why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, hear, hear! KB

Hello KB I take it you concur with the my claim of poor logic being used to justify an act of selfish lust with some kind of legitimism in this thread. I have never heard of such strange argumentation used for any other issue before. It is quite entertaining at times and disturbing at others.

 

[*Account Closed*]

why cant you have relationship with other men? becuase GOD has forbidden you. its just that simple. the people of Lot were destroyed for a reason...

 

[Agnostic75]

Hello KB. I take it you concur with the my claim of poor logic being used to justify an act of selfish lust with some kind of legitimism in this thread. I have never heard of such strange argumentation used for any other issue before. It is quite entertaining at times and disturbing at others.

Rather than argue about whose arguments are strange, just please reply to the following post that I just made in another thread:

Your last attempt to dismiss clear and conclusive data from the cdc soured me on that topic. Facts and reason have no effect of cognitive dissonance.

The cognitive dissonance is yours, not mine. Here is a good example from that thread:

If the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV.

This argument would only have been an argument if there was some way to guarantee that monogamous people would stay monogamous.

As far as I know, there is not any documented scientific research that shows that monogamous homosexuals are a good deal more likely to give up monogamy than monogamous heterosexuals.



It would be ridiculous to suggest that monogamous homosexual couples who have been monogamous for decades should practice abstinence beccause there is no guarantee that they will stay monogamous.



Which would you recommend to heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex, that they practice monogamy, or that they practice abstinence for life?


Since most homosexuals who have HIV, and/or other STD's, are not interested in monogamy, it is quite obvious that they would be much less interested in practicing abstinence for life. Therefore, your plan would do very little to lower the rate of HIV, and other STD's. The majority of medical professionals believe that the best approach is to deal directly with homosexuals, and heterosexuals for that matter, who have medical problems, not to deal with healthy homosexuals, and healthy heterosexuals.

You conveniently refused to reply to those arguments, and the arguments are valid.



Here is another example:

You have claimed that genetics does not have anything to do with homosexuality. First of all, the vast majority of experts do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment.

I do not agree and can provide sources if needed.......

What sources? Surely none of the following organizations:


American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
American Sociological Association



In debates, it is customary to provide sources, not boast about them without quoting them, or mentioning their names. What sources are you talking about?

The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. How do you explain that? If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, that would not be the case. That is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.



When one adult identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, more identical twins would both be homosexuals since it is well-known that identical twins generally have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. That also is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.



Why don't you ask your sources to comment on the two arguments that I just used and post their replies?



A growing number of experts believe that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetics and environment.

You conveniently did not reply to those arguments either, and you refused to provide the sources that you said you could provide. I could show many other examples of your illogical arguments if necessary.



Regarding your comments about the CDC, I told you that I never questioned those statistics, and you cannot find even one case where I did. What I questioned was your claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, even monogamous homosexuals. As I showed, that is absurd.



You mentioned a study by the International Journal of Epidemiology that said that homosexuals as a whole do not live as long as heterosexuals do. In part of your post, you said "that was a pro gay study. Are they prejudiced as well?" I replied that "the study is not prejudiced. It is from a very reputable organization."



So you obviously did not state the facts correctly about my comments about the CDC. However, I did question a good deal of your outrageous post #304, which was full of lies, and misrepresentations. You copied a bunch of stuff from two Christian websites even though you have no clue how much of it is true. The first web site was mostly trash, and did not have any references.



The CDC would never recommend abstinence for life as a good solution for homosexuals who have STD's, let alone for monogamous homosexuals, and neither would any other prestigious major medical association. Rather, they would recommend having safe sex. That solution would obviously be the same for heterosexuals.




I believe that you have read all of my most recent posts in that thread, and will not admit that some of my arguments are better than some of your arguments. I told you that if a problem has no solution, no one is at fault. You claimed that you are not obligated to provide a solution, but yet you proposed abstinence for life as a solution when in fact even some of the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality would not recommend that all homosexuals practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals.



There are not any doubts whatsoever that there are not any valid secular arguments against all homosexuals, certainly no more so than there would be if a minority of homosexuals had more car accidents than heterosexuals do. Following your same line of reasoning, if a minority of homosexuals had more car accidents than heterosexuals do, all homosexuals should not drive cars. As a whole, teenagers have a lot more car accidents than other people do. Do you recommend that all teenagers be prohibited from driving cars?

 

[1robin]

What do you mean about political correctness?

Since you requested it I will at least respond to this one. I mean moral fads not moral facts. Since morals have become uprooted from the only soil that can't anchor them sufficiently they have become remarkably pliable statements that concern behavioral fashions of the moment and have no justification for claiming a moral truth at all.

It is time for experiments since gay rights should not be held hostage to religious beliefs.

The objections made by thousands of soldiers who would have their lives at risk in these experiments made secular not theological arguments that are as right as rain.

Unfortunately, you do not know how scientists and sociologists conduct research about gays in the military. Your comment that "their letter was better than science it was absolute fact" is not reasonable proof of harm to unit cohesion that resulted in unfavorable results during military actions, only reasonable proof that some heterosexual servicemen do not like to be around gay people. Many military people who originally opposed gays in the military changed their minds after reading some research, including the commandant of the Marine Corps.

I do not think you get it. Even the apprehension if based on nothing, affects unit cohesion. Unit cohesion is a very delicate thing based mainly on commonality concerning morality, family, values, and common experience. Even if homosexuality was perfectly moral it would still lessen cohesion and therefor get people killed.

In an article at What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center, Dr. Nathaniel Frank discusses how empirical research has showed that the new policy has generally worked well.
Dr. Frank would tell you that there is a big difference between "asserting" that gays in the military harms unit cohesion, and providing empirical "evidence" that it harms unit cohesion.

Thousands of senior officers claiming it will defeats any study by a think tank designed to tell the joint chiefs exactly what the president wants it to say. It in fact proves it happens on a large scale even if they are all bigots.

A number of polls have shown that the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far are religious conservatives. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the fewer religious conservatives there are in a country, the less resistance there is to gays in the military. That explains why over 30 countries have successfully allowed gays in their militaries for years, including Israel for over 20 years.

Few people have questioned the ability of gay servicemen to perform their jobs well. Rather, the main problem is that some heterosexual servicemen who are religious conservatives believe that God strongly opposes homosexuality. Religious beliefs that do not have any support from secular evidence should not be used to limit the civil rights of other groups of people. Conservative Muslims are strongly opposed to eating pork. Should that belief be used to limit the civil rights of people who eat pork?

Combat efficiency is not decided by committees and studies it is decided in the hearts of men. The same experienced and veteran men who I saw get out by the hundreds simply because Clinton was elected. Here are some of the countless reasons your studies are invalid.
In a February 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed, I argued that the current law forbidding homosexual military members to discuss their sexual orientation ought to remain in place. I based my contention on the importance of non-sexual bonding as the glue of unit cohesion, which is an important contributor to military effectiveness. As expected, I received a great deal of feedback, some positive, some negative. I thought it might be useful to respond to my critics’ most common objections.

First, some argued that the studies indicating the importance of cohesion in war have been “discredited.” But the only way that academics can get away with this claim is to redefine cohesion in such a way that it loses all significance.

Here’s how the 1992 report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces described cohesion: the relationship that develops in a unit or group in which 1) members share common values and experiences; 2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; 3) members lose their identity in favor of a group identity; 4) members focus on group activities and goals; 5) unit members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of their mission or survival; and 6) group members must meet all the standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2447760/posts
BTW the way they have violated even some of their altered requirements above. Women in combat units have a lower set of standards. As you can see these "studies" simply ask questions any way or just redifine facts or temrs as needed to produce the results wanted by politicians. Military history is famous for this crap. At the start of every war almsot every army has to shed all the actions studies said they should take and adopt what works.
The entire site destroys your studies in detail using joint chiefs on down.

In fact here is a schizophrenic one that generally shows opposition to homosexuality but then seems to claim the opposite at times. http://calcomui.org/images/Palm_Center_Study_On_Gays_In_Military.pdf

I tell you what I will give you a good argument against me since you keep repeating the same ineffectual ones. You can claim that my resistance to gays in the military is the same as resistance to blacks in the military was years ago. That is a tough one to deal with. This other stuff is boring and ineffectual, try that.

Why do you dismiss any stats I give regardless of the source and yet think stats you give that I know very well do not reflect the situation for the nine years I was in or the counter sites I give, should be accepted by me?

 

[Agnostic75]

Since you requested it I will at least respond to this one. I mean moral fads not moral facts. Since morals have become uprooted from the only soil that can't anchor them sufficiently they have become remarkably pliable statements that concern behavioral fashions of the moment and have no justification for claiming a moral truth at all.

The objections made by thousands of soldiers who would have their lives at risk in these experiments made secular not theological arguments that are as right as rain. I do not think you get it. Even the apprehension if based on nothing, affects unit cohesion. Unit cohesion is a very delicate thing based mainly on commonality concerning morality, family, values, and common experience. Even if homosexuality was perfectly moral it would still lessen cohesion and therefor get people killed. Thousands of senior officers claiming it will defeats any study by a think tank designed to tell the joint chiefs exactly what the president wants it to say. It in fact proves it happens on a large scale even if they are all bigots.

Combat efficiency is not decided by committees and studies it is decided in the hearts of men. The same experienced and veteran men who I saw get out by the hundreds simply because Clinton was elected. Here are some of the countless reasons your studies are invalid.

In a February 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed, I argued that the current law forbidding homosexual military members to discuss their sexual orientation ought to remain in place. I based my contention on the importance of non-sexual bonding as the glue of unit cohesion, which is an important contributor to military effectiveness. As expected, I received a great deal of feedback, some positive, some negative. I thought it might be useful to respond to my critics’ most common objections.

First, some argued that the studies indicating the importance of cohesion in war have been “discredited.” But the only way that academics can get away with this claim is to redefine cohesion in such a way that it loses all significance.

Here’s how the 1992 report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces described cohesion: the relationship that develops in a unit or group in which 1) members share common values and experiences; 2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; 3) members lose their identity in favor of a group identity; 4) members focus on group activities and goals; 5) unit members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of their mission or survival; and 6) group members must meet all the standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2447760/posts

BTW the way they have violated even some of their altered requirements above. Women in combat units have a lower set of standards. As you can see these "studies" simply ask questions any way or just redifine facts or temrs as needed to produce the results wanted by politicians. Military history is famous for this crap. At the start of every war almsot every army has to shed all the actions studies said they should take and adopt what works.

The entire site destroys your studies in detail using joint chiefs on down.

In fact here is a schizophrenic one that generally shows opposition to homosexuality but then seems to claim the opposite at times.

http://calcomui.org/images/Palm_Center_Study_On_Gays_In_Military.pdf

I tell you what I will give you a good argument against me since you keep repeating the same ineffectual ones. You can claim that my resistance to gays in the military is the same as resistance to blacks in the military was years ago. That is a tough one to deal with. This other stuff is boring and ineffectual, try that.

Why do you dismiss any stats I give regardless of the source and yet think stats you give that I know very well do not reflect the situation for the nine years I was in or the counter sites I give, should be accepted by me?

But the Joint Chiefs of Staff disagree with you, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who previously objected to the new policy. I am willing to discuss gays in the military at length if you wish, and to provide documented research that supports my arguments. If you wish to have a lot more discussions about gays in the military, I will start a new thread just for that, and I will easily be able to prove that the main objection to gays in the military is religious beliefs, not the ability of gay soldiers to perform their jobs well. The civil rights of gay soldiers to serve their country should not be held hostage to religious beliefs. Conservative Muslims are strongly opposed to eating pork. Should that belief be used to limit the civil rights of Muslims in Muslim militaries who eat pork? How much should religious beliefs be allowed to control the actions of minorities?

A great many servicemen disagree with you. In addition, you have no argument at all since if gays in the military harm unit cohesion, heterosexual soldiers who strongly oppose gays in the military are putting their country at risk by doing inferior jobs (your claim, not mine), should quit the military, and should encourage more people who accept homosexuals to join the military, thereby creating a better military.

You are a good cherry picker. The majority of this thread has not been about gays in the military. Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

a February 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2447760/posts

http://calcomui.org/images/Palm_Center_Study_On_Gays_In_Military.pdf

The first link that you mentioned requires logging in. The second link is quite brief, provides no documented sources, and makes a poor case against gays in the military. The third link is the only legitimate link, and its conclusion agrees with me. Here it is:

"The present study can inform discussions about the impact of gay and lesbian service members within the U.S. military by offering empirical data about the perspectives of military personnel who have served in war under DADT. Specifically, the present data build on other recent evidence showing declining support for the policy since its inception; 28 percent of the war veterans surveyed in this study opposed the ban, and 33 percent were neutral or not sure. These war veterans’ views of the strongest arguments for and against the ban mirror arguments prominent in the public debates. The top endorsed argument in support of integration considered sexual orientation to be unrelated to job performance (38 percent), and the top endorsed argument against integration was the view that open gays and lesbians would harm unit cohesion (42percent). Age group, racial/ethnic status, duty status (veteran, active duty, reserves), service branch, unit type (combat, combat support, combat service support), and shower privacy level were not significantly associated with attitudes toward allowing gay and lesbian personnel to openly serve; by contrast, gender, religious affiliation, political affiliation, years of service, rank, and prior training on the prevention of antigay harassment yielded small but significant effects.

"About three-quarters of respondents indicated that they were personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. About 20 percent reported knowing a gay or lesbian person in their unit, and over half of these respondents indicated that the presence of the lesbian or gay person was well known by others in the unit. Feeling personally comfortable around gay and lesbian people and knowing a lesbian or gay unit member both were associated with opposing the ban. Analyses of these war veterans’ ratings of unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member was not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness, but the quality of leaders, equipment, and training was. Thus, these data challenge the contention that openly serving lesbian and gay service members are detrimental to unit cohesion and readiness. Instead, the data point to the importance of leadership, training, and equipment qualitfor perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness. Fortunately, unlike the sexual orientationof service members, which the military cannot control, the military is well equipped to shape the quality of leadership, training, and equipment across its units.

"Although the present findings can inform military policy and practice, it is important to consider these findings in light of some limitations. Specifically, as is the case with many survey studies, the present findings may reflect self-report bias. Perceptions and reports of military personnel are important and typical sources of data for informing military policy and practice. But studies that assess objective, observable indicators of cohesion and readiness and the actual presence of gay and lesbian service members would be useful. Such research would require identifying and linking lesbian and gay service members with the observed units, but DADT is a challenge to such research. An additional limitation is that the present data are cross-sectional. Thus, interpretations about direction of causality among the variables of interest cannot be made. The current policy precludes gathering of 0accurate identifying information about gay and lesbian service members or those who have served with them. Thus, tracking participants over time to collect longitudinal data that allow examination of prospective links among the variables of interest is not possible.

"To address the limitations of the present study, efforts within the military to gather systematic data from randomly drawn samples about the presence of lesbian and gay personnel and their impact on objective indicators of unit cohesion, readiness, morale, and effectiveness would clearly be useful. Empirical data are critical for informing military policy and practice, and the present study represents a step in addressing the paucity of data addressing the rationale underlying DADT."

Please note "thus, these data challenge the contention that openly serving lesbian and gay service members are detrimental to unit cohesion and readiness."

​

​

The second link says that in most of the countries that allows openly gay people to join the military that gays are not allowed on the front line, and in special forces. However, it also said that in about five countries, gay soldiers are allowed to do anything that heterosexual soldier are allowed to do. In addition, even in the countries that do not allow gay soldiers on the front line, and in special forces, they are still allowed to openly serve in the armed forces. Further, few people have questioned the ability of gay soldier to do their jobs well.

What is wrong with gay soldiers at least being allowed to serve in the military in non-combat jobs, as is the case in many countries? Of course, I believe that gay soldiers should be allowed to serve in all jobs, but I just wanted to know what your opinion is about them being allowed to serve in non-combat jobs.​

Consider the following:​

A Brief History of Gays in the Military - TIME​

The British military began allowing gays to serve in 2000; members of the Ministry of Defense told The New York Times in 2007 that there had been no reported incidents of harassment, discord, blackmail or bullying, nor any erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness. In Israel, which has had no restrictions on gays serving in the military since 1993, the army magazine, Bamahane, showcased two men hugging each other on a 2009 cover.

Read more:

A Brief History of Gays in the Military - TIME​

So gays in the military can easily work well if heterosexual soldiers are not wrongfully intolerant of them. If gay soldiers do their jobs well, and do not harrass anyone, they have a moral, and a legal right to serve their country. Logically, the only thing that anyone should be concerned with is how homosexual servicemen, and heterosexual servicemen, do their jobs.

Fifty years from now, for the most part, this will only be an issue in most predominantly Muslim countries, and in predominantly Christian countries where people have less education, and less income, primarily in Africa. Even today, the prime minister of Iceland is an open lesbian. So is the prime minister of Ontario. As a side note, the prime minister of Australia is an atheist, and has made some friendly overtures to Christians, encouraging them to judge him by how he does his job, not by what he believes about a particular religion. At least three highly respected American presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, who is often called the "Father of the Constitution," were deists.

Anyway, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the majority of Americans, a great many servicemen, and the armed forces' own scientific and sociological researchers all agree that openly gay people should be allowed to join the military.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why can't you have relationship with other men? becuase GOD has forbidden you. it's just that simple. The people of Lot were destroyed for a reason...

There is not any credible evidence that God has ever said anything about homosexuality, directly, or through human proxies, but if a God exists, there is excellent evidence that he created homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and that the has created bisexuality in all bonobo monkeys. Experts have said that bonobo monkeys derive some benefits from their bisexuality.

If Lot's people existed, there is not any credible historical evidence regarding how, and why they died.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument #1

If the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV.

This argument would only have been an argument if there was some way to guarantee that monogamous people would stay monogamous.

As far as I know, there is not any documented scientific research that shows that monogamous homosexuals are a good deal more likely to give up monogamy than monogamous heterosexuals.

Argument #2

It would be ridiculous to suggest that monogamous homosexual couples who have been monogamous for decades should practice abstinence beccause there is no guarantee that they will stay monogamous.

Argument #3

Which would you recommend to heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex, that they practice monogamy, or that they practice abstinence for life?

Argument #4

Since most homosexuals who have HIV, and/or other STD's, are not interested in monogamy, it is quite obvious that they would be much less interested in practicing abstinence for life. Therefore, your plan would do very little to lower the rate of HIV, and other STD's. The majority of medical professionals believe that the best approach is to deal directly with homosexuals, and heterosexuals for that matter, who have medical problems, not to deal with healthy homosexuals, and healthy heterosexuals.

Argument #5

Neither the CDC, nor any other major medical organization would recommend abstinence for life even for all homosexuals who have STD's, let alone all monogamous homosexuals.

Argument #6

Contrary to what you have claimed, I have never questioned your statistics from the CDC, but I have questioned your utterly absurd claim that all homosexuals, including monogamous homosexuals, should practice abstinence for life. That is really wacky, weird, and strange, even for you. Teenage drivers have a lot more accidents than other groups of drivers do as far as age is concerned. Do you recommend that all teenage drivers be prohibited from driving cars?

Argument #7

You have claimed that genetics does not have anything to do with homosexuality. First of all, the vast majority of experts do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment.

I do not agree and can provide sources if needed.......

In debates, it is customary to provide sources, not boast about them without quoting them, or mentioning their names. What sources are you talking about?

Argument #8

You have really missed the boat regarding this issue. The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. How do you explain that? If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, that would not be the case. That is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.

Argument #9

When one adult identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, more identical twins would both be homosexuals since it is well-known that identical twins generally have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. That also is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.

Argument #10

Why don't you ask your sources to comment on the two arguments that I just used and post their replies?

Argument #11

A growing number of experts believe that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetics and environment.

Argument #12

I oppose it because I think it wrong theologically. That is indicated, in that nature seems to condemn it as well. It is wrong because it is harmful because it has no merit to justify it's practice in the face of the misery it causes.

How does nature condemn homosexuality?

Argument #13

Monogamous homosexuality certainly has merit for the participants, just as monogamous heterosexuality has merit for the participants.

Argument #14

Monogamous homosexuals do not cause anyone misery. About half of homosexuals practice monogamy, and some of the rest have multiple partners, but practice safe sex.

Argument #15

Your post #304 contains a number of false claims, and misrepresentations. No one who is interested in facts would make a post like that.

 

[1robin]

why cant you have relationship with other men? becuase GOD has forbidden you. its just that simple. the people of Lot were destroyed for a reason...

That may very well be true though I would dissagree that Allah existed or decreed anything but you can't expect people to go ok and adopt this view if they think we are nuts and no God exists. They may still have to pay for it but you will never convince them of it by that arguemnt alone. In fact arguments like this just make non believers mad. They used to make me mad when I was one. I belive what you said but have mainly used secular reasons for it. They did drag me into a theological context so they could condemn it but it was ineffective.

 

[1robin]

There is not any credible evidence that God has ever said anything about homosexuality, directly, or through human proxies, but if a God exists, there is excellent evidence that he created homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and that the has created bisexuality in all bonobo monkeys. Experts have said that bonobo monkeys derive some benefits from their bisexuality.

That is not true in a general or especially in a Christian sense. There are far more and better reasons to think God exists than not and that he has spoken through prophets. Etc....

Things are not the way they were created in Biblical theology. They were created pure and perfect and sin broke everything. Do you think if God exists he created Hitler the way he was or Stalin?

I do not believe in Allah either but I would not try and prove that from an atheist perspective. Many Islamic debaters are formidable. The best non Christian I have ever seen is Shabir Ali and he would eat you alive.

If Lot's people existed, there is not any credible historical evidence regarding how, and why they died.

Lot was not killed. The finding of those cities with burn layers at the right times is old news.

Type in Sodom and Gomorrah found. There is like a million hits.

Here is one but I did not review it:
Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah found !

 

[Agnostic75]

That is not true in a general or especially in a Christian sense. There are far more and better reasons to think God exists than not and that he has spoken through prophets. Etc....

Things are not the way they were created in Biblical theology. They were created pure and perfect and sin broke everything. Do you think if God exists he created Hitler the way he was or Stalin?

I do not believe in Allah either but I would not try and prove that from an atheist perspective. Many Islamic debaters are formidable. The best non Christian I have ever seen is Shabir Ali and he would eat you alive.

Lot was not killed. The finding of those cities with burn layers at the right times is old news.

Type in Sodom and Gomorrah found. There is like a million hits.

Here is one but I did not review it:

Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah found !

There you go again cherry picking only the arguments where you believe that you have the advantage. That was my post #687. In another thread, I asked you to reply to my post #688 in this thread. You said that you would, but you replied to my post #687 instead.

If you are interested in debating biblical criticism and history with more scholarly, informed skeptics, I would like to recommend the Biblical Criticism and History forum at the FRDB. Many of the posters are pretty fluent in New Testament Greek, and have read dozens and dozens of books of source material. You would immediately get into trouble there since many of those people know a lot more about biblical criticism and history than you do.

There are several very knowledgeable Christians there, including Andrew Criddle, and Roger Pearse, but the majority of posters are skeptics. Moderators keep order, and proper decorum.

 

[mayuboar]

That is not accurate or logical. If Satan turns out to be God then I do not want to be where he is. If God is a base idiot ruled by primal natural lusts the same is true. No I did not invent God. I found a candidate description of God in the most cherished book in human history and after years of research have concluded it to be accurate. I have even experienced that God by following the instructions found in the same book. Most other God's are logically incoherent and undesirable even if true.
That is a severe distortion of that spiritual doctrine. He did not create us to look like him. God must by necessity be non-material, outside time, and outside space. We do not look like that. He made us in his image when he made us logical, rational, morally sensitive, and with an immortal soul and spirit. We do not look like my God and God has no need of a partner to procreate with. If you believe in a God that has this need then he is less that God. See great making properties and modes of being for the philosophical explanation of this. Your God sounds like he was made in the image of man.

so could you draw a picture of god please, then tell us all about him, his likes and dislikes, everything, you seem to have an intimate knowledge of him despite never having revealed himself.

why is it he never has revealed himself by the way, I have never heard a plausible reason yet.

 

[1robin]

so could you draw a picture of god please, then tell us all about him, his likes and dislikes, everything, you seem to have an intimate knowledge of him despite never having revealed himself.

why is it he never has revealed himself by the way, I have never heard a plausible reason yet.

So he never revealed himself. He dictated the most studied and cherished book in human history. The son he sent is the most famous and loved individual in human history. That is more than Buddha can say. If all that did not work my pathetic efforts will not help. No one can draw a picture of a disembodied mind.

 

[Agnostic75]

So he never revealed himself. He dictated the most studied and cherished book in human history. The son he sent is the most famous and loved individual in human history. That is more than Buddha can say. If all that did not work my pathetic efforts will not help. No one can draw a picture of a disembodied mind.

I knew that you would eventually have to use only religious arguments against homosexuality. You previously claimed in this thread that you had not been using religious arguments very much, but after you read my post #688, you realized that you could not adequately refute it. In another thread, you said that you would reply to that post, but so far, you haven't.

You admitted in another thread that you are not an expert in biology, and that you would not be willing to have a public debate with an expert on macro evolution. When I mentioned a physics forum to you that has lots of experts in various sciences, you refused to go there to debate your claim that there is eveidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God created the universe. You appeal to scholarship, but you refuse to debate scholars. You said that some experts have serious reservations about macro evolution, but far more scholars have serious reservations about creationism. You mentioned some reasons why you are suspicious about macro evolution, but you are not willing to debate what you said with experts, but you are conveniently willing to debate what you said with people who you know are not experts. If you are interested in debating biblical criticism and history with more scholarly, informed skeptics, I would like to recommend the Biblical Criticism and History forum at the FRDB. Many of the posters are pretty fluent in New Testament Greek, and have read dozens and dozens of books of source material. You would immediately get into trouble there since many of those people know a lot more about biblical criticism and history than you do. There are several very knowledgeable Christians there, including Andrew Criddle, and Roger Pearse, but the majority of posters are skeptics. Moderators keep order, and proper decorum.

You will deliberately avoid any academic type setting where you know that you would immediately get into trouble since you would be required to back up what you say among people who know far more than you do about physics, biology, and biblical criticism and history.

In another thread, you said:

"I never even said macro evolution doesn't. I said there is no proof it does and there are major problems with all of it. Second the arguments are from professionals who do have knowledge and PhD's."

But the main issue, of course, is not proof, but reasonable proof, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the vast majority of biologists, including the majority of Christian biologists, such evidence exists, and they say that it is overwhelming.

You can claim that a few creationist experts know what they are talking about, but that does not mean that you know that they know what they are talking about regarding creationism, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity.

As far as I know, there are two main ways to try to win debates, by 1) appealing to a large consensus of experts, and by 2) appealing to personal knowledge. Regarding macro evolution, a large consensus of experts accepts it, and your personal knowledge about it is nowhere near what an expert in biology would know.

If your claim is that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a god created the universe, some of the experts who you have quoted disagree with that, or are agnostic about it. And, you admitted that cosmology cannot show who God is. The only reason why you refused to debate some experts at a web site that is called "Physics Forums," which has over 385,000 members, many of whom have masters' degrees, and Ph.D.s in various sciences, is that you know that tou would immediately get into trouble.

You are only pretty knowledgeable about your professions, which I think are math, and engineering, not physics, not biology, and not biblical criticism and history. You can quote all of the cosmologists that you wish, but if you debated an expert in cosmology who disagrees with you, you would immediately get into trouble. You quoted mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, but he is an atheist, or an agnostic. You quoted Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth, but they are not Christians. You have used some of their writings to arrive at conclusions about the existence of God that they did not make. I am not going to discuss physics with you since I do not know very much about it. All that I am saying is that as far as I know, there is not a large consensus of physicists that claims that it is probable that a God created the universe, and that since you have refused to debate the existence of God with experts in physics, no one should take you seriously regarding what you personally know about physics. Don't bother discussing physics since, as I said, I do not know very much about it. All that I, and most other people can do, is try to find out whether or not a large consensus of physicists have said that it is probable that a God created the universe. I do not think that they have, but I hope that a moral God exists, and I assume that almost everyone else does. Who would object to a God who provided everyone with eternal life, perfect health, beautiful homes, etc?

In another thread, you said:

For the original text to be reliably known you need all of several things.

1. Early copies.
2. Independent copies.
3. Parallel transmission of many manuscript traditions.
4. Prolific manuscripts.
5. An additional helpful thing is early copies that were forgotten until a much later date. (Dead sea scrolls etc....)

The Bible has all of these many times over. No other theological work in ancient history has a fraction of what the Bible does in these regards. In fact no ancient text of any kind does. In fact the text is so tenacious when an error appears (and they did) they hang on like grim death and are easy to trace. The consensus among NT textual scholars is.

1. We have 99.9% of the original texts.
2. Even using the most popular critics numbers (Ehrman's). All official current versions are 95% accurate. Theologian numbers are 99.5%
3. Errors are almost always additions.
4. No errors exist in essential doctrine.
5. 99% of errors are known and indicated in all Bible's.
Most of this can be verified yourself using software.

Since I am no where near an expert in biblical criticism and history, I will not comment on that, but there are plenty of very knowledgeable skeptics at the Biblical Criticism and History forum at the FRDB who will be happy to discuss those issues with you. I spent years at that forum, mostly as a spectator since most of the topics at that forum are complex, and require having read dozens and dozens of source books even to have a basic conversation about biblical criticism and history. Some of the posters are professionals, and many other posters have almost professional knowledge about biblical criticism and history.

I can at least tell you that what you said is very basic, and has been adequately refuted on many occasions, and would not give the most knowlegeable skeptics at the FRDB any trouble. I doubt that you have even a basic academic background in biblical criticism and history. Some experts in biblical criticism and history spend most of their academic lives studying and writing about just one topic. At the FRDB, I was amazed at how many books many of the posters have read, and how much they knew about biblical criticism and history. Some of them have their own web sites.

Your refusal to debate people who are experts, or close to experts, shows that no one should take you seriously regarding what you personally know about physics, biology, and biblical criticism and history. At another forum, you had some discussions with LegionOnomaMoi. He is very educated, is a linguist by profession, and knows a lot about biblical criticism and history, New Testament Greek, science, math, and Bayes Theorem. He has read dozens and dozens of books about biblical criticism and history, and has debated extensively at the Biblical Criticism and History forum at the FRDB. As far as I know, he is a skeptic. You would not be able to keep up with him in almost any field of science, and certainly not in biblical criticism and history.

The vast majority of people in the world are forced to choose a world view without even being close to an expert in physics, and biology, and history, and biblical criticism and history, many of whom cannot read and write, and have a low IQ. Those people are not in a position to adequately judge the debates among experts that you have mentioned. Neither are you since you are not nearly an expert in physics, biology, history, and biblical criticism and history. All that you can say is that some experts agree with you, and that you hope that they know what they are talking about.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: As far as this thread is concerned, I stand by my post #688, which you conveniently have refused to reply to even though you said in another thread that you would. You cannot honestly claim that those arguments are not clear, and that you have replied to most of them before. I would respect you more if you just admitted that you do not know enough about what I said to adequately refute it, and that from a secular perspective, my arguments in that post are better than yours. My main interest in this thread is secular arguments against homosexuality. I have debated homosexuality for years, and I have never seen anyone use widely accepted, documented research that criticizes all homosexuals as you have unsuccessfully tried to do.

The following organizations would reject your absurd claim that all homosexuals, even monogamous homosexuals who have been mongamous for decades, should practice abstinence for life:

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
American Sociological Association

With no support from any of those organizations, you have easily lost the debate about secular arguments against all homosexuals.

 

[Tiberius]

why cant you have relationship with other men? becuase GOD has forbidden you. its just that simple. the people of Lot were destroyed for a reason...

Yes. Wanting to have sex with other men is wrong, terribly wrong, but offering your daughter to a violent mob anxious to rape something is fine and dandy.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Since you have admitted that cosmology cannot show who God is, now you need to discuss biblical criticism and history with some very knowledgeable people in order to try to show that you know what you are talking about. Beating up on amateurs does not help you at all.

There is far more to choosing a world view than just considering physics, biology, history, and biblical criticism and history. For example, many peole choose a world view based largely upon philosophical arguments. Many people wonder why a moral God would withhold evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him, and why he inspired writings that even confuse many Christians when he could easily provide writings that are much easier to understand, and why he kills lots of humans and innocent animals with hurricanes, and destroy's people's homes, and why he wants Christians to give food to hungry people, but refuses to give food to people himself, and why he wants Christians to spread the Gospel message, but refuses to tell people about it himself, verbally, in person.


Surely chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe. If you had been transported at birth back in time to the 1600's, it is reasonably possible that you would not have become a Christian, and that you would have accepted colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. If you honestly, and earnestly desire to know the truth now, if you had been transported at birth back to the 1600's, you would also have honestly, and earnestly searched for the truth, but would plausibly have not become a Christian, and would plausibly have accepted colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women.

If the Bible did not appeal to people's self interest, few people would believe it. For example, if the Gospels said that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, and punish them for eternity without parole, few people would believe that, and regardless of how many supposed eyewitnesses where were, and regardless of how many Gospels there were. A good number of people would believe that Jesus said that because of multiple testimonies, but very few people would believe that he told the truth. Obviously, such self interest is based upon emotion, not upon logic.

Similarly, some people will not accept the opinions of several doctors that they have terminal cancer. Sometimes the doctors are wrong, but the majority of the time they are right. It is good for such people to hope that the doctors are wrong, but at least most of the time, the people's conclusions are based upon emotional self interest, not upon logic.

If a God exists, he is easily able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him if they were aware of it. If a person is not aware that eating lots of greasy foods is harmful, but would stop eating lots of greasy foods if they knew that that was harmful, no one could make a valid argument that the person is immoral, or wrong because they ate lots of greasy foods. Similarly, if a God exists, and withholds additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him, no valid argument can be made that such people are at fault for refusing to accept evidence that they would have accepted if they had been aware of it. Some people would not accept additional evidence, but some would. For example, if Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, surely some people would become Christians partly because of that. The New Testament shows that some people became Christians partly because they saw Jesus perform miracles. Here are some examples:

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

And, in the NIV, the book of Acts says that even after the Holy Spirit had come to the church, the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders. God supposedly provided that additional evidence even though Jesus had supposedly performed many miracles "throughout all of Syria," and in many other places, and even though the Holy Spirit had come to the church.

No reasonble person would claim that a God would not be able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him.

 

[Agnostic75]

The following is from another thread:

There is no method by which homosexuality is harmless in general.

I will copy and paste that in the thread on homosexuality and reply to it there.

What do you mean by "in general?"

About half of homosexuals are monogamous. What is wrong with those homosexuals from a secular perspective?

In the U.S., about 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV, as compared with about 96% of the general population.

Your attempts to criticize all homosexuals from a secular perspective will not work, nor does any major medical association attempt to do so.

Other than the U.S., dozens of countries allow openly homosexual people to join the military, including Britain, and Israel. Do you object to that on any secular grounds?

 

[Titanic]

Actually you can my friend.

 

[Agnostic75]

Actually you can my friend.

Which comment are you replying to?