Hitchen's Challange

[We Never Know]

I know I was born heterosexual, never had any doubts.

You nor any one around you knew that when you were "born".

 

[robocop (actually)]

So you accept there is no objective evidence for any miracle, that's refreshing. I did not mention science, so that is clearly a straw man, theists seem far more obsessed with science than atheists in my experience.

Another problem for the claims that abound for miracles, is that miracles are defined precisely as an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. If something is irrational by definition, then it hardly bodes well.

Whatever

 

[Sheldon]

You nor any one around you knew that when you were "born".

No one knows their sexuality when they are new born, so what? Physical attraction and sexual awareness may have different starting points obviously, but before I was aware of any sexual desires I knew I found girls attractive and not boys.

We are born able to speak, but we don't know this from the moment of our birth.

Interesting article here...Citation:

"Let’s get some facts and perspective on the issue. Evidence from independent research groups who studied twins shows that genetic factors explain about 25-30% of the differences between people in sexual orientation (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual). Twin studies are a first look into the genetics of a trait and tell us that there are such things as “genes for sexual orientation” (I hate the phrase “gay gene”). Three gene finding studies showed that gay brothers share genetic markers on the X chromosome; the most recent study also found shared markers on chromosome 8. This latest research overcomes the problems of three prior studies which did not find the same results.

Gene finding efforts have issues, as Copland argues, but these are technical and not catastrophic errors in the science. For example, complex psychological traits have many causal genes (not simply “a gay gene”). But each of these genes has a small effect on the trait so do not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. In other words, lots of genes which do influence sexual orientation may fall under the radar. But scientific techniques will eventually catch up. In fact there are more pressing problems that I would like to see addressed, such as the inadequate research on female sexuality. Perhaps this is due to the stereotype that female sexuality is “too complex” or that lesbians are rarer than gay men."

 

[We Never Know]

No one knows their sexuality when they are new born, so what? Physical attraction and sexual awareness may have different starting points obviously, but before I was aware of any sexual desires I knew I found girls attractive and not boys.

Interesting article here...Citation:

"Let’s get some facts and perspective on the issue. Evidence from independent research groups who studied twins shows that genetic factors explain about 25-30% of the differences between people in sexual orientation (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual). Twin studies are a first look into the genetics of a trait and tell us that there are such things as “genes for sexual orientation” (I hate the phrase “gay gene”). Three gene finding studies showed that gay brothers share genetic markers on the X chromosome; the most recent study also found shared markers on chromosome 8. This latest research overcomes the problems of three prior studies which did not find the same results.

Gene finding efforts have issues, as Copland argues, but these are technical and not catastrophic errors in the science. For example, complex psychological traits have many causal genes (not simply “a gay gene”). But each of these genes has a small effect on the trait so do not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. In other words, lots of genes which do influence sexual orientation may fall under the radar. But scientific techniques will eventually catch up. In fact there are more pressing problems that I would like to see addressed, such as the inadequate research on female sexuality. Perhaps this is due to the stereotype that female sexuality is “too complex” or that lesbians are rarer than gay men."

"No one knows their sexuality when they are new born"

Exactly! Glad to see you agree with me again.

Is there a hetrosexual gene?

 

[We Never Know]

No one knows their sexuality when they are new born, so what? Physical attraction and sexual awareness may have different starting points obviously, but before I was aware of any sexual desires I knew I found girls attractive and not boys.

We are born able to speak, but we don't know this from the moment of our birth.

Interesting article here...Citation:

"Let’s get some facts and perspective on the issue. Evidence from independent research groups who studied twins shows that genetic factors explain about 25-30% of the differences between people in sexual orientation (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual). Twin studies are a first look into the genetics of a trait and tell us that there are such things as “genes for sexual orientation” (I hate the phrase “gay gene”). Three gene finding studies showed that gay brothers share genetic markers on the X chromosome; the most recent study also found shared markers on chromosome 8. This latest research overcomes the problems of three prior studies which did not find the same results.

Gene finding efforts have issues, as Copland argues, but these are technical and not catastrophic errors in the science. For example, complex psychological traits have many causal genes (not simply “a gay gene”). But each of these genes has a small effect on the trait so do not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. In other words, lots of genes which do influence sexual orientation may fall under the radar. But scientific techniques will eventually catch up. In fact there are more pressing problems that I would like to see addressed, such as the inadequate research on female sexuality. Perhaps this is due to the stereotype that female sexuality is “too complex” or that lesbians are rarer than gay men."

As for the "gay gene"....

https://www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject....gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

There’s (Still) No Gay Gene

The 'Gay Gene' Is A Myth But Being Gay Is 'Natural,' Say Scientists

No single gene associated with being gay

 

[DNB]

Some few parts are "pertinent " tho
we note those merely state or record
folk wisdom about human nature, things
well known to all societies.

Ok, so it states the truth, irrespective of other societies that came to the same conclusion. Certain things that God has implemented on earth. are axiomatic to all people. Having either an atheist or a non-Christian or Jew recognize these facts, neither negates nor undermines the Bible's veracity.
But, the difference is, among many, is that the Bible explains the origins of such inspirations and motivations in man, and how to combat and overcome them.

 

[DNB]

How many slaves do you own then?

What's your price?

 

[DNB]

All your posts have shown is hatred mate. Blind bigoted hatred of millions of people who happen to have been born gay. Your vapid platitudes above love are ringing hollow sorry.

Again this is errant nonsense else our societies would still be clinging doggedly to the barbaric "morals" that are ubiquitous in both bible and koran.

So you think slavery is ok then, and sex trafficking virginal female prisoners of war, and ethnic cleansing, and stoning unruly children, and you never eat crops grown near other crops, or wear more than one type of fabric, or ever eat shellfish?

The Bible is valid for many reasons, and even is the Levitical legislation that has now been abrogated with the advent of Christ. It teaches us how man has comported himself in regard to such divine and austere precepts - his defiance, his perversion of the laws, his indifference , and ultimately, his inability to fulfill the demands.
Divinely ordained slavery and genocide, male hierarchy, dietary laws, bull sacrifices, etc...are difficult to understand, but not beyond comprehension and justification, simply because certain Christian or Jewish apologists do not have the required wisdom to elucidate their significance.

But, on an elementary level, there are definitely grounds to mitigate - the decimated races were evil to an unfathomable degree, and given ample time to repent. Slaves were not treated as the modern day, or North American perception determines - slaves owned property and wives and children, and may even love their master and not want their freedom. It was an entirely different dynamic, common and accepted in all societies at that time. Dietary, attire, agricultural, and festival laws were symbolic, they were temporal and meant only to indicate the demands of holiness and perfection - purity is neither mixed nor tainted, is not compromised, and requires dedication, discipline and permanency....

....thus, it is the permanent adherence to such uncompromising tenets, man could not fulfill - the austerity of the Law and the demands of righteousness, impressed upon man his need for God's grace and mercy - a Saviour.

Atheists are oblivious to such a Biblical exposition, ...whereas they shouldn't be, if they were being sincere and insightful.

 

[ppp]

Of course!

Miracles can't be performed among the non-believing, so unless the scientists believe they won't detect it.

That must mean that you deny that Paul had a Damascus Road experience.

 

[robocop (actually)]

That must mean that you deny that Paul had a Damascus Road experience.

Good point! The same happened to Alma the Younger in the Book of Mormon.

Either it was an exception because God can do amazing things or they had hidden belief that they weren't expressing.

 

[ppp]

Good point! The same happened to Alma the Younger in the Book of Mormon.

Either it was an exception because God can do amazing things or they had hidden belief that they weren't expressing.

Is your god omnipotent? And does he want me to believe that he isn't just a human fiction? If he wants me to accept his existence then all he has to do is show up.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Is your god omnipotent? And does he want me to believe that he isn't just a human fiction? If he wants me to accept his existence then all he has to do is show up.

And if all you need is for Him to show up, will you please try to get ready however you can?

 

[ppp]

And if all you need is for Him to show up, will you please try to get ready however you can?

Nope. I am going to keep going about my life as though he doesn't exist. Until someone (including any extant god) presents adequate evidence that he does. This is my standard for everything.

 

[Audie]

Ok, so it states the truth, irrespective of other societies that came to the same conclusion. Certain things that God has implemented on earth. are axiomatic to all people. Having either an atheist or a non-Christian or Jew recognize these facts, neither negates nor undermines the Bible's veracity.
But, the difference is, among many, is that the Bible explains the origins of such inspirations and motivations in man, and how to combat and overcome them.

Nothing i said indicates I feel it states
" the truth".
Here and there it gets things right.
Thats actually not hard.

The bible offers a narrative about origins.
A psych 101 text would have a lot more practical info on human behaviour.

Since those days study has kept showing that
reality is far far stranger than was evident to
certain poor shepherds

The explanation in the bible is poetic or
metaphorical but low on truth you can
get your teeth into.

 

[Audie]

That must mean that you deny that Paul had a Damascus Road experience.

I dont believe it any more than i do his snake story

 

[Audie]

The Bible is valid for many reasons, and even is the Levitical legislation that has now been abrogated with the advent of Christ. It teaches us how man has comported himself in regard to such divine and austere precepts - his defiance, his perversion of the laws, his indifference , and ultimately, his inability to fulfill the demands.
Divinely ordained slavery and genocide, male hierarchy, dietary laws, bull sacrifices, etc...are difficult to understand, but not beyond comprehension and justification, simply because certain Christian or Jewish apologists do not have the required wisdom to elucidate their significance.

But, on an elementary level, there are definitely grounds to mitigate - the decimated races were evil to an unfathomable degree, and given ample time to repent. Slaves were not treated as the modern day, or North American perception determines - slaves owned property and wives and children, and may even love their master and not want their freedom. It was an entirely different dynamic, common and accepted in all societies at that time. Dietary, attire, agricultural, and festival laws were symbolic, they were temporal and meant only to indicate the demands of holiness and perfection - purity is neither mixed nor tainted, is not compromised, and requires dedication, discipline and permanency....

....thus, it is the permanent adherence to such uncompromising tenets, man could not fulfill - the austerity of the Law and the demands of righteousness, impressed upon man his need for God's grace and mercy - a Saviour.

Atheists are oblivious to such a Biblical exposition, ...whereas they shouldn't be, if they were being sincere and insightful.

So no atheist is capable or inclined to
such intellectual achievements because they are all lazy and intellectually dishonest.

 

[ppp]

I dont believe it any more than i do his snake story

Me either. But if a Christian tells me that his god cannot communicate with non-believers, then I am going to bring up the guy responsible for their whole freakin' religion.

 

[lukethethird]

That must mean that you deny that Paul had a Damascus Road experience.

Paul never claimed to have a Damascus road experience.

 

[ppp]

Paul never claimed to have a Damascus road experience.

Ok. Saul.

 

[lukethethird]

Ok. Saul.

Neither did Saul. That Damascus road experience story comes from second century church propaganda, Acts of the Apostles.