BANNED!

[Darth Wong]

No, because I can explain exactly why their actions are immoral

Alright, why are their actions immoral.

Murderers hurt people. Duh. Their crimes are objective, with identifiable victims. There is pain, there is suffering, etc.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, don't hurt anyone by being gay. They commit no crime by being gay, and there is no victim of their "crime". They do not inflict pain on anyone, they do not inflict suffering on anyone, etc.

This is the most idiotic line of reasoning I've ever heard. I suppose you'll ask me to justify the instinctive recognition that pain and death are bad things, as if this needs as much justification as your wholly fabricated belief that homosexuality is a bad thing.

[neoolong]

You defend your hatred of gays with subjective beliefs. I defend my hatred of murderers by pointing out that they hurt people, ie- objective facts. In other words, I have provided a tangible reason to hate murderers. You cannot provide a tangible reason to hate gays (or to worship a God who hates gays) apart from your own personal beliefs, which means that you are a bigot, ie- your contempt for them comes from within you, and has no objective basis.

I said on my second post in this thread that I do not hate gays.

Yet you have an irrational belief that they are immoral and you find their lifestyle contemptible. Wow, can you feel the love?

Wow, a priority in a sociopathic egomaniacal invisible man. That's real convincing. But wait, we base our priority on something called morality. Thanks for agreeing that you base your life not on morality but on the bigotry and hatred that your "deity" spews.

I said based on your own moralities, not morality in general.

[/b]

Our morality is based on morality at large. You on the other hand find it better to cling to hatred and bigotry to feel superior to all the godless hoards out there. And of course your morality is better with all the murders and genocide it condones and encourages.

[Non Catenatum]

And some of the WCOTC racists came here and said they don't hate blacks either . You refuse to acknowledge the word "hate" as it applies to you, but you praise a God who hates them and promises to torture them for all eternity. This is no different from praising Hitler while claiming that you don't hate Jews.

God will send to hell those who do not come to Him. And God's righteous anger is different from man's limited hate. God is sinless and the Creator so He has the right to dislike one based on their heart. We, on the other hand, are limited only in knowing the present, and by our own sins would be hypocrites to hate based on the sin that we ourselves live in.

[Darth Wong]

In the same way, you use your own beliefs that God does not exist, and based off what you don't know you say it is wrong for me to say homosexuality is wrong. That makes you, inn your own definition, a bigot, as you cannot objectively disprove the existance of God.

You cannot objectively disprove the existence of Santa Claus either, but you CAN logically demonstrate that there is no reason whatsoever to believe he exists, and quite a few reasons to believe that he doesn't. I KNEW you would bring up this moronic "you can't disprove God" argument sooner or later; all fundies do.

[Darth Wong]

God will send to hell those who do not come to Him. And God's righteous anger is different from man's limited hate. God is sinless and the Creator so He has the right to dislike one based on their heart.

No he doesn't. He is evil.

We, on the other hand, are limited only in knowing the present, and by our own sins would be hypocrites to hate based on the sin that we ourselves live in.

Blah blah blah, citing your own unsupportable beliefs as evidence in an argument. Pathetic.

[neoolong]

As such, you saying God says homosexuals are wrong is merely you justifying your own hatred. You do use your own beliefs, or you admit you follow blindly even when you are wrong. Take off your blinders bigot.

In the same way, you use your own beliefs that God does not exist, and based off what you don't know you say it is wrong for me to say homosexuality is wrong. That makes you, inn your own definition, a bigot, as you cannot objectively disprove the existance of God.

I never said that a deity doesn't exist dumbass. I said your deity based in a literal Biblical text doesn't exist. Which I can and have objectively disproven. Face it, if you didn't have blinders on you would see the Bible for what it truly is a bunch of myths. And you wouldn't cling to it as proof that you aren't a bigot, you're just doing God's will.

[Non Catenatum]

This is the most idiotic line of reasoning I've ever heard. I suppose you'll ask me to justify the instinctive recognition that pain and death are bad things, as if this needs as much justification as your wholly fabricated belief that homosexuality is a bad thing.

Close. Prove to me that it is wrong to hurt people now. From where do you base that, and how can you show it. You are bigoted because, compared to canabalistic tribes that believe it is ok to eat and inflict pain on someone, you use your own ideas to justify otherwise.

[Non Catenatum]

Blah blah blah, citing your own unsupportable beliefs as evidence in an argument. Pathetic.

Proving the existance of God to those that don't believe is like trying to prove to a blind man that color exists. We can't. The seeing person can objectively see color and know it exists. The blind person cannot see color thus any attempt to "prove" the existance of color is futile.

I admit that I cannot prove the existance of God. I do not expect you to believe in Him nor His rules until He has shown Himself. I am merely saying that, unless my belief is a fake, I am not being bigotted.

[neoolong]

This is the most idiotic line of reasoning I've ever heard. I suppose you'll ask me to justify the instinctive recognition that pain and death are bad things, as if this needs as much justification as your wholly fabricated belief that homosexuality is a bad thing.

Close. Prove to me that it is wrong to hurt people now. From where do you base that, and how can you show it. You are bigoted because, compared to canabalistic tribes that believe it is ok to eat and inflict pain on someone, you use your own ideas to justify otherwise.

It's called morality. Perhaps you've heard of it. Oh wait you wouldn't have because you throw out morality in favor of following the wishes of an invisible man so you can fulfill your hatred and justify it by saying, some other guy wants it. Take some responsibility for your life.

[The Dark]

As such, you saying God says homosexuals are wrong is merely you justifying your own hatred. You do use your own beliefs, or you admit you follow blindly even when you are wrong. Take off your blinders bigot.

In the same way, you use your own beliefs that God does not exist, and based off what you don't know you say it is wrong for me to say homosexuality is wrong. That makes you, inn your own definition, a bigot, as you cannot objectively disprove the existance of God.

I never said that a deity doesn't exist dumbass. I said your deity based in a literal Biblical text doesn't exist. Which I can and have objectively disproven. Face it, if you didn't have blinders on you would see the Bible for what it truly is a bunch of myths. And you wouldn't cling to it as proof that you aren't a bigot, you're just doing God's will.

Ahem. Technically, ANY religious text consists of myths. Mythology is the stories that make up the framework that religious ritual is built around. I agree totally that the Biblical text cannot be interpreted literally; Christian theologians began saying that 1800 years ago. Unfortunately, a group of Christian idiots (which does not mean all of us) felt that evolution meant the end of the world as they knew it and countered by attempting to violate Christian doctrine and interpret the Bible as literal fact. The true unfortunate thing is that the mainstream churches, which are less virulent than the fundamentalists, won't denounce the literalists as the heretics they are.

[neoolong]

Blah blah blah, citing your own unsupportable beliefs as evidence in an argument. Pathetic.

Proving the existance of God to those that don't believe is like trying to prove to a blind man that color exists. We can't. The seeing person can objectively see color and know it exists. The blind person cannot see color thus any attempt to "prove" the existance of color is futile.

I admit that I cannot prove the existance of God. I do not expect you to believe in Him nor His rules until He has shown Himself. I am merely saying that, unless my belief is a fake, I am not being bigotted.

Ok, fine. Then you agree that since your beliefs are fake, then you are a bigot. Glad we agree on something.

Oh, and you can prove color to someone who is blind. Explain physics and the concept of color and light and they will understand what color really is.

[Darth Wong]

Close. Prove to me that it is wrong to hurt people now. From where do you base that, and how can you show it. You are bigoted because, compared to canabalistic tribes that believe it is ok to eat and inflict pain on someone, you use your own ideas to justify otherwise.

Hardly. I can identify objective harm from actions such as murder. You may employ the transparent sophistry that it's a value judgement to say it's immoral to cause physical harm and suffering, but that does not affect the point that objective, measurable, verifiable harm is being done. You cannot do the same for homosexuality.

When pressed into a corner, the fundie generally abandons any pretense of logical argument and demands absolute proofs of EVERYTHING in an obvious and desperate delay tactic.

Notice how the fundie cannot provide a shred of reasoning for the immorality of homosexuality, so pretends that we asked for absolute proof rather than any kind of reasoning, and then pretends that he/she need not provide even the flimsiest shred of reasoning unless we provide absolute proof of everything we say. In other words, you can't ask me for a nickel unless you give me a million dollars first

[Non Catenatum]

It's called morality. Perhaps you've heard of it. Oh wait you wouldn't have because you throw out morality in favor of following the wishes of an invisible man so you can fulfill your hatred and justify it by saying, some other guy wants it. Take some responsibility for your life.

Then your idea of morals could very well come from within, as not everyone shares the same morals.

[Darth Wong]

Proving the existance of God to those that don't believe is like trying to prove to a blind man that color exists. We can't. The seeing person can objectively see color and know it exists. The blind person cannot see color thus any attempt to "prove" the existance of color is futile.

Cute analogy. Too bad it's utterly false. Colour can be measured by various devices. God cannot.

I admit that I cannot prove the existance of God. I do not expect you to believe in Him nor His rules until He has shown Himself. I am merely saying that, unless my belief is a fake, I am not being bigotted.

Wrong. If it is not objective, then it has no basis in a discussion over the judgements you make in objective reality. This is like saying that the Nazis aren't evil as long as you personally believe in the supremacy of the aryan race. When one is criticizing someone's beliefs, it is ridiculous to use those beliefs in order to justify themselves.

[Non Catenatum]

Notice how the fundie cannot provide a shred of reasoning for the immorality of homosexuality, so pretends that we asked for absolute proof rather than any kind of reasoning, and then pretends that he/she need not provide even the flimsiest shred of reasoning unless we provide absolute proof of everything we say. In other words, you can't ask me for a nickel unless you give me a million dollars first

I don't need absolute proof. The point I am making is that you claim that following rules of God is worthless, yet you follow your own morality and, because it is widely believed, use it as more worth then mine. The political idea of morality comes from within, thus only an Outward reason could make all morals the same.

[neoolong]

It's called morality. Perhaps you've heard of it. Oh wait you wouldn't have because you throw out morality in favor of following the wishes of an invisible man so you can fulfill your hatred and justify it by saying, some other guy wants it. Take some responsibility for your life.

Then your idea of morals could very well come from within, as not everyone shares the same morals.

That's relativism. An extremely stupid idea. Objective harm is being done in murder. As such it is morally wrong. So there is an objective aspect to morality. Of course, the voice in your head won't hear of that and will still command his followers to commit genocide and other atrocities.

[Darth Wong]

Then your idea of morals could very well come from within, as not everyone shares the same morals.

But everyone can see and verify and confirm that objective harm has been done when someone is murdered. Human societal morality is dictated by societies, not individuals or their imaginary deities, and it should be based on objective reality, since that is not personal and is therefore applicable across society.

[IDMR]

It's called morality. Perhaps you've heard of it. Oh wait you wouldn't have because you throw out morality in favor of following the wishes of an invisible man so you can fulfill your hatred and justify it by saying, some other guy wants it. Take some responsibility for your life.

Then your idea of morals could very well come from within, as not everyone shares the same morals.

Explain the mechanism of 'coming from within'. Do you mean it is hardwired into our brain, a part of society's conditioning, or put there by an invisible spiritual being?

[Non Catenatum]

I am not saying that murder is right. And I know, it is moral relativism.

[Non Catenatum]

Within, meaning there is no objective proof of morals other then one's own convictions.

I do not intend to say morals do not exist. I do intend to state that you cannot call one a bigot for his moral beliefs, when at the same time you all hold moral beliefs against bigotry.

[Darth Wong]

I don't need absolute proof. The point I am making is that you claim that following rules of God is worthless, yet you follow your own morality and, because it is widely believed, use it as more worth then mine. The political idea of morality comes from within, thus only an Outward reason could make all morals the same.

That outward reason is human society. Morality only exists because society exists. If there were no interaction with others, morality would be a non-issue.

PS. human society exists. This is easy to demonstrate. Your God, however, is still just a figment of your imagination. Humanist morality may incorporate some value judgements, but it still employs an objective basis; your "morality" does not.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Tell me creationistalltheway, What harm has a lawful(as per not raping people, which by the way is an act of violence and not sex) homosexual, such as my self, ever done to harm another living being, intentionally. Sure there is HIV, but straight people spread that one too. Go on, make a list.

[Non Catenatum]

Tell me creationistalltheway, What harm has a lawful(as per not raping people, which by the way is an act of violence and not sex) homosexual, such as my self, ever done to harm another living being, intentionally

If I were basing my morals soley on cause and effect, then none necissarily(aside from sin)

[Darth Wong]

Within, meaning there is no objective proof of morals other then one's own convictions.

I do not intend to say morals do not exist. I do intend to state that you cannot call one a bigot for his moral beliefs, when at the same time you all hold moral beliefs against bigotry.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over, since you quite clearly have no intention of listening. Is it a value judgement to say that pain and death are bad? Perhaps, although it is also instinctive and therefore not individual. But once we accept that, it is quite obvious why most societal moral systems are the way they are. Your "morals", on the other hand, flow from no instinct, no objective basis, nothing but your own subjective beliefs.

[neoolong]

Within, meaning there is no objective proof of morals other then one's own convictions.

I do not intend to say morals do not exist. I do intend to state that you cannot call one a bigot for his moral beliefs, when at the same time you all hold moral beliefs against bigotry.

That's still relativism. Do you actually have an argument? The moral beliefs of a bigot are wrong, therefore he is a bigot. There is no right in his own personal case.