Lets see where this goes.

[David]

Megan Fox, turns straights gay.

chick with a rooster

fix'd for you.

^^

failed attempt at trying to be funny.

Hey, guess what?

There is no God, your parents have lied to you your entire life. You've spent your life eating up everything you were spoon fed by those older than you. You've entered a perpetuating cycle of ignorance, hate, and smug superiority that will preclude your attempts at finding friends or women of any worthwhile caliber. I can only hope that someday you'll experience the soul-crushing realization that you've spent your hypocritical life with some particularly ugly delusions. Perhaps such an event will have to wait until your inevitable death, when the bleak, yawning infinity will swallow you and your mind, and the sudden, unexpected loneliness will be the last thing you experience before oblivion.

if you are right and i am wrong, then i lose nothing. if i am right and you are wrong, you lose everything.

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

don'tbelieve. And that belief is your belief, not others'.

I think you should re-examine the nature of belief. Belief is based on reason and evidence. The end of the discussion does not come when someone states what they believe is true (in their minds, "a fact"), but when mutual understanding is achieved, whether it be a like-minded consensus or a new insight into the nature of the opposing side. I reject the idea that all beliefs are equal, for surely you do not believes in a flat-earth or other unsupported claims? Religions is not immune to criticism and rational critique, nor should it be. Unfortunately some people feel that it's not acceptable to assess the quality of others' beliefs, but a belief without evidence is one not worth holding.

On the question of atheism vs. theism, that is not the actual dichotomy you were discussing. Whether or not God exists is a question I don't think can be answered, for by definition he is outside the natural world, the cosmos as we experience them. The belief in a non-intervening, impersonal God is called deism, a belief you'll find frequently among many Enlightenment thinkers, such as America's "Founding Fathers" (a clich

 

[Mino]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

^^

failed attempt at trying to be funny.

Hey, guess what?

There is no God, your parents have lied to you your entire life. You've spent your life eating up everything you were spoon fed by those older than you. You've entered a perpetuating cycle of ignorance, hate, and smug superiority that will preclude your attempts at finding friends or women of any worthwhile caliber. I can only hope that someday you'll experience the soul-crushing realization that you've spent your hypocritical life with some particularly ugly delusions. Perhaps such an event will have to wait until your inevitable death, when the bleak, yawning infinity will swallow you and your mind, and the sudden, unexpected loneliness will be the last thing you experience before oblivion.

if you are right and i am wrong, then i lose nothing. if i am right and you are wrong, you lose everything.

What you just paraphrased, probably without knowing it, was something called Pascal's Wager, named after the brilliant mathematician (but C-rate philosopher) Blaise Pascal.

You are assuming that Christianity, rather than Islam, or any other religion that says that your religion is wrong, is the "correct" religion. Suppose the true religion is Islam, and I choose between Atheism and Christianity. I can't win then, can I?

A second problem with that pathetic reasoning is that it is, as Christopher Hitchens put it, "religious hucksterism of the cheapest kind". You assume that a selfish belief based on the desire to avoid Hell is worth more than the non-belief of someone who just could not bring his or herself to believe. I ask you this, which would be worth more in God's eyes? If this is the true nature of piety, then I will have nothing to do with it.

I also take issue with your assumption that you will lose nothing if it turns out I am right. What you will have lost is your entire life to ugly, self-interested delusions.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Hey, guess what?

There is no God, your parents have lied to you your entire life. You've spent your life eating up everything you were spoon fed by those older than you. You've entered a perpetuating cycle of ignorance, hate, and smug superiority that will preclude your attempts at finding friends or women of any worthwhile caliber. I can only hope that someday you'll experience the soul-crushing realization that you've spent your hypocritical life with some particularly ugly delusions. Perhaps such an event will have to wait until your inevitable death, when the bleak, yawning infinity will swallow you and your mind, and the sudden, unexpected loneliness will be the last thing you experience before oblivion.

if you are right and i am wrong, then i lose nothing. if i am right and you are wrong, you lose everything.

What you just paraphrased, probably without knowing it, was something called Pascal's Wager, named after the brilliant mathematician (but C-rate philosopher) Blaise Pascal.

You are assuming that Christianity, rather than Islam, or any other religion that says that your religion is wrong, is the "correct" religion. Suppose the true religion is Islam, and I choose between Atheism and Christianity. I can't win then, can I?

A second problem with that pathetic reasoning is that it is, as Christopher Hitchens put it, "religious hucksterism of the cheapest kind". You assume that a selfish belief based on the desire to avoid Hell is worth more than the non-belief of someone who just could not bring his or herself to believe. I ask you this, which would be worth more in God's eyes? If this is the true nature of piety, then I will have nothing to do with it.

I also take issue with your assumption that you will lose nothing if it turns out I am right. What you will have lost is your entire life to ugly, self-interested delusions.

Not necessarily, and I hate it when people generalize for Christina,s and Muslims too, now! I've done that in the past, but I've met some Muslims that are really good, non-extremist, people. Not all Christians act the same way. That's why there are denominations. I, myself, am nondenominational. And another thing, I know for a fact that half of the Christians aren't out there just to save their asses from hell. Take it this way, I work at a summer camp, a Christian one, mind you, where we're not allowed to mention Hell and the like to the younger campers because 1) it might scare them, and 2) (my reasoning) is it will deter them from the actual meaning of Christianity. If they think "oh, if I become a Christian, I have a one way ticket away from hell!" Which is actually, false thinking, but aside from that. I do agree with you on one thing, David is a terrible arguer (if that is what you are implying in your rebuttals) in the sense that he acts like his opinions (of not just religion) are cold hard facts and he has rarely provides any proof to back them up.

On the matter of the thread: I hate how people treat other people, not just homosexuals. It's wrong to treat anyone in a hateful way for the sole-fact that it hurts them. I think it's some sick twisted way for an idiot to bump up his self-esteem because he feels like he's accomplished something. To the matter at hand, I really don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to go out there and brutally murder or beat up the homosexuals out there. And since I know you'll contradict me if I say it's because of my faith, I'll also say because I just can't feel or see the attraction. It makes no sense to me. But I will however, tolerate it. Again, I won't brutally murder or wound someone because of their sexual preference. Like Collin said, the same thing happened to black people and women, granted not as severe as women, regardless, this has been going on for ages. Some people will agree with it, while others won't. I feel like I'm straying...

 

[Mino]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

if you are right and i am wrong, then i lose nothing. if i am right and you are wrong, you lose everything.

What you just paraphrased, probably without knowing it, was something called Pascal's Wager, named after the brilliant mathematician (but C-rate philosopher) Blaise Pascal.

You are assuming that Christianity, rather than Islam, or any other religion that says that your religion is wrong, is the "correct" religion. Suppose the true religion is Islam, and I choose between Atheism and Christianity. I can't win then, can I?

A second problem with that pathetic reasoning is that it is, as Christopher Hitchens put it, "religious hucksterism of the cheapest kind". You assume that a selfish belief based on the desire to avoid Hell is worth more than the non-belief of someone who just could not bring his or herself to believe. I ask you this, which would be worth more in God's eyes? If this is the true nature of piety, then I will have nothing to do with it.

I also take issue with your assumption that you will lose nothing if it turns out I am right. What you will have lost is your entire life to ugly, self-interested delusions.

Not necessarily, and I hate it when people generalize for Christina,s and Muslims too, now! I've done that in the past, but I've met some Muslims that are really good, non-extremist, people. Not all Christians act the same way. That's why there are denominations. I, myself, am nondenominational. And another thing, I know for a fact that half of the Christians aren't out there just to save their asses from hell. Take it this way, I work at a summer camp, a Christian one, mind you, where we're not allowed to mention Hell and the like to the younger campers because 1) it might scare them, and 2) (my reasoning) is it will deter them from the actual meaning of Christianity. If they think "oh, if I become a Christian, I have a one way ticket away from hell!" Which is actually, false thinking, but aside from that. I do agree with you on one thing, David is a terrible arguer (if that is what you are implying in your rebuttals) in the sense that he acts like his opinions (of not just religion) are cold hard facts and he has rarely provides any proof to back them up.

I'm sorry, but based on the content your reply I think the meaning of what I said went over your head.

I also never implied that David was a terrible arguer, but it's certainly true and I see how you could infer that from his comments versus mine.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

What you just paraphrased, probably without knowing it, was something called Pascal's Wager, named after the brilliant mathematician (but C-rate philosopher) Blaise Pascal.

You are assuming that Christianity, rather than Islam, or any other religion that says that your religion is wrong, is the "correct" religion. Suppose the true religion is Islam, and I choose between Atheism and Christianity. I can't win then, can I?

A second problem with that pathetic reasoning is that it is, as Christopher Hitchens put it, "religious hucksterism of the cheapest kind". You assume that a selfish belief based on the desire to avoid Hell is worth more than the non-belief of someone who just could not bring his or herself to believe. I ask you this, which would be worth more in God's eyes? If this is the true nature of piety, then I will have nothing to do with it.

I also take issue with your assumption that you will lose nothing if it turns out I am right. What you will have lost is your entire life to ugly, self-interested delusions.

Not necessarily, and I hate it when people generalize for Christina,s and Muslims too, now! I've done that in the past, but I've met some Muslims that are really good, non-extremist, people. Not all Christians act the same way. That's why there are denominations. I, myself, am nondenominational. And another thing, I know for a fact that half of the Christians aren't out there just to save their asses from hell. Take it this way, I work at a summer camp, a Christian one, mind you, where we're not allowed to mention Hell and the like to the younger campers because 1) it might scare them, and 2) (my reasoning) is it will deter them from the actual meaning of Christianity. If they think "oh, if I become a Christian, I have a one way ticket away from hell!" Which is actually, false thinking, but aside from that. I do agree with you on one thing, David is a terrible arguer (if that is what you are implying in your rebuttals) in the sense that he acts like his opinions (of not just religion) are cold hard facts and he has rarely provides any proof to back them up.

I'm sorry, but based on the content your reply I think the meaning of what I said went over your head.

I also never implied that David was a terrible arguer, but it's certainly true and I see how you could infer that from his comments versus mine.

You are a good arguer, and I give you that. And yes, he is a terrible arguer. Expecially when it comes to this and video games.

 

[Mino]

To the matter at hand, I really don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to go out there and brutally murder or beat up the homosexuals out there. And since I know you'll contradict me if I say it's because of my faith, I'll also say because I just can't feel or see the attraction. It makes no sense to me. But I will however, tolerate it.

I fail to see how this constitutes "not agreeing" with homosexuality. As a straight person, I am not sexually attracted to other men, even though I often joke about wanting to get it on with Andy. I wouldn't expect a heterosexual to understand the attraction homosexuals have to people of the same gender or vice versa. Faith is not relevant to this. To me it seems that you either don't understand same-sex attraction, and therefore do not believe it exists, or you "disagree" with it out of some ancient religious edict that has survived to this day. Which is it, or is it really worth saying that you don't "agree" with homosexuality?

 

[EpicGamer12]

To the matter at hand, I really don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to go out there and brutally murder or beat up the homosexuals out there. And since I know you'll contradict me if I say it's because of my faith, I'll also say because I just can't feel or see the attraction. It makes no sense to me. But I will however, tolerate it.

I fail to see how this constitutes "not agreeing" with homosexuality. As a straight person, I am not sexually attracted to other men, even though I often joke about wanting to get it on with Andy. I wouldn't expect a heterosexual to understand the attraction homosexuals have to people of the same gender or vice versa. Faith is not relevant to this. To me it seems that you either don't understand same-sex attraction, and therefore do not believe it exists, or you "disagree" with it out of some ancient religious edict that has survived to this day. Which is it, or is it really worth saying that you don't "agree" with homosexuality?

How'd we combine religion with sexuality discussions?

 

[Mino]

To the matter at hand, I really don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to go out there and brutally murder or beat up the homosexuals out there. And since I know you'll contradict me if I say it's because of my faith, I'll also say because I just can't feel or see the attraction. It makes no sense to me. But I will however, tolerate it.

I fail to see how this constitutes "not agreeing" with homosexuality. As a straight person, I am not sexually attracted to other men, even though I often joke about wanting to get it on with Andy. I wouldn't expect a heterosexual to understand the attraction homosexuals have to people of the same gender or vice versa. Faith is not relevant to this. To me it seems that you either don't understand same-sex attraction, and therefore do not believe it exists, or you "disagree" with it out of some ancient religious edict that has survived to this day. Which is it, or is it really worth saying that you don't "agree" with homosexuality?

How'd we combine religion with sexuality discussions?

Uhh, they've been entangled pretty much since the beginning of this argument, so I don't understand why you asked me this question.

 

[EpicGamer12]

To the matter at hand, I really don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to go out there and brutally murder or beat up the homosexuals out there. And since I know you'll contradict me if I say it's because of my faith, I'll also say because I just can't feel or see the attraction. It makes no sense to me. But I will however, tolerate it.

I fail to see how this constitutes "not agreeing" with homosexuality. As a straight person, I am not sexually attracted to other men, even though I often joke about wanting to get it on with Andy. I wouldn't expect a heterosexual to understand the attraction homosexuals have to people of the same gender or vice versa. Faith is not relevant to this. To me it seems that you either don't understand same-sex attraction, and therefore do not believe it exists, or you "disagree" with it out of some ancient religious edict that has survived to this day. Which is it, or is it really worth saying that you don't "agree" with homosexuality?

How'd we combine religion with sexuality discussions?

Uhh, they've been entangled pretty much since the beginning of this argument, so I don't understand why you asked me this question.

I didn't notice. All I saw was "This is so sad." and then skipped the 7 pages. I'm not gonna read all of this.

 

[Mino]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

How'd we combine religion with sexuality discussions?

Uhh, they've been entangled pretty much since the beginning of this argument, so I don't understand why you asked me this question.

I didn't notice. All I saw was "This is so sad." and then skipped the 7 pages. I'm not gonna read all of this.

Well, thank you for your pointless input, then.

 

[EpicGamer12]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Uhh, they've been entangled pretty much since the beginning of this argument, so I don't understand why you asked me this question.

I didn't notice. All I saw was "This is so sad." and then skipped the 7 pages. I'm not gonna read all of this.

Well, thank you for your pointless input, then.

No problem.

 

[Bacon Boy]

To the matter at hand, I really don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to go out there and brutally murder or beat up the homosexuals out there. And since I know you'll contradict me if I say it's because of my faith, I'll also say because I just can't feel or see the attraction. It makes no sense to me. But I will however, tolerate it.

I fail to see how this constitutes "not agreeing" with homosexuality. As a straight person, I am not sexually attracted to other men, even though I often joke about wanting to get it on with Andy. I wouldn't expect a heterosexual to understand the attraction homosexuals have to people of the same gender or vice versa. Faith is not relevant to this. To me it seems that you either don't understand same-sex attraction, and therefore do not believe it exists, or you "disagree" with it out of some ancient religious edict that has survived to this day. Which is it, or is it really worth saying that you don't "agree" with homosexuality?

I was trying to make sense, but I guess I didn't come across right. It's not that I don't believe it exists, I just don't believe in its basic principle - same-sex relations. So no, I don't agree with it.

 

[Numner]

Sexualality isn't just strict to religion.

In all honesty, I don't not like it, I mean just public displays of affection isn't bad; but I'm alittle annoyed by really gay people.

Like that gay that isn't gay, but just overly gay.

I can't explain it.

 

[SamXX]

I hate society. People being put down because of the people they love? It's sad to see pictures like this because it just shows how our world is so unwilling to accept people for who they are.

 

[The Sign Painter]

Holy crap, FS is back! (Maybe)

And that is horrible, but a good way to get your message out.

I was sad at the "I am no longer here."

 

[Mino]

To the matter at hand, I really don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to go out there and brutally murder or beat up the homosexuals out there. And since I know you'll contradict me if I say it's because of my faith, I'll also say because I just can't feel or see the attraction. It makes no sense to me. But I will however, tolerate it.

I fail to see how this constitutes "not agreeing" with homosexuality. As a straight person, I am not sexually attracted to other men, even though I often joke about wanting to get it on with Andy. I wouldn't expect a heterosexual to understand the attraction homosexuals have to people of the same gender or vice versa. Faith is not relevant to this. To me it seems that you either don't understand same-sex attraction, and therefore do not believe it exists, or you "disagree" with it out of some ancient religious edict that has survived to this day. Which is it, or is it really worth saying that you don't "agree" with homosexuality?

I was trying to make sense, but I guess I didn't come across right. It's not that I don't believe it exists, I just don't believe in its basic principle - same-sex relations. So no, I don't agree with it.

You'll have to explain yourself better. What do you mean you don't "believe" in that principle. And I'm sure you don't mean you don't believe in same-sex relations, you have relationships with plenty of males, I'm sure.

 

[Mino]

Sexualality isn't just strict to religion.

In all honesty, I don't not like it, I mean just public displays of affection isn't bad; but I'm alittle annoyed by really gay people.

Like that gay that isn't gay, but just overly gay.

I can't explain it.

The "overly gay" people, as you put it, to me seem like a reaction to the ignorant homophobia that prevails in societies around the world. You don't like gay people? Well, let's see you deal with THIS. Shock therapy for those stuck in a long-gone age.

 

[Numner]

Sexualality isn't just strict to religion.

In all honesty, I don't not like it, I mean just public displays of affection isn't bad; but I'm alittle annoyed by really gay people.

Like that gay that isn't gay, but just overly gay.

I can't explain it.

The "overly gay" people, as you put it, to me seem like a reaction to the ignorant homophobia that prevails in societies around the world. You don't like gay people? Well, let's see you deal with THIS. Shock therapy for those stuck in a long-gone age.

I don't think I'll ever like Perez Hilton.

But seeing as he's the only one who I can think of, maybe I just don't like him.

 

[Mino]

Sexualality isn't just strict to religion.

In all honesty, I don't not like it, I mean just public displays of affection isn't bad; but I'm alittle annoyed by really gay people.

Like that gay that isn't gay, but just overly gay.

I can't explain it.

The "overly gay" people, as you put it, to me seem like a reaction to the ignorant homophobia that prevails in societies around the world. You don't like gay people? Well, let's see you deal with THIS. Shock therapy for those stuck in a long-gone age.

I don't think I'll ever like Perez Hilton.

But seeing as he's the only one who I can think of, maybe I just don't like him.

Perez HIlton is just plain annoying, partly because he deals with the bull*censored.2.0* world of celebrity gossip.