescence, would do what came natural. Similarly, since spirituality not only seems to be a natural part of ourselves, including genetically (a dicey subject for some!), I think they'd become spiritual.Most people have some kind of spiritual beliefs- because of their culture and upbringing.
Virtually no one is raised without some exposure to culture and upbringing- but like i said- this is a thought experiment.
You believe that is someone was raised without any exposure to religion or religious faith they would somehow automatically and inevitably invent some spiritual beliefs.
I don't.
Sure, some would become "religious" just like B.F. Skinner's "religious pigeons", but the smart ones would contemplate existence itself thus exploring the same questions countless philosophers and spiritual-seekers have done throughout history.
Hence my point. Across all cultures, all history, no matter how diverse or how isolated.Bad analogy since stamp collecting is, indeed, a hobby. It can be proved to be a hobby and someone who isn't a stamp collector can be proved to not collect stamps. Believing or disbelieving in something completely intangible and unprovable is a matter of faith since whether or not there is anything beyond the physical universe cannot be proved or disproved..No more than not collecting stamps is a hobby the same as collecting stamps.
You of course can believe whatever you want about how I an atheist thinks- that is of course your belief.
How do you prove that someone does not collect stamps? Certainly you can search for proof that they do collect stamps- but you can't really prove that someone doesn't collect stamps.
Now let us try another thought experiment.
A child is raised without any exposure to religion, without being told fairy tales, without any tales of the supernatural- with no exposure to the concept of gods or religion or faith.
That child- if she developed her own faith- would indeed have a faith. But if she didn't- she would be a clean slate- absent of any faith. She would be an atheist. She would lack a belief in god.
Just like I do.
By taking their word for
Most people, regardless of culture and upbringing, have some kind of spiritual beliefs. It's part of being human. OTOH, like some people are born blind or deaf, some being born "blind" to their own spirituality is, no doubt, part of the human condition. Not their fault. Just the way it is.
Most people have some kind of spiritual beliefs- because of their culture and upbringing.
Virtually no one is raised without some exposure to culture and upbringing- but like i said- this is a thought experiment.
You believe that is someone was raised without any exposure to religion or religious faith they would somehow automatically and inevitably invent some spiritual beliefs.
I don't.
How many cultures do you know of which were completely atheistic?
To avoid the contamination of being culturally influenced as per your "thought experiment".Understood, but disagreed. If a bunch of babies were placed on an island and raised by machines, I believe they'd not only invent their own culture, but as they went through pubescence, would do what came natural. Similarly, since spirituality not only seems to be a natural part of ourselves, including genetically (a dicey subject for some!), I think they'd become spiritual.Most people have some kind of spiritual beliefs- because of their culture and upbringing.
Virtually no one is raised without some exposure to culture and upbringing- but like i said- this is a thought experiment.
You believe that is someone was raised without any exposure to religion or religious faith they would somehow automatically and inevitably invent some spiritual beliefs.
I don't.
Sure, some would become "religious" just like B.F. Skinner's "religious pigeons", but the smart ones would contemplate existence itself thus exploring the same questions countless philosophers and spiritual-seekers have done throughout history.
Why have them raised by machines?
If children were raised without any history of religion or teachings of 'spirituality' and taught of the hard sciences of biology and chemistry- I don't think that they would ever come up with the concept of spirits.
A few might make up stories about what happens to them when they die but I think that would be about it.
You are conjecturing that if children were raised educated in the sciences that they'd never develop any spiritual awareness. Dude, human being's aren't "Vulcans". Even though many very educated modern people are moving away from "religion", they are not without spiritual awareness.Hence my point. Across all cultures, all history, no matter how diverse or how isolated.Bad analogy since stamp collecting is, indeed, a hobby. It can be proved to be a hobby and someone who isn't a stamp collector can be proved to not collect stamps. Believing or disbelieving in something completely intangible and unprovable is a matter of faith since whether or not there is anything beyond the physical universe cannot be proved or disproved..
How do you prove that someone does not collect stamps? Certainly you can search for proof that they do collect stamps- but you can't really prove that someone doesn't collect stamps.
Now let us try another thought experiment.
A child is raised without any exposure to religion, without being told fairy tales, without any tales of the supernatural- with no exposure to the concept of gods or religion or faith.
That child- if she developed her own faith- would indeed have a faith. But if she didn't- she would be a clean slate- absent of any faith. She would be an atheist. She would lack a belief in god.
Just like I do.
By taking their word for
Most people, regardless of culture and upbringing, have some kind of spiritual beliefs. It's part of being human. OTOH, like some people are born blind or deaf, some being born "blind" to their own spirituality is, no doubt, part of the human condition. Not their fault. Just the way it is.
Most people have some kind of spiritual beliefs- because of their culture and upbringing.
Virtually no one is raised without some exposure to culture and upbringing- but like i said- this is a thought experiment.
You believe that is someone was raised without any exposure to religion or religious faith they would somehow automatically and inevitably invent some spiritual beliefs.
I don't.
How many cultures do you know of which were completely atheistic?
How many cultures developed with a working knowledge of chemistry and biology?
I agree that humans have a tendency to create stories to explain what they do not comprehend. So lightning becomes gods fighting each other, and earthquakes a god rolling over, and a flood a god punishing humanity.
But.....humans(generally) don't blame gods on floods, and earthquakes and lightning. Because we understand the science of behind them.
Whoever Controls Language Controls Thoughtit is true. historically, the more sexual freedom that is allowed, the weaker the state becomes....
Whoever Controls Language Controls Thoughtit is true. historically, the more sexual freedom that is allowed, the weaker the state becomes....
Except that "homosexuality" is not sexual. It is a symptom of a deep psychological deficiency. Psychiatrists call it a sexuality because it is easier and more lucrative to pander to than to cure.
No one is dedicated to homosexuality unless one thinks one has something to gain from it... Homosexuality is in fact missing the master plan point of sex.Whoever Controls Language Controls Thoughtit is true. historically, the more sexual freedom that is allowed, the weaker the state becomes....
Except that "homosexuality" is not sexual. It is a symptom of a deep psychological deficiency. Psychiatrists call it a sexuality because it is easier and more lucrative to pander to than to cure.
Ah, looks like we have us another blog-educated expert that has managed to fool himself into thinking he is more qualified in a scientific field than the people who have dedicated their lives to it. This always fascinates me.
No one is dedicated to homosexuality unless one thinks one has something to gain from it... Homosexuality is in fact missing the point of sex.Whoever Controls Language Controls Thoughtit is true. historically, the more sexual freedom that is allowed, the weaker the state becomes....
Except that "homosexuality" is not sexual. It is a symptom of a deep psychological deficiency. Psychiatrists call it a sexuality because it is easier and more lucrative to pander to than to cure.
Ah, looks like we have us another blog-educated expert that has managed to fool himself into thinking he is more qualified in a scientific field than the people who have dedicated their lives to it. This always fascinates me.
