Homosexuals are 2% of the population but 40% of pedophiles

I love the people on here defending homosexuals when they have openly said they are coming for our children

Who said they were coming for your children?

Who do you think?

Child services? Can't say I'm surprised tbh.

Homosexuals are coming for the children

Bwhahahaha You wish! Need childcare do you?

Creator Of “Drag Queen Story Hour” Admits To “Grooming” Children To Become Transgender Queers And Drag Queens

https://humansarefree.com/2019/07/creator-of-drag-queen-story-hour-admits-to-grooming-children-to-become-transgender-queers-and-drag-queens.html

like any normal lgbt person supports that

i swear imgflip has this braindead tactic to paint a majority of a community with the worst examples

LGBT parents begin physically maiming their own children in botched transgender mutilations

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-06-11-lgbt-parents-begin-physically-maiming-their-own-children-in-botched-transgender-mutilations.html

You sure are one to judge.

2% of the population, dumb f**ker, pay attention.

many lgbt groups. Most recently the gay san francisco choir

What?

Creator Of “Drag Queen Story Hour” Admits To “Grooming” Children To Become Transgender Queers And Drag Queens
https://humansarefree.com/2019/07/creator-of-drag-queen-story-hour-admits-to-grooming-children-to-become-transgender-queers-and-drag-queens.html

you should add the gay san francisco choir here. Although the simps will still try shill

LGBT Agenda: 'Grooming Of The Next Generation' - From Drag Queens To Sprite Commercials, The Gay Mafia Is Coming After Your Children
http://allnewspipeline.com/LGBT_Grooming_Of_The_Next_Generation.php

MENstruation & The Sickening Indoctrination Of Children Into The LGBT Agenda - NO, Men Do Not Have Periods And Drag Queens Should NOT Be Flashing Their Junk At Children

http://allnewspipeline.com/Culture_Rot_MENstruation_And_Sickening_Indoctrination_LGBT_Agenda.php

You sure are one to judge.

Just misread it you evil troll bitch. F**k you Octavia.

Your a loser troll bitch Octavia

Right on. If it was actually as important to someone's identity as liberals make it out to be, it wouldn't be curable with therapy. Gay pride is stupid 1) because it's two grave sins mashed into one idea, and 2) it's like if people started a "depressed pride" parade or "anxious pride" or any other mental illness. Celebrating mental illness isn't a good thing. Treatment therapy would be a better option.

Homosexuality is not 'curable by therapy'. If you are arguing that people are born straight and become gay then you are saying that heterosexuality is curable by therapy.

"Homosexuality is not 'curable by therapy'."

Yes it is. Plenty of people have had unwanted same-sex attraction, gone to therapy, and been cured. Some even end up getting married and having kids (with people of the opposite sex i.e. the natural way).

"If you are arguing that people are born straight and become gay then you are saying heterosexuality is curable by therapy."

There's a significant difference between therapy and rape. People who become gay do so in many cases because they were raped by other gay men as children. There are obviously various other ways people can become gay (isolation with other men, etc.), but no one goes to therapy to try and become gay. People become gay because of outside factors they usually can't control. That's not therapy and you know it.

Homosexuality is not 'curable by therapy', people giving in to the demands of their families and friends and living a lie so that they are not rejected by those that they love is not being cured of anything.

Lots of gay men married women to avoid being punished for being gay when it was shamefully illegal, it didn't mean that they became straight.

Nobody becomes gay, people are born gay. Being raped does not make you gay, isolation with men does not make you gay, trauma does not make you gay.

If being gay was solely due to a combination of varying environmental factors, homosexuals would not have consistently made up the same percentage of the population.

Loads of gay kids come from straight, happy Christian families. Loads of gay kids come from environments where they've never seen same-sex relationships modelled. Loads of gay kids haven't experienced any trauma (other than being rejected by their families for their sexuality).

Your whole issue seems to hinge on your tenuous religious nonsense which originates in a book that also tells you not to judge people and also your erroneous belief that homosexuality is a choice.

You are misinformed.

"Loads of gay kids come from straight, happy Christian families. Loads of gay kids come from environments where they've never seen same-sex relationships modelled. Loads of gay kids haven't experienced any trauma (other than being rejected by their families for their sexuality)."

Not sure where you're getting your information from. Loads of gay kids are only gay because society encourages it. That's an environmental factor. If their are kids who "come from environments where they've never seen same-sex relationships modelled" as you claim, where is that exactly? American society models homosexuality to children more and more every day. I agree that it's wrong for a family to shun a child because of feelings they can't control, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't still discipline them. If you think it's wrong for a family to tell their child not to act on their gay feelings, do you also think it's wrong for a family to tell their child not to act on their urges to rape someone? If not, why not? Both are sexual immoralities.

"Your whole issue seems to hinge on your tenuous religious nonsense which originates in a book that also tells you not to judge people and also your erroneous belief that homosexuality is a choice.

You are misinformed."

My issue is that you are denying science. There is no gene that determines whether or not you are gay or straight. Homosexual feelings are not a choice and I never claimed they were. However, acting on those feelings is a choice, and a wrong choice. I do believe in a book that tells me not to judge people, but that book does not condemn judging actions. Is it okay to tell someone who committed murder that it was wrong? Obviously. Is that judging them? No. Is telling them to stop wrong? No. You liberals hate being told that what you're doing is wrong and sinful, but I don't understand why because you don't usually value or even regard the opinions of those who disagree with you. Sadly, you are the one who is misinformed.

Homosexuality is not comparable to rape, that's a false dichotomy.

Rape is an attack, homosexuality is a sexuality.

Rape causes identifiable, objective harm; homosexuality does not.

Homosexuality is not comparable to murder, that's a false dichotomy.

Murder is an attack, it causes loss of life, objective harm; homosexuality does not.

Sin and and your definition of morality are subjective things you choose to believe in, they do not exist outside of that. You are imposing your sense of morality and your beliefs about sin on other people. Isn't imposing your beliefs on other people and trying to control them how conservatives define 'leftism'?

"Homosexuality is not comparable to rape, that's a false dichotomy."

They are both sexual immoralities, so they are comparable. I also compared it to abstinence if you like that better.

"Rape is an attack, homosexuality is a sexuality."

*mental illness, not sexuality

"Rape causes identifiable, objective harm; homosexuality does not."

AIDS is kind of harmful.

"Homosexuality is not comparable to murder, that's a false dichotomy"

Once again, both morally wrong.

"Sin and and your definition of morality are subjective things you choose to believe in, they do not exist outside of that. You are imposing your sense of morality and your beliefs about sin on other people. Isn't imposing your beliefs on other people and trying to control them how conservatives define 'leftism'?"

Morality is objective. My "sense" of morality is also known as morality. If morality can change for each person, then morality doesn't exist. If it exists, it is the same. I never said people shouldn't have the right to choose to act on homosexual feelings if they want. They have every right to do that in America. I'm just saying that their choice to do so is morally wrong.

"Rape is an attack, homosexuality is a sexuality."

"*mental illness, not sexuality"

Seriously? Homosexuality is a sexuality, one of the ways you can tell is that it's got the word sexuality in it. Honestly, how have you made it this far through life? I kinda want to congratulate you.

Of course morality is different for everyone, for example, yours includes judging people and rejecting them based on nothing other than what you've been told by someone else.

"Seriously? Homosexuality is a sexuality, one of the ways you can tell is that it's got the word sexuality in it. Honestly, how have you made it this far through life? I kinda want to congratulate you."

I replaced your word with a better, more accurate phrase. Sure it's a sexuality, but to leave it at that is to ignore the fact that it's a disordered sexuality, but enough of these technical points. You're using them to distract from the main argument, which is whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, and whether it's a mental illness or not.

"Of course morality is different for everyone, for example, yours includes judging people and rejecting them based on nothing other than what you've been told by someone else."

Morality is always the same. Different people just choose to be more or less moral. Some do immoral things without realizing it. You're completely making things up. Where did I say I reject anyone? And where did I say I reject people based on things other people told me? You assume an awful lot. The only thing I said about judging is that I judge actions, not people. There's nothing wrong with deeming an immoral action immoral.

"AIDS is kind of harmful."

Yes, it is.
Please tell me you understand that homosexuality is not the same thing as aids?

"Please tell me you understand that homosexuality is not the same thing as aids?"

I do, but if you care about these homosexuals so much, then why wouldn't you warn them of the potential negative impacts of their immoral choices?

Their choices are only immoral according to you, you are imposing your beliefs on strangers. Why are you assuming that anyone needs warning?

"Their choices are only immoral according to you"

Their choices are immoral according to objective morality, and I didn't invent objective morality.

"you are imposing your beliefs on strangers."

Using that logic, you telling someone not to murder people is "imposing your beliefs" on them.

"Why are you assuming that anyone needs warning?"

Because lots of people engage in reckless sexual activity. If people were actually cautious about STD's, they wouldn't need to be taught about so much about them in public schools.

"you are imposing your beliefs on strangers."

"Using that logic, you telling someone not to murder people is "imposing your beliefs" on them."

Yes, telling people not to murder is imposing your beliefs, just like soldiers being told to murder is someone imposing their beliefs.

It's obviously a reasonable belief to impose because murder causes harm, how other consenting adults have sex does not cause harm so there's no need for anyone to impose their beliefs about it. Got it?

"Yes, telling people not to murder is imposing your beliefs, just like soldiers being told to murder is someone imposing their beliefs."

So imposing your beliefs on people is okay as long as it's something you agree with i.e. murder? Why is imposing beliefs about murder okay to you but not homosexuality? Both are a question of morality. I hope you're aware that you can be a conscientious objector and become a medic or something else.

"It's obviously a reasonable belief to impose because murder causes harm, how other consenting adults have sex does not cause harm so there's no need for anyone to impose their beliefs about it. Got it?"

Oh so it's "obviously reasonable" because why? Because you said so? If I say imposing my beliefs about homosexuality is obviously reasonable, does that make me right? You'd say no. Murder does cause harm in this life, and that's why you think it's obviously reasonable to restrict it. But the original reasons for restricting murder weren't because they harm someone in this life, but because they harm your in the next life. This is the connection that the Godless left doesn't understand. Things are deemed immoral because they harm your chances of getting into heaven. Morality boils down to saving your own soul, and if you don't believe in God or eternal salvation or damnation, you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in morals. Most atheists still have some sense of morals because the Law of God is written on their hearts. Think about it. Animals don't have morals because they don't have to worry about heaven or hell. So why should atheists have morals either? They should do whatever they want because they believe they won't be punished for it. But why don't they just do whatever they want? Well some do, but many others don't because they know it's wrong. But if there's no God, there is no right and wrong. In the animal kingdom, there is no right and wrong, only survival. Why do humans have consciences? The only answer is God. Anyway, my point is that murder is wrong because it harms your sou. Homosexual acts are wrong because they harm your soul. Some immoral acts also have negative impacts on people in this life like murder, and some don't. Think about it.

"Homosexuality is not 'curable by therapy', people giving in to the demands of their families and friends and living a lie so that they are not rejected by those that they love is not being cured of anything."

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. I never said anything about families or giving in to demands. I'm talking about people who didn't like their attraction (because they knew it was unnatural and admitted it to themselves), sought therapy, and were cured. Then they proceeded to tell their own stories and encourage other people to seek healing. Homosexuality is disordered. Acting on it is immoral. People can choose to resist disordered, immoral acts if they want. That's what these people did. It's the same idea as abstaining from sex until marriage. Not because you were forced to, but because you realize it's the moral thing to do.

"Lots of gay men married women to avoid being punished for being gay when it was shamefully illegal, it didn't mean that they became straight."

Once again, you ignored what I wrote and made up some fake idea that I never mentioned.

"Nobody becomes gay, people are born gay. Being raped does not make you gay, isolation with men does not make you gay, trauma does not make you gay."

Incorrect. You leftists love to claim conservatives deny science about climate change etc., but then you think it's okay to ignore science if it makes people feel "included" or whatever. I'll say it again. According to science, no one can be born gay because there is no gene that determines sexual orientation. Everyone is born hetero because it's natural. And yes being raped as a child can turn a hetero gay. So can isolation, etc. Why do you think men who are isolated become gay? Do you actually they all just happened to be gay and happened to choose the same job? That would be quite a coincidence indeed.

"If being gay was solely due to a combination of varying environmental factors, homosexuals would not have consistently made up the same percentage of the population."

Not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. It could just as well be because the same percentage of varying environmental factors is always present.

Not sure how that refutes any of what I said, but all I can say is, it's sad that he gave up. He was doing the right thing for a while. That article mentions he founded "Love Won Out," and this is the problem with the left. They think blindly following disordered sexual desires is "love." It's not.

"If you believe that a gay person can become straight, and even a person who was involved in that realized that it's bullshit and renounces it, I'm pretty sure they would know themselves better than you would know them, so I gave what he says more credence than what you say."

So you're telling me you believe people who experience it? So do you believe a person who had gay feelings, didn't like them, and went to conversion therapy? There's plenty of people who have gone to therapy, been cured, and affirmed that you can go from gay to straight. Do you believe them? Probably not because it doesn't fit your agenda

"I'll make this as simple as I can so you can understand it: what consenting adults do in private, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is none of your business. Understand?"

So would you defend consenting adults committing incest? I hope not, but "People like you believe all sorts of messed up things, so I can't really say what crazy shit you do or don't believe."

But it's consenting adults in private, so isn't that none of you business? How dare you impose your beliefs on consenting adults doing something in private.

You explained that you think people should stay out of consenting adults private business. So why do you think incest is wrong then?

"And supporting abortion being legal is an entirely separate issue."

Yes, but these issues about sexual immorality are all connected

"You explained that you think people should stay out of consenting adults private business. So why do you think incest is wrong then?

"And supporting abortion being legal is an entirely separate issue."

Octavia already answered you! Incest can cause harm to any children produced, literally why it's illegal.

What's that got to do with abortion? In that case, no child is going to be produced.

"Octavia already answered you! Incest can cause harm to any children produced, literally why it's illegal."

But they're consenting adults. You can't have it both ways.

"What's that got to do with abortion? In that case, no child is going to be produced."

It has to do with abortion because you liberals support abortion, but you're against incest because it could harm a child. Guess what. Abortion harms children too. So why do you only care about harming children conceived from incest?

"What's that got to do with abortion? In that case, no child is going to be produced."

"It has to do with abortion because you liberals support abortion, but you're against incest because it could harm a child. Guess what. Abortion harms children too. So why do you only care about harming children conceived from incest?"

Abortion does not harm a child it stops an embryo from developing. The majority of abortions happen in the first few weeks before the brain or internal organs have formed and involve taking two pills.

"Abortion does not harm a child it stops an embryo from developing. The majority of abortions happen in the first few weeks before the brain or internal organs have formed and involve taking two pills."

Human life begins at conception. Period. I learned that at a public school. You're just going to have to deal with the science of it

Do you believe that every innocent person who's been tortured was guilty all along because they eventually confess their guilt? If they end up genuinely convinced that they have committed a crime and ask for forgiveness and acceptance, does that prove guilt?

You're funny. I make reasonable comparisons and you try to find technical things about how they're "not comparable," and then you go and compare conversion therapy to torture...

This comparison also shows how ignorant you are of what conversion therapy actually is. Tell me honestly, do you think voluntary conversion therapy is someone beating you and screaming "You're not gay!" until they believe you?

"Who knows? You already support something that's pseudoscientific garbage with no scientific or medical validity, so who knows how far you are willing to take it?"

So you're claiming that conversion therapy is bad/uneffective while at the same time saying "who knows"? So you don't know either? Then why are you claiming these things if you don't know? What do I support that's "pseudoscientific garbage"?

"Google "corrective rape". Some people out there are actually convinced that if a man rapes a lesbian, that will make her heterosexual. People like you believe all sorts of messed up things, so I can't really say what crazy shit you do or don't believe."

Well "some people out there" are stupid. I totally agree with you that that's completely retarded. No where have I defended anything remotely close to that. You would just like to believe that so you can discount everything else I say.

'Conversion therapy' is not a regulated consistent thing, what happens is down to the people involved. I've read articles and accounts by people who say they were beaten and shamed. I'm also aware that the suicide rate after people have experienced it is high, which is hardly surprising.

A new study published this month in the Journal of Homosexuality finally provides some concrete evidence, however, that sexual orientation conversion therapy during adolescence is associated with poor mental health outcomes.

The study recruited 245 LGBT people between the ages of 21 and 25. Participants were asked two questions about sexual orientation conversion therapy:

Between ages 13 and 19, how often did any of your parents/caregivers try to change your sexual orientation (i.e., to make you straight)?
Between ages 13 and 19, how often did any of your parents/caregivers take you to a therapist or religious leader to cure, treat, or change your sexual orientation?

They also had participants complete a number of mental health measures. Those whose parents tried to change their sexual orientation had three-fold higher odds of having ever attempted suicide (aOR 3.08, 95 percent CI 1.39-6.83). Those whose parents enlisted the help of a professional (therapist or religious leader) to change their sexual orientation had a five-fold higher odds of having ever attempted suicide (aOR 5.07, 95 percent CI 2.38-10.79).

Overall, the field of psychiatry continues to condemn efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation. We now have additional data to show that such efforts are dangerous. As I’ve written before, several states have begun to outlaw the practice. I hope this new data will help propel lawmakers in other states to do the same."-PsychologyToday

"'Conversion therapy' is not a regulated consistent thing, what happens is down to the people involved. I've read articles and accounts by people who say they were beaten and shamed. I'm also aware that the suicide rate after people have experienced it is high, which is hardly surprising."

Was that a Protestant thing? Protestants (especially West Borrow Baptists and the like) hate homosexual people. I'm not a Protestant. I'll stand with you against the hate and abuse of homosexual people. I simply stand against deeming acting on those feelings okay.

So you're quoting an article from the "Journal of Homosexuality." Maybe it's just me, but the title of this journal makes me think maybe there's slight, small, tiny chance that it's biased and has an agenda. It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't say anything about people who have had successful conversions.

"No I don't believe them, not because it doesn't fit my agenda but because it doesn't fit with the known evidence"

So if someone says something that doesn't fit the "evidence" of your biased studies, you won't believe them? Isn't that what an agenda is? I've read about people who have gone through conversion therapy and are happier now. Would you believe a person like that? And I'm not talking about children either. Adults who realized their feelings were disordered and did something about it.

"If you think that homosexuality is a mental illness, then I assume you think that bisexuality is also a mental illness. I'm bisexual, so tell me what you think the symptoms of my mental illness are, doctor."

That would be correct. Your symptoms would be that you find people of both sexes attractive, and I'm guessing would also be opened to sexual relationships with both.

Having gay feelings is not "blindly following disordered sexual desires," but acting on them is.

(1)

"Except for the fact that it affects our daily lives"

Why do you think it affects our daily lives? If God doesn't exist, why do think following His laws make people's lives better in more lasting ways than rejecting His laws do?

"Actually it's Christianity that says you can do whatever you want and God will forgive you for it. So why not do whatever you feel like right before converting to Christianity?"

Christianity doesn't say you can "do whatever you want" and then just be forgiven. God will forgive sin, but only if you repent. Intentionally doing something with the thought that "oh God will just forgive me later" is another sin in itself. So that's why you wouldn't sin a bunch and then convert.

"That's an assertion. Where's your evidence?"

The idea of right and wrong didn't exist in this world until man came. And man is a religious being because at all times in history and in all corners of the world, man has expressed his quest for God through his rituals, prayers, and sacrifices. With religion came laws and a sense of morality. Where would you propose the idea of right and wrong came from?

"False. Many animals have morals and cooperate with each other because it benefits the group, which in turn benefits themselves."

Not morals. Instinct. They cooperate because of instinct. Humans hardly have any instinct if at all; we need to be taught everything. Humans have free will and are very conscious of it. That's what some don't cooperate because they realize they can make a better earthly life for themselves if they don't just go with the flow.

"That's not the only answer. You're wrong about that."

What's the answer you believe then? If you have all the answers, why not share them with me?

(2)

"What soul? What is a soul and what's your evidence that it exists? And how does homosexuality harm a soul?"

Good question. A soul is a spiritual substance (spiritual not meaning religious, but meaning simply something that can or does exist independent of the physical). A soul is what gives us a sense of identity and a conscious. It's what makes us, us. Each human is completely unique with a personality no one else has. Animals don't share this sense of individual identity. And my evidence to support the idea of a soul goes like this: the atoms that make up our bodies change thought our lives. For example, every seven years, the atoms that make up our brain have been completely replaced by new ones. And yet, at the end of the seven years, we're still the same person with the same personality and conscious (Obviously some changes occur to our thoughts and whatnot, but we still have the same identity.) And even if we have changed, we have memory of who we used to be, but who we used to be was still us. So if the physical atoms that make up our physical aspect are constantly changing, there must be something beyond the physical that allows us to retain our identity. (After all, if our identity rested in the physical, bits and pieces of it would come and go as we lost certain atoms and gained new ones.) This spiritual substance is what we call a soul.

No it isn't, any more than you having a heterosexual relationship is 'blindly following disordered desires'.

You can't compare a natural thing to an unnatural thing in this way. Do you even hear yourself? I'm genuinely curious. If you think the natural way to have children is disordered, I really don't know what else to say. I've already explained why homosexuality is disordered various times now. Would you like me to say them all again?

Answer me this: is it immoral for a human to kill another human? I'm guessing you'd say yes. Now is it immoral for an animal to kill another animal? The answer is no because animals have no consciences or sense of morals. This is one example of something that occurs naturally but is unnatural for humans. Same goes for homosexuality

Yes it is. It's disordered, unnatural, and immoral

Do I need to define words again like I had to do with "child"?

Morality is objective.

1a

"Morality affects people's daily lives regardless of whether or not a God exists, because morality determines how people treat each other and if they will do things which benefit or harm others. God does not factor into the equation at all. Morality is about how humans treat each other"

And why should it matter how humans treat each other if God doesn't exist? Humans get the most pleasure out of this life if they elevate themselves. We have a natural inclination to treat others well; that's our conscience. I agree that morality is about how humans treat each other, but why would follow such a restrictive set of rules if we weren't told to? (It's a lot easier to go through life not thinking about what we say or do and having to correct ourselves.)

"I don't necessarily think it (following God's laws) does (make life better). And if God doesn't exist, then they aren't his laws to begin with."

Agreed. Following God's laws doesn't make this physical life any better necessarily. It can make you fully satisfied though. Meaning that people who juice this life to fullest with sex and money and power never feel truly happy (and many admit it), while people who follow God's laws often feel fully complete. If God doesn't exist, why do you suppose human would invent such restrictive, sometimes hard-to-follow moral laws, like cheating is bad, being greedy is bad, selfishness is bad, etc. In the natural world, selfishness and greed is good because it helps survival.

"Yeah, exactly. If you repent, he'll forgive you...once he becomes a Christian."

As Catholics, we don't believe that simply converting to Christianity guarantees you'll go to heaven. We also believe in purgatory, which I don't think any Protestants believe in. Purgatory is a painful cleansing before entrance into heaven is possible. To tie it in with your example, Jeff would have a lot more time in purgatory. So yeah I agree the Protestant idea of "convert and poof you're automatically saved" is unrealistic. After we become baptized Catholics, we still have to go to confession for the rest of our lives.

1b

"If Christianity is true, and Jesus will forgive all of your past sins as well as future sins, which is how many Christians interpret the Bible, what incentive is there to not be a bad person?"

The idea that Jesus forgives future sins before you commit them is kind of ridiculous. I'm not sure which Protestant sects believe that, but that's a crazy idea. My Church certainly doesn't interpret the Bible that way, otherwise we wouldn't need constant repentance and confession. I agree that in whatever Protestant sects those are, there isn't much of an incentive to be a good person.

"Who cares if it's a sin? It's a sin that he'll forgive you for. It's a very obvious problem with Christianity which many denominations don't have a solution for."

Totally agreed. Which is why I don't think it's just good enough to be Christian. I believe that while all Protestant denominations contain some degree of truth, it's far from the fullness of it.

"None of that explains to me how the concept of right and wrong can only come from God"

Right and wrong isn't a necessary concept for survival in nature, and nature doesn't produce unnecessary concepts that don't benefit the survival of it's members. Evolution often favors what we would consider "wrong," such as killing weaker members of species. That's natural selection in nature, so right and wrong couldn't have come from nature.

"It's difficult to say, but the fact that humans are social animals and we exist (for the most part) in large groups is strong evidence for a completely naturalistic origin for morality. As I mentioned before, morality is about how humans treat each other."

Morality doesn't benefit natural selection or evolution. By doing what's morally right, humans prolong the lives of the weaker members of our species that natural selection would kill off.

"How do you know those two (morals and instinct) are different or mutually exclusive?"

I know they are different by looking at humans compared to nature. Instinct can favor what we consider moral, but it doesn't always. For example, it's instinct, not a sense of morality, that causes female praying mantises to eat their male mates.

2b

"That's absurd. Are you saying that humans need to be taught to reproduce or eat or cooperate with others for our mutual benefit? Just because instincts are often subconscious things that we don't usually think about, doesn't mean they aren't there. Your instincts affect your daily life, including sleeping, eating, what you think about, etc. Try not eating anything for 96 hours straight, or not sleeping for 48 hours straight, and then tell me that humans don't have natural instincts."

Yes humans need to be taught all that. Humans are born completely helpless, completely reliant on a guardian. If a baby is born, and you leave it in a room with everything it needs, milk, food, water, a mate, etc., it will die. It needs to be taught how to eat, walk, talk, be a good person etc. I agree that we have an instinct to sleep though. Our instincts tell us we do need to eat and drink, but we still have to be taught how to do those things even though we are born wanting them. And humans certainly aren't born able to cooperate with other people. If they were, parental discipline would be non-existent.

"And they are the exception, not the rule."

If people weren't taught morals from birth, they would be the rule. Babies slap their parents. Parents teach them not to. Babies scream and whine. Parents teach them patience as they age. These are things that set us apart from animals. These are things we must be taught

3a

"First, I never said I have "all the answers". Second, the human conscience is something we don't fully understand. I believe it comes as a result of evolution and social factors and ultimately traces back to our desire to form societies and help those societies thrive."

I'm aware that we don't fully understand it, and we theists don't claim to fully understand it either. We just understand that it's a mystery that God enables us to ponder but not fully comprehend. Your theory doesn't explain why we, a relatively young species, evolved super-complex personalities and consciences, and are the only species with them.

"Can you give an example of anything that exists independent of the physical?"

Besides our souls, God is the chief example. While I can't magically prove God to you, I can offer this evidence of souls.

"What you're describing is personality, and we already have a word for it: personality. Christians use the word soul to refer to a part of a person which lives on after that person dies. Do you have any evidence that any aspect of a person lives on after they die?"

But animals don't have personalities the way we do. We do believe that souls live on after we die as well as make us who we are. My evidence for souls living on is that they stay the same despite no need of attachment to any certain particles of matter.

"So animals aren't unique? Any two dogs or cats or fish have the same identity as each other?"

We as humans understand that animals are unique, but they themselves don't understand that. As I watch the squirrels outside my window, they all do the same exact thing--gather nuts--for the same purpose--survival. They have no sense of anything that makes them specifically unique.

3b

"Yes, atoms that make up our bodies change over time. The fact that we retain the same personality isn't evidence of anything outside ourselves."

But the atoms that now make us up were outside of ourselves. The specific particles of matter which make up "ourselves" don't matter. When you say ourselves, what are you referring to? Because we've established that the matter that makes up our bodies changes, so that can't be what you mean. Otherwise "ourselves" would refer to any particles of matter that did or will at some point make up the body of a human. Therefore, I think you're referring to human souls as what makes us "ourselves" without realizing we're referring to the same thing. We Christians just have a different name for it. You call it personality, we call it soul. Both are things that only humans have (to this degree at least. I'm not claiming that the brain activity of all animals is the same because they are influenced by their surroundings differently). We just also believe that because what makes us "ourselves" is so complex and unique, it can live independent of matter.

"If you have a building made entirely of bricks, and every day you replace one brick with a new one, after a certain amount of time has passed, you will have replaced every brick in the building with a new one, but most people would say it's the same building. Was there anything outside our physical world that keeps this building the same after its physical components have changed?"

Ah but a building has no thoughts or feelings. A building is entirely physical. Humans have a physical component and a spiritual component, and the spiritual one can stay the same despite changes to the physical one. What makes a building a building is purely what it's made of physically.

3c

"But in some cases that does happen. There are cases of people who have suffered brain trauma, and it completely changes their personality and identity. If their personality isn't rooted in the physical, why would physical trauma change it?"

I believe that our soul isn't rooted in the physical, no, but our personality isn't the only aspect of souls. The different between brain trauma and the changing of atoms in our body is that brain trauma is a direct alteration the brain without changing the atoms that make it up. Brain trauma is disconnected from the argument as to whether or not our personalities depend on certain particles of matter as opposed to others. It's a valid objection, but it's a slightly different argument.

"It depends on the circumstance. If you're killing someone who's trying to kill you, then no, I don't believe that is immoral. If you kill someone who did nothing wrong to hurt you or anyone else, then yes, I would say that is immoral."

I agree.

"Again, it depends on the circumstance. If an animal kills another animal for food, I would say that's not immoral. If an animal kills another animal for no acceptable or logical reason, I would say that is immoral."

So you hold animals to moral standards? Would you defend people killing each other for food? My point is that holding humans and animals to the same moral standards is ridiculous. Would you punish an animal that killed another animal for no apparent reason?

"Actually, you're wrong about that. Many animals do have a sense of morality. Many animals do act in ways which benefit not only their own species or group, but other animals as well. Have you literally never heard a story about a dog protecting its owner? You're saying that's not a moral act?"

You can't say animals have a sense of morality because there's no way to communicate that with them. I won't deny that they can exhibit behaviors that if exhibited by a human would be deemed moral. I'm aware that dogs protect their owners, but they're trained to do that. It's not something they naturally decide to do on their own.

I said morality is objective, and that's what I meant. Objective means not influenced by feelings or opinions. Morality can't be subjective because that means it's based on feelings and opinions, and if it's different for every person, then it can't exist. If I say red is red, but you say red is yellow and someone else says red it purple, what is red then? Same with morality. It stays the same.

Hah! People *do* see color differently! We also only see colors in a tiny bit of the spectrum, we're all pretty blinkered...some of us moreso.

I'm aware people have different numbers of rods and cones etc., but I think you know the point I'm trying to make. I'm not sure what mentioning the small spectrum of visible light has to do with any of this, but if you had a point in saying that, could you clarify?

Some people are color blind, some people are partially sighted, we're not clones, there is variation.

Oh, I mentioned the color spectrum just as an additional point, we actually have quite limited vision. More evidence of evolution, as if we actually need any more. lol

Yeah I know some people are color blind and whatnot. Red is still red. Some people just can't see it. Just like some things are immoral and some people can't see that.

Sounds like you're assuming that I don't believe in evolution. I actually don't deny that it's a very plausible explanation. The only problem with it is that it's still a theory, and it can never be proven simply because we can't date mutations. I know that most Christians (Protestants mostly) deny evolution, but I don't. It makes a lot of sense

"Yeah I know some people are color blind and whatnot. Red is still red. Some people just can't see it. Just like some things are immoral and some people can't see that.

Sounds like you're assuming that I don't believe in evolution. I actually don't deny that it's a very plausible explanation. The only problem with it is that it's still a theory, and it can never be proven simply because we can't date mutations. I know that most Christians (Protestants mostly) deny evolution, but I don't. It makes a lot of sense"

Color is not an objective thing, it's a dependent collaborative thing.

I was assuming that you're a creationist, apologies. You said that the idea that the world was literally made in 6 days is absurd but there are people that believe that.

Ah, re. the 'evolution is a theory', I think you may be misunderstanding the meaning of the word theory, a scientific theory is not the same as a general theory.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. It doesn't just mean a guess.

"Color is not an objective thing, it's a dependent collaborative thing."

Yes it is. For example, the wavelength of red light is 700-635 nm. That never changes.

"I was assuming that you're a creationist, apologies. You said that the idea that the world was literally made in 6 days is absurd but there are people that believe that."

That's okay. I know that a lot of people take the entire Bible literally, which isn't correct.

"Ah, re. the 'evolution is a theory', I think you may be misunderstanding the meaning of the word theory, a scientific theory is not the same as a general theory."

I understand that there's a difference, and I know and have acknowledged that there is much evidence for evolution, but it cannot be fully proven. If it could or was, it would not longer be called a theory.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. It doesn't just mean a guess."

Yep I know. There's lots of evidence for evolution, but it just can't be proven behind the shadow of a doubt because of the issue with our inability to date mutations.

I was curious about your username so I investigated, you're a fighter jet, that's pretty cool. It's amusing that it's known as the Warthog, have you seen Red vs Blue?

Haha yeah it's the U.S.'s best attack plane. And yep the people who fly it gave it that nickname because they think it's kind of ugly even though they love it as a plane. I haven't seen Red vs Blue

You got me curious about your username as well, and I see you're a guy from a parody religion. No offense, but I find Pastafariansim a slightly more amusing parody religion

"You got me curious about your username as well, and I see you're a guy from a parody religion. No offense, but I find Pastafariansim a slightly more amusing parody religion."

None taken, humor-wise, I suspect The Church of the Subgenius is somewhere between Pastafarianism and Catholocism.

I think they also win at snacks, your wafers are pretty bland and we don't really have snacks, just pipes and I don't think they count.

You definitely win at surprises. ;)

Snacks? That kind of reminds me of the non-Catholic (I don't remember if he was atheist or Protestant) kid that went to my old school and took a Sacred Host during Mass because he thought it was a snack. But no, communion isn't a snack; it's the source and summit of our Faith, although I appreciate your humor.

You mention that you think they're bland. Does that mean you used to be Catholic?

"Snacks? That kind of reminds me of the non-Catholic (I don't remember if he was atheist or Protestant) kid that went to my old school and took a Sacred Host during Mass because he thought it was a snack. But no, communion isn't a snack; it's the source and summit of our Faith, although I appreciate your humor.

You mention that you think they're bland. Does that mean you used to be Catholic?"

I know what the wafers represent...

I didn't used to be Catholic although I've been to Mass and I've been offered wafers more than once, I personally didn't feel like it was appropriate to take one. It's common knowledge that they're bland though.

The Church of the Subgenius being a parody religion is debatable, it has similarities with Taoism.

"I know what the wafers represent..."

They don't represent anything. Symbols represent things. Protestants' communion is a symbol, but we believe ours to be completely transformed.

"I didn't used to be Catholic although I've been to Mass and I've been offered wafers more than once, I personally didn't feel like it was appropriate to take one. It's common knowledge that they're bland though."

Catholic Mass? Even if you're not Catholic, you can always go up and receive a blessing. But I appreciate your respect for it by not taking one. I've seen a few non-Catholics take it just because everyone else does. And yeah I guess that's true that most people know they're not exactly bursting with flavor.

"The Church of the Subgenius being a parody religion is debatable, it has similarities with Taoism."

Okay. The parody thing is just what I found in my couple minutes of research

"The One True God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who revealed Himself to the Jews in the Old Testament and sent His Son in the New."

The one true god? Haha..let me guess, he told you that?...

Why would a deity have gender? If a creator did have gender, why would it be male? That's just silly.

It's almost like, rather than your creation theory being remotely plausible, it's a story by men about men to show how important men are.

"The one true god? Haha..let me guess, he told you that?..."

Divine revelation is part of my faith, but that's not all it's based on.

"Why would a deity have gender? If a creator did have gender, why would it be male? That's just silly."

Good question. God in fact does not have a gender. God is pure spirit. Jesus did come to earth in the flesh of a male, but He is also fully God. We use words like "Father" and "Son" to help explain the relationships between the three Persons of the Trinity, but our language will always fall short of true expression of God. God does not have a gender, but we use the word "Father" because God possesses certain qualities we would generally associate with sound fatherhood.

"It's almost like, rather than your creation theory being remotely plausible, it's a story by men about men to show how important men are"

I'm sure you're aware if this, but the entire Bible isn't literal. The Genesis account of creation was meant to be scientifically perfect (no one knew nearly as much about science then as we do now), but rather a symbolic explanation. Obvioisly I'm not claiming that earth was created in six 24-hour days. That would be absurd.

The way you worded that paragraph makes it sound like you don't think humans are important. But I guess if you're an atheist, you have no reason to think we're anything special. Are we just another species of animal to you? And if so, why does morality even matter at all if our ultimate goal is just survival in this life? How do you go through life with no hope of anything else? Can't you see the things that set humans apart from the other species? We're exponentially more intelligent than the second smartest creature on the planet. How do you suppose that happened? Humans have exponentially more complex emotions, consciences, ideas, thoughts, etc. And if God doesn't exist, why would any human have made up the idea of Him? If God doesn't exist, humans are the top of the universe, the most intelligent thing that we know exists. Why would nearly every civilization that ever existed worship some kind of deity when if God didn't exist, they could spend all their time worshipping themselves?

"We use words like "Father" and "Son" to help explain the relationships between the three Persons of the Trinity, but our language will always fall short of true expression of God. God does not have a gender, but we use the word "Father" because God possesses certain qualities we would generally associate with sound fatherhood."

But that's the thing, not all groups of people would generally associate those attributes with fatherhood, Matriarchal societies or societies with less familiar gender roles wouldn't necessarily consider certain behavior fatherly. Our idea of what's fatherly is subjective.

Christianity is a patriarchal religion, the split into Protestantism and Catholicism was in part because of disagreements about the importance of Mary.
I am an Atheist although it's probably fairer to say Agnostic. Atheists have every reason to think we are anything special, look what we've come from and what we've achieved?! We are the most intelligent thing on the planet*, morality absolutely matters. Like I said in a different reply, if there was no morality there would be carnage, other than a few questionable individuals, nobody wants that.

It's just basic common sense that we treat each other with kindness and respect. I think that 'treat others the way you want to be treated' is a pretty good basic rule.

"But that's the thing, not all groups of people would generally associate those attributes with fatherhood, Matriarchal societies or societies with less familiar gender roles wouldn't necessarily consider certain behavior fatherly. Our idea of what's fatherly is subjective."

I didn't say all groups of people would. I just said generally. Matriarchal societies are more rare I believe. I've only learned about a handful. The point is, the Jews and Christians who applied these words to God used their understanding of fatherhood roles, and even though not all people have the same understanding of these roles, they can understand why we call God father once we explain our understanding of fatherhood roles to them.

"Christianity is a patriarchal religion, the split into Protestantism and Catholicism was in part because of disagreements about the importance of Mary.
I am an Atheist although it's probably fairer to say Agnostic. Atheists have every reason to think we are anything special, look what we've come from and what we've achieved?! We are the most intelligent thing on the planet*, morality absolutely matters. Like I said in a different reply, if there was no morality there would be carnage, other than a few questionable individuals, nobody wants that."

Yes part of the split has to do with Mary, and that's part of the reason I am Catholic. We honor Mary, a woman, more than any other religion honors any woman, and I think that's pretty cool. We have God our Father, and Mary our mother.

What's special about what we've achieved if it's all temporary and we all die never to exist again? What's so special about being intelligent if we have no soul? If we're just animals, why do we have all these incredible thoughts, ideas, and use of reason? Carnage is only bad because we've determined it's bad by use of our reason that no other animal has.

"It's just basic common sense that we treat each other with kindness and respect. I think that 'treat others the way you want to be treated' is a pretty good basic rule."

But why is it just basic common sense? Animals don't have have what you consider basic common sense, so if we're just animals, why do we have what you consider common sense? I agree that it's a good basic rule, but where did it come from? Not some ancient barbarian tribe, but from religion

"How do you go through life without hope of anything else?"

That's a good question.

With gratitude.

I feel like treating this as a preamble to a wonderful afterlife is a bit like eating all your dinner for no other reason than so you can have dessert.
If there is no dessert, if the food in front of you is all there is, then you really appreciate it.

Have you read War & Peace? There's a beautiful moment when the protagonist who's been accustomed to a privileged lifestyle ends up navigating the horrors on a battlefield and is then imprisoned. He hasn't eaten for days, another prisoner, a working class man, offers him a tiny piece of bread.

The protagonist is about to eat it quickly, he's ravenous. The prisoner stops him, takes some salt from his pocket and seasons it and then encourages the protagonist to eat it slowly, to really savor it.

When he eventually gets home, famished and filthy and exhausted, his looted house in disarray, his staff offer to bring him a meal. The first proper food he's had in weeks. He's about to start eating with gusto...and then he stops and remembers and smiles. He cuts off a morsel and puts it in his mouth and closes his eyes and smiles. He really savors it, really appreciates it.

That is life.

"That's a good question.

With gratitude."

And who is that gratitude directed towards? The idea of random chance?

"I feel like treating this as a preamble to a wonderful afterlife is a bit like eating all your dinner for no other reason than so you can have dessert.
If there is no dessert, if the food in front of you is all there is, then you really appreciate it."

That's not a bad analogy. You can still appreciate your dinner even if you know dessert is coming though. Life on earth is certainly a gift we should appreciate. We live in an amazing world after all with endless beauty and perfection of design. But think about it this way. If your host says don't eat too much dinner because dessert is on the way, and then dessert comes, isn't that awesome? If you ignore the host and stuff yourself with dinner, then you feel sick and sad as you watch everyone else eat the dessert. In the end, there are four possibilities. 1) You believe in God, and He exists. You gain eternal salvation. 2) You believe in God, and He doesn't exist. Oh well, nothing happens. 3) You don't believe in God, and He doesn't exist. Oh well, nothing happens. 4) You don't believe in God, and He does exist. Not good.

I haven't read War and Peace, but I'll add it to my list.

With all the ideas, creations, emotions, feelings, thrills, longings, etc. that we humans have, I find it impossible that the height of our existence and purpose is eating a piece of bread. That's pretty anticlimactic.

I can see the things that set us apart, I can see how intelligent we are, it happened through evolution, the gradual process of natural selection.

"And if god didn't exist, why would any human have made up the idea of him?"

That's a great question, I genuinely think it's exactly because we are so intelligent, because we crave understanding that we made answers for things before we had the means to discover the real answers.

Gradually, our pursuit of science has given us explanations for things that people previously put down to a god.

Humans don't like unknowns, it makes a lot of sense to me that early on people just wanted to be given simple explanations to the things they were anxious about.

Why are we here? What's the point? What should we do?

How can you get on with hunting and gathering and not being eaten by dangerous animals if you're having an existential crisis?

Religion is a comfort, it takes away all the scary big questions and replaces them with some basic rules for getting along with other people.

Everybody can relax and go back to hunting and gathering.

Obviously death is an issue. It's not understood, which is scary. We don't do not understanding things, if we can't find an answer, we make one because it's reassuring.

The evolution of religion makes a lot of sense, some people continue to be religious because it's familiar, some people like the answers it offers, some people like the sense of belonging. Some people are not religious because they are comfortable with the unknown.

"I can see the things that set us apart, I can see how intelligent we are, it happened through evolution, the gradual process of natural selection."

Gradual? Billions of years of sea life and there's no creature in the ocean that's evolved to anywhere close to as intelligent as we are. Land animals are relatively new, so how did we suddenly (almost instantly in relation to time) gain exponential knowledge, ability to communicate more effectively than any other animal could imagine (in hundreds of different languages as well), and also, where did the idea of God come from so suddenly? Why do most people seek Him? Natural selection chooses species better suited for survival, but humans do so much more than survive.

"That's a great question, I genuinely think it's exactly because we are so intelligent, because we crave understanding that we made answers for things before we had the means to discover the real answers."

So you agree that we believe in God because of how intelligent we are. Do we have the means to discover the "real answers" yet? Have we uncovered the secrets of the universe? Not that I'm aware. And even so, there's thousands of miracles and instances of Divine Revelation over the course of history, many even witnesses by non-believers, such as the miracle at Fatima. You should watch The Case for Christ. The main character tries to disprove Jesus' resurrection but eventually comes to believe it.

"Religion is a comfort, it takes away all the scary big questions and replaces them with some basic rules for getting along with other people."

Haha, if only it were that simple. On quite the contrart, people have been persecuted and executed for religion for thousands of years. We believers don't believe because it's easy. The world hates us with a passion. If we didn't want "big scary questions," we'd be atheists. Atheism is what takes away the big scary questions such as heaven, hell, eternity, purpose, and meaning. And the rules we have aren't put in place to help us get along with people. They're to help us get to heaven. If they were meant to just help everyone get along, we wouldn't die for our faith.

"Obviously death is an issue. It's not understood, which is scary. We don't do not understanding things, if we can't find an answer, we make one because it's reassuring."

It's understood by some people. It's only scary to those who don't understand it or haven't prepared their souls properly for it.

"The evolution of religion makes a lot of sense, some people continue to be religious because it's familiar, some people like the answers it offers, some people like the sense of belonging. Some people are not religious because they are comfortable with the unknown."

Many religions have evolved, but many have stayed relatively the same. Judaism was around for thousands of years and still is. Catholicism has been around since Jesus founded it. You missed one category for why people are religious. Some people are religious because they have come to discover that it contains the truth. (Obviously not all religions have the fullness of the truth, but most understand things like the existence of God.) We aren't religious because we're uncomfortable with the unknown. On quite the contrary, there are lots of things we have to settle with not knowing. We don't fully understand the mystery of the Trinity for example.

"What's special about what we've achieved if it's all temporary and we all die never to exist again? What's so special about being intelligent if we have no soul? If we're just animals, why do we have all these incredible thoughts, ideas, and use of reason? Carnage is only bad because we've determined it's bad by use of our reason that no other animal has.

"It's just basic common sense that we treat each other with kindness and respect. I think that 'treat others the way you want to be treated' is a pretty good basic rule."

But why is it just basic common sense? Animals don't have have what you consider basic common sense, so if we're just animals, why do we have what you consider common sense? I agree that it's a good basic rule, but where did it come from? Not some ancient barbarian tribe, but from religion."

Have you ever built a sandcastle? If so, why? They don't last, what was the point?

What's so special about what we've achieved? What's so special is that it is both our unique experience and also part of the greater whole. Everything humanity has achieved has been a group effort, it is our legacy. Having the opportunity to contribute to that is special.
We have all these incredible thoughts and ideas because we are intelligent enough, look what we have collectively done with them! Carnage is bad because it hurts and it prevents progress, we all benefit from progress.

We are not *just* animals. We are intelligent animals, capable of reason and compassion and rocket science.

Basic common sense has developed because we are intelligent enough to think critically and make judgements about things. It's nothing to do with religion.

"Have you ever built a sandcastle? If so, why? They don't last, what was the point?"

You kind of ignored my question (and I can't blame you since for atheists there isn't an answer that I'm aware of) and asked another one instead, but I'll answer yours anyway.

Yes I have built a sandcastle, and I did it because it looked cool, and we took pictures of it, so it sort of did last in a way. I did it because it made good memories.

"What's so special about what we've achieved? What's so special is that it is both our unique experience and also part of the greater whole. Everything humanity has achieved has been a group effort, it is our legacy. Having the opportunity to contribute to that is special.
We have all these incredible thoughts and ideas because we are intelligent enough, look what we have collectively done with them! Carnage is bad because it hurts and it prevents progress, we all benefit from progress."

Legacy? What legacy? When the world ends, our legacy will die completely with us if there is no God. That will be the end of all we've done, and will be entirely pointless and dead forever. Why is the opportunity to contribute special if it's all just going to blow up when the sun dies? I agree that it's amazing what our thoughts and ideas have enabled us to do, but what astonishes me is that you think that's the ultimate end, and that they just happened by chance. Things as amazing as what we've done don't just happen by lucky chance. Do you know how many factors went into making earth inhabitable for life? It's hundreds. Do you think that hundreds of things coincidentally happened in the exact same place to make a planet that's literally perfect for life? Carnage does prevent progress, but why does progress matter if we're all doomed for the same end?

"We are not *just* animals. We are intelligent animals, capable of reason and compassion and rocket science."

Absolutely. Why do you suppose we're this way though? Science can't even explain how life came into existence, much less how humans evolved trillions of years of intelligence in the matter of a few thousand.

"Basic common sense has developed because we are intelligent enough to think critically and make judgements about things. It's nothing to do with religion."

Why do you think humans are the only moral creatures? Intelligent animals aren't any more "moral" than less intelligent animals. Morality is a completely religious idea; without it, there is only survival

"That's a good question.

With gratitude."

"And who is that gratitude directed towards? The idea of random chance?"

Why does gratitude need to be directed towards someone? You can just feel grateful.

"And if God doesn't exist, why would any human have made up the idea of Him? If God doesn't exist, humans are the top of the universe, the most intelligent thing that we know exists. Why would nearly every civilization that ever existed worship some kind of deity when if God didn't exist, they could spend all their time worshipping themselves?"

We do worship ourselves! We created a god and then claimed that he created us in his image, that is super egotistical. When I mentioned patriarchal societies, I was pointing out that what we created reflects what we are familiar with. You are right to say matriarchal societies are rare, if they were the norm, it would also be the norm for deities of the major religions to be female.

"Why does gratitude need to be directed towards someone? You can just feel grateful."

Gratitude means thankfulness and appreciation. It's a reaction to something good that was done for you. If the universe is a random accident, it wasn't done for you, and there's nothing to be grateful for. How can you be thankful for the universe and it's many good things if there is no one to thank?

"We do worship ourselves! We created a god and then claimed that he created us in his image, that is super egotistical. When I mentioned patriarchal societies, I was pointing out that what we created reflects what we are familiar with. You are right to say matriarchal societies are rare, if they were the norm, it would also be the norm for deities of the major religions to be female."

I agree that many people do worship themselves, but I would disagree that it's the religious people. Just for an example, when I go to Ash Wednesday Mass, the priest who distributes the ashes says, "Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return." I could go on about the meaning of that, but my point is, we're far from worshiping ourselves. Admitting how small we are in this great universe and being able to say we're not the best thing ever and that there is something greater than us seems more humble to me than egotistical. On the other hand, Godlessness causes people to amass worldly wealth and pleasure because they think this is the only life they will live.

It sounds like you're claiming that the deities of the major religions are male then? I've already explained how in Christianity at least, our God doesn't have a sex, but is in fact pure spirit. What religions are you referring to that have male deities then? Despite Christianity being patriarchal as you have claimed, we still honor a woman more than any other religion has in history. And not a female goddess that we made up, but a real person.

"Gratitude means thankfulness and appreciation. It's a reaction to something good that was done for you. If the universe is a random accident, it wasn't done for you, and there's nothing to be grateful for. How can you be thankful for the universe and it's many good things if there is no one to thank?"

Nothing to be grateful for? If you benefit from something, aren't you grateful regardless of whether or not it was specifically aimed at you?

Isn't it egotistical to think that everything that exists is especially for you?

The 'you come from dust and shall return to dust' is science, Catholicism with all it's pomp and ceremony doesn't seem particularly humble to me. The priests claim the position of middle man between you and your deity, that suggests superiority and gatekeeping.

"Nothing to be grateful for? If you benefit from something, aren't you grateful regardless of whether or not it was specifically aimed at you?"

I absolutely believe there are things to be grateful for, and I'm grateful to God for them. I just don't see what the point of being grateful is if it's not directly anywhere. What's even the point of being grateful if nothing was meant for you, but just happened this way for no reason? But if the universe was an accident, it wasn't "aimed" at anyone or anything. It just was.

"Isn't it egotistical to think that everything that exists is especially for you?"

I never said everything that exists is especially for us. We can't even see much less make use of most of the universe, but I do believe we were gifted with this planet. I mean it is pretty cool, isn't it? The views, the resources, the perfect conditions to support life. Have you ever wondered why our planet is the only known one that currently supports life? Doesn't it seem a little suspicious that out of all the trillions of planets, there isn't another one with known life, much less insanely intelligent life such as ourselves?

"The 'you come from dust and shall return to dust' is science, Catholicism with all it's pomp and ceremony doesn't seem particularly humble to me. The priests claim the position of middle man between you and your deity, that suggests superiority and gatekeeping."

Well you claimed we worshiped ourselves, and I offered some evidence to the contrary. I can offer more if you'd like.

Middle man? What is that supposed to mean in this context? Priests are sinful humans just like the rest of us. We don't make them out to be some higher being or anything like that. The priesthood is a vocation just like marriage and family life; both are important.

"That's not a bad analogy. You can still appreciate your dinner even if you know dessert is coming though. Life on earth is certainly a gift we should appreciate. We live in an amazing world after all with endless beauty and perfection of design. But think about it this way. If your host says don't eat too much dinner because dessert is on the way, and then dessert comes, isn't that awesome? If you ignore the host and stuff yourself with dinner, then you feel sick and sad as you watch everyone else eat the dessert. In the end, there are four possibilities. 1) You believe in God, and He exists. You gain eternal salvation. 2) You believe in God, and He doesn't exist. Oh well, nothing happens. 3) You don't believe in God, and He doesn't exist. Oh well, nothing happens. 4) You don't believe in God, and He does exist. Not good.

I haven't read War and Peace, but I'll add it to my list.

With all the ideas, creations, emotions, feelings, thrills, longings, etc. that we humans have, I find it impossible that the height of our existence and purpose is eating a piece of bread. That's pretty anticlimactic."

I disagree with your 4 possibilities; "2) You believe in god and he doesn't exist. Oh well, nothing happens." In your response to the food analogy, you suggest not eating too much dinner/not enjoying life too much so that you can appreciate the dessert/ afterlife.

If you believe there is a god, miss out on life so you can better appreciate what comes next and then it turns out to be nothing, it's not accurate to say "nothing happens". Something has happened, you missed out.

Also, I think you may have misunderstood my War & Peace analogy, I wasn't saying that the height of our existence and purpose is eating a piece of bread.

I was saying that what life is about, if you choose, is experiencing what's on offer and really appreciating it. I also pointed out that contributing to what humanity has achieved so far is a worthwhile past time.

It seems a shame to constrain yourself with limitations imposed by a belief system.

What you think of as a soul is most likely the consequence of electrical signals in your brain, we all have the same kind of brain. Nobody is superior to anyone else, I'd personally recommend not letting anyone convince you that they are.

Oh, also, I'm not claiming that the deities of the major religions are male but the people that follow those religions refer to their gods with male pronouns so...

"If you believe there is a god, miss out on life so you can better appreciate what comes next and then it turns out to be nothing, it's not accurate to say "nothing happens". Something has happened, you missed out."

If God doesn't end up existing, then it doesn't matter if you missed out on anything because then you'll be dead and you'll never know what you missed out on. You wouldn't be any happier after you died if you hadn't missed out on life.

And I don't see why you classify living a good, humble, moral life as "missing out." I thought you said that morality and being nice to people makes life better? Wouldn't that mean you actually got more out of life because you were a good person even if God doesn't exist?

"Also, I think you may have misunderstood my War & Peace analogy, I wasn't saying that the height of our existence and purpose is eating a piece of bread."

What do you suppose the height of our existence and purpose is then? (The irony is that I DO think the height of our existence and purpose is eating a piece of "bread", though not the kind discussed in War and Peace)

"I was saying that what life is about, if you choose, is experiencing what's on offer and really appreciating it. I also pointed out that contributing to what humanity has achieved so far is a worthwhile past time."

What's the point of appreciating anything if it's all an accident? I agree that contributing to humanity is worthwhile, but all of humanity will meet its end someday, and then nothing we contributed (physically) will ever mean anything again. It's all temporary. So what's the point then? That's why I believe there is something more. We're way too complex, creative, emotional, etc. to just happen then just disappear forever, leaving no lasting or important impact to the fate of the universe.

"It seems a shame to constrain yourself with limitations imposed by a belief system"

What makes you think that? You've said that morality is a result of our higher intelligence, so shouldn't we follow a belief system that upholds morality? Since we're intelligent, why not be moral too? Also, if there is no God, it makes no difference whether we followed a belief system or not because everything will simply be erased when we die. There will be no happiness or sadness. There will be nothing.

"What you think of as a soul is most likely the consequence of electrical signals in your brain, we all have the same kind of brain. Nobody is superior to anyone else, I'd personally recommend not letting anyone convince you that they are."

All of the atoms in our body are completely replaced multiple times throughout our lives, including the ones in our brains. And yet, our identity, personality, and conscience remain. How do you suppose that happens? What is identity and why do we have it? If it's nothing more than electrical signals, wouldn't we have different ones just as we have different atoms that make up our bodies throughout our lives? We do all have the same type of brain, but each and every one of our brains has a completely unique identity. I agree that all humans are equal in dignity, but that doesn't mean we're all the same. Some people are smarter and more moral than other people. We are free to make of ourselves what we will. Animals have no sense of specific, individual identity the way we do either. Where do you suppose that comes from?

"Oh, also, I'm not claiming that the deities of the major religions are male but the people that follow those religions refer to their gods with male pronouns so..."

Okay. That's true. It has at least in part something to do with the fact that when Jesus came to earth, He came in the form of a man (why we use male pronouns I mean). Why a man and not a woman? There could be a few reasons. 1) There's only two sexes, and He had to be one or the other. 2) Adam came before Eve, so the symbolic purpose of Jesus being a man is that through the sin of one man, death comes to all, but through the sacrifice of another, all are given the opportunity to obtain eternal life. 3) The Catholic Church is described with female pronouns, and is also described as the spouse of Jesus. Male and female compliment one another like the Church and Jesus compliment one another.

"The 'you come from dust and shall return to dust' is science, Catholicism with all it's pomp and ceremony doesn't seem particularly humble to me. The priests claim the position of middle man between you and your deity, that suggests superiority and gatekeeping."

Well you claimed we worshiped ourselves, and I offered some evidence to the contrary. I can offer more if you'd like.

Middle man? What is that supposed to mean in this context? Priests are sinful humans just like the rest of us. We don't make them out to be some higher being or anything like that. The priesthood is a vocation just like marriage and family life; both are important."

Oh, I was saying that we worship ourselves by creating religions and claiming that we are created in the likeness of all powerful deities. That is incredibly self-centred and narcissistic.

They are middle men in that they stand between you and your deity, you confess through them? They use Latin for the express purpose of making access to religious texts less accessible to the average person.

"Oh, I was saying that we worship ourselves by creating religions and claiming that we are created in the likeness of all powerful deities. That is incredibly self-centred and narcissistic."

But the thing is, we didn't create these religions. God spoke with Moses and made a covenant with the Israelites. It's a well-documented fact that Jesus was a real person, and He was the one who founded my religion, not us. I don't see what's self-centered about listening to God when he tells us that we have value. Wouldn't you agree that whoever's image we were made in, it was a pretty cool one? As you've pointed out, humans have dome some pretty amazing things. Also, I think you're focusing a little to exclusively on one single belief in our vast variety. The point of our religion is going around bragging about being made in the image of God; in fact, I've never heard of anyone doing that. And besides, we believe that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God, so it's not like we elevate ourselves above non-believers.

"They are middle men in that they stand between you and your deity, you confess through them? They use Latin for the express purpose of making access to religious texts less accessible to the average person."

We do confess through them, but they also confess through each other. We confess through them because Jesus gave His apostles the permission and duty to forgive sins in His name when He said, "And whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven, and whoever's sins you retain are retained." John 20:23. Since the original Apostles obviously aren't still around today, we believe that the same permission extends to the successors of the apostles, the bishops, priests, etc.

Your comment about Latin is about half a century too late. The Mass has been spoken in the vernacular since Vatican II in the 60's, and the Bible has been translated into most languages. My religious texts are all plenty accessible to the average person, even those who don't believe in it. If the clergy were afraid of revealing the contents of our texts to the average people, they wouldn't have changed Mass to the vernacular etc. at Vatican II. And even back before vernacular was common, Latin was always taught at Catholic schools (and still often is even though it isn't necessary).

"If God doesn't end up existing, then it doesn't matter if you missed out on anything because then you'll be dead and you'll never know what you missed out on. You wouldn't be any happier after you died if you hadn't missed out on life.

And I don't see why you classify living a good, humble, moral life as "missing out." I thought you said that morality and being nice to people makes life better? Wouldn't that mean you actually got more out of life because you were a good person even if God doesn't exist?"

You'd have wasted your opportunity though, it's like receiving a ticket to enter a theme park then spending the majority of your time sitting quietly on a bench in the hope that it will entitle you to something better/you'll have the energy to enjoy what you presume comes next.
You'd not only have missed out but the consequences of all the interactions you could've had with others won't come to pass.

I don't classify living a good moral life as missing out.

I don't think I have the same ideas about morality as you though, I base mine on kindness. I don't make judgements about people based on who they are born being attracted to.
Unless I am interested in having a relationship with someone, who they are attracted to has no relevance to me.

If someone becomes pregnant, I don't believe that they should be forced to endure the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

One of the lives in that situation has to take precedence and I believe it should be the person who's pregnant. If some people feel that the life of the fetus is more important than that of the pregnant person, maybe they can direct their efforts towards the lives of babies dying all over the world. There are babies dying of malnutrition, dying in warzones, dying from preventable diseases.
Focusing on unwanted fetuses seems like lazy virtue-signalling.

The odds against any of us being born are huge, we are lucky to exist, we are the consequence of billions of years of evolution. I don't think the fact that everything on this planet being just right for life to develop is evidence that it was a gift, I think it demonstrates how rare it is for the conditions to be just right.

When you have countless variations on a situation, it's not odd that one of them is ideal. We only think Earth is amazing and possibly too good to be accidental because we happen to have developed on it.

"You'd have wasted your opportunity though, it's like receiving a ticket to enter a theme park then spending the majority of your time sitting quietly on a bench in the hope that it will entitle you to something better/you'll have the energy to enjoy what you presume comes next.
You'd not only have missed out but the consequences of all the interactions you could've had with others won't come to pass."

The different between your analogy and reality is that in real life, if there is no God, then there is no sad ride home from the theme park. The day ends as soon as you leave, and you would never get the chance to talk to someone else about what you missed out on. Also, any consequences you would've had on other people don't matter either since they'll just die and pass into non-existence just like you.

"I don't classify living a good moral life as missing out."

Isn't that what we're comparing here though? A good, moral life vs a life of worldly indulgence?

"I don't think I have the same ideas about morality as you though, I base mine on kindness. I don't make judgements about people based on who they are born being attracted to.
Unless I am interested in having a relationship with someone, who they are attracted to has no relevance to me."

Indeed we appear to have different ideas as to what morality means. Mine is that morality is objective, and there are things that are always right and things that are always wrong. You base your morality on what makes people feel good. You deem it immoral to tell someone that what they do is wrong. If it makes them feel good, let them do it. That way of going about it is flawed however because what if it would make someone feel good to kill you? Is it discrimination to tell them they're action would be evil? It certainly wouldn't be "kind" as you put it to deny someone the right to do something that makes them happy. We've already discussed how it is impossible to be born gay. If you still don't believe me, I recommend you speak to a scientist who knows about all the human genes, and they'll tell you that there is no gene that determines whether or not you are straight or gay. Heterosexuality is inherent of all species that sexually reproduce. You say that other people's orientation has "no relevance to [you]," and yet in the amusement park analogy you insist that the consequences you have on other people matter. So which is it? If their orientation isn't relevant, why is how you speak to them? I would agree with your amusement park idea that your interactions with others matter. I would disagree with your idea that what other people do shouldn't matter to you. If it doesn't matter to you whether people have gay sex, why should it matter whether people have incest? Bestiality?

"If someone becomes pregnant, I don't believe that they should be forced to endure the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth."

Keep in mind that in 99.5% of women who choose abortion also chose to have sex, so they're the ones that "forced" themselves to become pregnant. No one is forcing them to endure trauma. They chose that route. If they were SO against being pregnant, they shouldn't have been having sex. So you find it okay to let women be irresponsible and then proceed to murder their children, but you find objection to murder immoral? That's pretty twisted. And all this nonsensical debate over whether or not the babies are actually "human" or "person" or "child" is bs to distract from the true argument at hand, which is not whether or not unborn babies are human, but whether or not killing them is wrong. The science is crystal clear on life beginning at conception. The left is funny in that although they're usually the ones accusing the right of being science deniers, they deny some pretty basic science themselves.

"One of the lives in that situation has to take precedence and I believe it should be the person who's pregnant. If some people feel that the life of the fetus is more important than that of the pregnant person, maybe they can direct their efforts towards the lives of babies dying all over the world. There are babies dying of malnutrition, dying in warzones, dying from preventable diseases.
Focusing on unwanted fetuses seems like lazy virtue-signalling."

No. The lives can and should be treated equally. It was you after all who said we shouldn't make some people out to be more superior than others. No one on my side ever said the life of the unborn child was more important than the life of the mother; they're equally important. We would certainly love to solve all those problems as well, but we need to start by stopping people from murdering children first. Those fetuses aren't unwanted by everyone. Ironically, it's only their own parents usually who don't want them. Is it okay for a parent to kill their child simply because they're unwanted. That's evil and barbaric.

"The odds against any of us being born are huge, we are lucky to exist, we are the consequence of billions of years of evolution. I don't think the fact that everything on this planet being just right for life to develop is evidence that it was a gift, I think it demonstrates how rare it is for the conditions to be just right."

We are lucky to exist, so why waste life indulging in this world when soon none of it will matter? If we did evolve from the lower species, it took a surprisingly short amount of time to go from land animals to hyper intelligent. As I have pointed out before, sea creatures have had billions more years of evolution than land animals, so why aren't there any hyper intelligent sea creatures? Makes you wonder. Certainly these conditions are rare: they've literally only happened once to our knowledge. Once in all the trillions of stars and planets. The universe seems to like making billions and trillions of things, so why couldn't it make at least more than one planet with life? Even simple life?

"When you have countless variations on a situation, it's not odd that one of them is ideal. We only think Earth is amazing and possibly too good to be accidental because we happen to have developed on it."

It's possible. I guess we'll just have to find out when we die. Or not find anything out if you turn out to right. But then again, I think we'd both be happier if one could change the other before that happened, so then we could both live life to the fullest armed with the knowledge of the truth.

"But the thing is, we didn't create these religions. God spoke with Moses and made a covenant with the Israelites. It's a well-documented fact that Jesus was a real person, and He was the one who founded my religion, not us. I don't see what's self-centered about listening to God when he tells us that we have value. Wouldn't you agree that whoever's image we were made in, it was a pretty cool one? As you've pointed out, humans have dome some pretty amazing things. Also, I think you're focusing a little to exclusively on one single belief in our vast variety. The point of our religion is going around bragging about being made in the image of God; in fact, I've never heard of anyone doing that. And besides, we believe that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God, so it's not like we elevate ourselves above non-believers."

We really did though. The only evidence that any deity exists and I use the word evidence loosely, is the word of man.
Any human that claims to hear a voice in their head is not hearing the words of a deity.

It's self-centred and arrogant to invent a deity and believe that the deity has gifted you the world and everything in it.

I don't think we were made in the image of anything, I think we are the impressive consequence of billions of years of adaptation. What reason would an all-powerful deity have to look like us? Why would an all-seeing all-knowing god need a spleen?

You'd have a hard time elevating yourselves above non-believers if you tried, we all look essentially the same.

"We really did though. The only evidence that any deity exists and I use the word evidence loosely, is the word of man.
Any human that claims to hear a voice in their head is not hearing the words of a deity."

Did we? Why would thousands of people die to spread a religion if they didn't believe it was true? Seems like a waste of life to spread a prank. There have been instances of Divine Revelation. Those offer evidence. The words from the people who experience also offer evidence. An example I already offered was the miracle at Fatima, which believers and non-believers alike witnessed. Would you believe the words of your fellow non-believers if they told you the miracle was true? I'm aware that some people have schizophrenia or some other mental illness, so we can discuss instances of private revelation separately, but how would you respond to miracles that tens, hundreds, thousands experienced such as Fatima?

"It's self-centred and arrogant to invent a deity and believe that the deity has gifted you the world and everything in it"

We didn't invent a deity. If we simply invented a deity, we wouldn't die trying to spread a prank. That would be quite a waste. On the contrary, it's self-centered and arrogant to deny the existence of God so that you can live a life centered around yourself without having to worry about other people. And if you do care about other people (which I believe you do), why not follow the laws of God which tell you to care for other people? It's self-centered to claim that you are the ultimate most intelligent being in the universe. That's very self-elevating and not particularly humble. And you keep saying "you" referring to me and other religious, but we don't believe that God gifted just "us" (me and the other religious) with the world and everything in it. We believe He gifted it to you as well.

(2)

"I don't think we were made in the image of anything, I think we are the impressive consequence of billions of years of adaptation. What reason would an all-powerful deity have to look like us? Why would an all-seeing all-knowing god need a spleen?"

Again, land animals haven't been adapting for billions of years, only sea creatures have been. When we say being made in the image of God, we don't mean physical image per say. Since God is pure spirit, He isn't a physical body that we were modeled after. We are made in His image in that we can think, feel, and love in ways far above any other creature. We say we are made in His image to distinguish from animals who aren't made in His image, not to say that He has a physical body that we were modeled after. Ah but there's the thing. God made us for His glory, not because he needs a spleen. He never had to make us, but He chose to.

"You'd have a hard time elevating yourselves above non-believers if you tried, we all look essentially the same."

That doesn't matter because we don't try anyway. And I'm not sure what us looking the same has to do with one group trying to elevate itself above another. Did you think we were trying to elevate ourselves physically or something? If there was anything I'd think you were accusing us of, I figured it would be something like us claiming that we were more dignified than you or something, not better looking.

"The different between your analogy and reality is that in real life, if there is no God, then there is no sad ride home from the theme park. The day ends as soon as you leave, and you would never get the chance to talk to someone else about what you missed out on. Also, any consequences you would've had on other people don't matter either since they'll just die and pass into non-existence just like you."

There not being an afterwards does not devalue the now. Like you've said, you've built sandcastles, people build snowmen, people write stories and music that they never share. Those things being temporal does not invalidate them.

Also, the heat-death of the Universe is some way off yet, humanity has ages.

The ripples of your actions will continue for a long time yet.

I really like this quote by David Hume..

"It is providence, surely, that has placed me at present in this chamber: But may I not leave it, when I think proper, without being liable to the imputation of having deserted my post or station? When I shall be dead, the principles, of which I am composed, will still perform their part in the universe, and will be equally useful in the grand fabric, as when they composed this individual creature. The difference to the whole will be no greater than between my being in a chamber and in the open air. The one change is of more importance to me than the other; but not more so to the universe."

"There not being an afterwards does not devalue the now. Like you've said, you've built sandcastles, people build snowmen, people write stories and music that they never share. Those things being temporal does not invalidate them."

It kind of does devalue the now, since after, no one will remember anything you did, good or bad, since they will all pass into nonexistence. True it does not invalidate them, given that that's not all they do with their life. If you spent your whole life doing nothing but building sandcastles, that would be pointless. I don't spend most of my time building sandcastles because I know I need to spend most of my life doing things that will actually prepare me for the next life.

"Also, the heat-death of the Universe is some way off yet, humanity has ages."

True it's seems to be a while away, unless you believe leftists like AOC who claim the world will end in 12 years because of climate change ;)

But even if humans do live for billions of years, once the universe ends, it will be gone forever. And forever makes billions of years feel like nothing. And relatively, it is.

"The ripples of your actions will continue for a long time yet."

I believe that statement even more than you do. You believe the ripples will continue until the heat-death of the universe, while I believe they will continue forever.

"Indeed we appear to have different ideas as to what morality means. Mine is that morality is objective, and there are things that are always right and things that are always wrong. You base your morality on what makes people feel good. You deem it immoral to tell someone that what they do is wrong. If it makes them feel good, let them do it. That way of going about it is flawed however because what if it would make someone feel good to kill you? Is it discrimination to tell them they're action would be evil? It certainly wouldn't be "kind" as you put it to deny someone the right to do something that makes them happy. We've already discussed how it is impossible to be born gay. If you still don't believe me, I recommend you speak to a scientist who knows about all the human genes, and they'll tell you that there is no gene that determines whether or not you are straight or gay. Heterosexuality is inherent of all species that sexually reproduce. You say that other people's orientation has "no relevance to [you]," and yet in the amusement park analogy you insist that the consequences you have on other people matter. So which is it? If their orientation isn't relevant, why is how you speak to them? I would agree with your amusement park idea that your interactions with others matter. I would disagree with your idea that what other people do shouldn't matter to you. If it doesn't matter to you whether people have gay sex, why should it matter whether people have incest? Bestiality?"

You've misrepresented me, I don't solely base my morality on what makes people feel good. Whether or not an action causes harm is much more important.

"What if it would make someone feel good to kill you"

Murder is immoral because it causes harm.
It is not impossible to be born gay, you have no way of proving that. The absence of (genetic)evidence is not evidence of absence, surely as a Catholic you agree with that?

Incest can cause harm.
Bestiality is not consensual and is therefore harmful.

"You've misrepresented me, I don't solely base my morality on what makes people feel good. Whether or not an action causes harm is much more important."

But does bestiality necessarily cause harm? There's another problem with basing morality off of harm. If two people have gay sex, and then one dies of AIDS, does that make the action immoral because one was harmed? And if someone sees an old woman fall on a sidewalk, and they help her up and call an ambulance, but they accidentally give her coronavirus and she dies painfully from it, does that make their action immoral because it caused her more harm than her fall did? And if someone intends to commit murder and plans it out, but has a change of heart at the last second, does that make their thought moral because it didn't end up harming anyone?

"Murder is immoral because it causes harm.
It is not impossible to be born gay, you have no way of proving that. The absence of (genetic)evidence is not evidence of absence, surely as a Catholic you agree with that?"

It has already been proven. If it hadn't, the liberal scientists would be out front shoving their proof down out throats, but that isn't the case. I would agree that a lack of definitive evidence doesn't automatically prove the other side right, correct. But there isn't a lack of evidence on both sides, just one. The lack of a gene doesn't mean there is a lack of evidence. Part of the evidence that everyone is born straight IS the lack of a gene. And gays only make up about 2% of the population, which suggests that since genetics are out of the question as the determining factor, a certain combination of environmental factors is what causes people to become gay.

"Incest can cause harm."

Agreed, but that's not what makes it immoral.

"Bestiality is not consensual and is therefore harmful."

So everything that doesn't involve consent is harmful? Does that mean vaccines are harmful because parents often give them to their kids without the kids' consent?

"Heterosexuality is inherent of all species that sexually reproduce."

Banana slugs are born with both male and female genitalia, making them hermaphrodites. In matters of reproduction, the slugs simply look for a mate of similar size. When they find one, the duo will form a small yellow yin-yang, insert their p**ises (located on their heads) and impregnate each other.

On rare occasions, the banana slug has been known to impregnate itself.

Jellyfish, sea anemones and flatworms all use a process called budding to reproduce. This complex process of reproduction, most commonly associated with strawberries, sees the parent produce cloned cells of itself, which eventually break away and grow into exact replicas of that parent.

Greenflies, stick insects, aphids, water fleas, scorpions, termites and honey bees are all capable of reproducing without males, using parthenogenesis. In the case of the honey bee, the use of parthenogenesis has evolutionary benefits, as they elect to use parthenogenesis when the local population requires more workers, or more queens.

The boa constrictor, monitor lizard and Komodo dragon are both capable of becoming pregnant without male fertilization, by parthenogenesis. This form of reproduction is not the preferred method and has evolutionary disadvantages for the species, as it constitutes a form of inbreeding that reduces genetic diversity. Whiptail lizards however, have evolved to a point where no males exist. This all-girl species relies entirely on parthenogenesis.

There's also a plethora of animals that display homosexual behavior naturally as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

"Banana slugs are born with both male and female genitalia, making them hermaphrodites. In matters of reproduction, the slugs simply look for a mate of similar size. When they find one, the duo will form a small yellow yin-yang, insert their p**ises (located on their heads) and impregnate each other."

That doesn't disprove my assertion that homosexuality isn't natural for humans. At least these banana slugs understand that butt holes weren't designed to receive p**ises.

"On rare occasions, the banana slug has been known to impregnate itself."

Interesting. So that would mean it reproduced asexually.

"Jellyfish, sea anemones and flatworms all use a process called budding to reproduce. This complex process of reproduction, most commonly associated with strawberries, sees the parent produce cloned cells of itself, which eventually break away and grow into exact replicas of that parent."

Yep that's also asexual reproduction.

"Greenflies, stick insects, aphids, water fleas, scorpions, termites and honey bees are all capable of reproducing without males, using parthenogenesis. In the case of the honey bee, the use of parthenogenesis has evolutionary benefits, as they elect to use parthenogenesis when the local population requires more workers, or more queens.

The boa constrictor, monitor lizard and Komodo dragon are both capable of becoming pregnant without male fertilization, by parthenogenesis. This form of reproduction is not the preferred method and has evolutionary disadvantages for the species, as it constitutes a form of inbreeding that reduces genetic diversity. Whiptail lizards however, have evolved to a point where no males exist. This all-girl species relies entirely on parthenogenesis."

So basically they've evolved to produce asexually then?

"Banana slugs are born with both male and female genitalia, making them hermaphrodites. In matters of reproduction, the slugs simply look for a mate of similar size. When they find one, the duo will form a small yellow yin-yang, insert their p**ises (located on their heads) and impregnate each other."

That doesn't disprove my assertion that homosexuality isn't natural for humans. At least these banana slugs understand that butt holes weren't designed to receive p**ises.

"On rare occasions, the banana slug has been known to impregnate itself."

Interesting. So that would mean it reproduced asexually.

"Jellyfish, sea anemones and flatworms all use a process called budding to reproduce. This complex process of reproduction, most commonly associated with strawberries, sees the parent produce cloned cells of itself, which eventually break away and grow into exact replicas of that parent."

Yep that's also asexual reproduction.

"Greenflies, stick insects, aphids, water fleas, scorpions, termites and honey bees are all capable of reproducing without males, using parthenogenesis. In the case of the honey bee, the use of parthenogenesis has evolutionary benefits, as they elect to use parthenogenesis when the local population requires more workers, or more queens.

The boa constrictor, monitor lizard and Komodo dragon are both capable of becoming pregnant without male fertilization, by parthenogenesis. This form of reproduction is not the preferred method and has evolutionary disadvantages for the species, as it constitutes a form of inbreeding that reduces genetic diversity. Whiptail lizards however, have evolved to a point where no males exist. This all-girl species relies entirely on parthenogenesis."

So basically they've evolved to reproduce asexually then?"

"Heterosexuality is inherent of all species that reproduce"

The information I shared is evidence that this is not the case.

"The information I shared is evidence that this is not the case."

Heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality. Hermaphrodites still produce in a heterosexual way, as in p**is + va**na. All the other cases you presented were examples of animals who either have always produced asexually, or who have evolved to produce asexually even though they usually produce sexually. You know what I mean. You're trying to get me on another technical point. We both know that homosexuality isn't natural in species that sexually reproduce.

"Heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality. Hermaphrodites still produce in a heterosexual way, as in p**is + va**na."

Reread the s**g information again, they both use p**ises. I like that they have them on their heads, they are literally dickheads.

"Reread the s**g information again, they both use p**ises. I like that they have them on their heads, they are literally dickheads."

Lol. Yeah I got it that they both use p**ises, but they put them in each other's va**nas, not butt holes. That's all I'm saying.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=don+hoffman+ted+talk&docid=607986641032710025&mid=D64EFE9EF0AAE24371E0D64EFE9EF0AAE24371E0&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

I think this is absolutely worth watching, it does a good job of explaining my perspective.

"So that means taste doesn't exist, because tastes are subjective and differ from person to person."

There's a difference between what the taste is and whether you like it or not. Coffee is coffee flavored. Some people like it and some people don't

"You also haven't demonstrated that morality isn't subjective, you've just said that if it's subjective it must not exist, which is illogical."

I used my color argument to show that if each person defines something differently, then what really is it?

"So what do you think the objective basis for morality is?"

The Laws of God. There's a reason humans have regret, sorrow, etc. Animals don't have that. The Law of God is written exclusively on the human heart.

"The death penalty is a complex issue, especially because the Pope tried to change our teaching on it a few years ago. He condemned it entirely, so even if people deemed it okay then, he condemned it now. I'm totally not saying we should disregard the past though, and I don't think his motives are always right anyway. If you have specific questions about the Church's teaching on the death penalty and when it's okay or not, I'll answer to the best of my ability.

Morals come from God. I didn't say they came from the Bible. Morals don't come from the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible came after. The Bible is useful for learning about morality to a degree, but it's not the ultimate source of morality and rules. If it was, it would skip over all the historical aspects. That's why the Catholic Church has a Catechism. We don't follow the laws of God because the Bible commands us to. We follow the laws of God becajse God commands us to, and the Bible is just a source that records some of those commands."

Hang on, don't you believe that the Pope is the representative of God on Earth?

"Hang on, don't you believe that the Pope is the representative of God on Earth?"

No. Popes can sin and make mistakes just like everyone else, and they do. The pope is the successor of Peter, the head of the Church on earth. Not necessarily a representative of God

The One True God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who revealed Himself to the Jews in the Old Testament and sent His Son in the New.

I know that's the basis for morality because God revealed His laws to us through the 10 Commandments and the Church that Jesus founded

"So what do you think the objective basis for morality is?"

My money is on it being an ancient tome, a collection of fictitious tales written by countless men in a far off land. Stories to manipulate, to scare, to threaten. Horrific accounts of infanticide, of rape, of jamming a frankly ludicrous number of animals onto a boat. Edited over time, bits lost, bits found. Translated into every language. A book used to justify atrocities. A bestseller despite the fact it's given away for free which may or may not tell you something about the intelligence of it's fans. A Machiavellian catalogue of horrors and unlikely anecdotes.

"There are many things commanded in the Bible that should be prohibited, yes. Like executing people for blasphemy."

That happens in the Old Testament and no Christians do that, and it's already prohibited anyway

So I get you don't like the Bible. Does that mean you'd like to scrap the basis of morality it has set up? Should we legalize murder and rape and everything else the Bible condemns? Will that make you feel liberated?

I didn't say I didn't like it, I have read a lot of much better fiction though. I suppose it should be viewed as an anthology rather than a novel though.
The 'basis of morality'? Millions of people all over the world get through the day behaving in a kind and moral way without using the Bible.

Rape and murder are not illegal because the Bible condems them, they are illegal because they are harmful. Are you unable to figure out what is harmful and what is not harmful? Do you really need to be told by someone else?

Atheists know that murder is wrong, they don't need to be threatened with Hell.

If you are not raping and murdering because an old book told you that you'd be condemning your soul, that doesn't make you a good person. That makes you selfish and potentially dangerous.

Atheists are kind and moral for no reward. They are kind and moral without needing to be threatened. They are kind and moral but not because they fear for their own souls.

Life is objectively meaningless, there is vast scope for making the most of the experience and having a good time. Obviously it's easier for everyone to have a good time if we are kind and moral.

If you need a book to tell you not to be a dick, that's fine. I would add though that if it sometimes says it's OK to be a dick, rather than using the book to justify your behavior, you are actually free to ignore it's advice.

Some Christians do this.

"I didn't say I didn't like it, I have read a lot of much better fiction though. I suppose it should be viewed as an anthology rather than a novel though.
The 'basis of morality'? Millions of people all over the world get through the day behaving in a kind and moral way without using the Bible."

Haha fiction. I guess you can wish that's what it is. It's not all literal history granted, and some of it is stories and parables used to teach lessons, but that doesn't make it fiction. It's certainly not a novel, but it's not just a bunch of poems either. I'm aware that not everyone gets their basis for morality from the Bible. You were the one who claimed that, not me. I said we get it from God, who wrote His law in our hearts. And I know that there are plenty of moral people who don't use the Bible, but why do they usually have similar moral standards? For example, murder is fairly universally condemned. Why do you think that is?

"Rape and murder are not illegal because the Bible condems them, they are illegal because they are harmful. Are you unable to figure out what is harmful and what is not harmful? Do you really need to be told by someone else?"

Animals harm each other, but "rape" and murder aren't illegal persay in the animal kingdom. Why are they taboo for humans and not for animals? Also, how do you explain compassion if there is no God? There are a lot of moral behaviors that humans exhibit that animals don't.

"Atheists know that murder is wrong, they don't need to be threatened with Hell."

What do you mean by wrong? If there is no God, there is no right and wrong, only survival. The very idea of morals and right and wrong are religious ideas. That's not to say atheists are inherently immoral; they're usually not. And fear of hell isn't the only reason to believe in God anyway.

"Haha fiction. I guess you can wish that's what it is. It's not all literal history granted"

Exactly, like you said, it's not all factual.

"And I know that there are plenty of moral people who don't use the Bible, but why do they usually have similar moral standards? For example, murder is fairly universally condemned. Why do you think that is?"

Seriously? They have similar standards because they know how they want to be treated and then if you treat others well, you generally get treated well. People are moral because it feels good.

Rape and murder are taboo because they cause harm, humans don't want harm, harm feels bad. Religion doesn't come into it.

Of course there are moral behaviors that we exhibit and animals don't, like you already acknowledged, we are significantly more intelligent.

Morality, compassion, kindness, these are things that come with intelligence; they are not religious ideas. They are words with describe our highly developed emotions in our highly developed brains.

"If you are not raping and murdering because an old book told you that you'd be condemning your soul, that doesn't make you a good person. That makes you selfish and potentially dangerous."

Once again, I wasn't the one who said I think today's moral standards are completely based on the Bible. I said they're based on the laws of God written in our hearts, and yes the Bible does reflect those laws. I'm not raping and murdering because I have a conscience that God gave me, and I realize that those actions are gravely immoral and yes, ultimately would endanger my soul. I don't see how that makes me dangerous. If anything, it makes me less dangerous because anyone who knows me knows that I have a moral compass that would prevent me from doing any of those things. The dangerous people are much more likely the ones who have no moral compass and aren't afraid to admit it. It doesn't make me selfish either. Do you actually think not murdering someone is a form of selfishness? I strive to save my own soul because it's the only one I have control over. I do also try to change other people so that their souls may be saved as well, but ultimately it's their choice whether or not they listen to me.

"Atheists are kind and moral for no reward. They are kind and moral without needing to be threatened. They are kind and moral but not because they fear for their own souls."

Congratulations. What's even the point though? There is literally no point. You think you die and become nothing. That's pointless and sad. Do you actually think that living a moral life goes unrewarded? And if you do, you're wasting your time trying to be moral. You might as well have fun while you're alive if that's what you believe.

"Life is objectively meaningless, there is vast scope for making the most of the experience and having a good time. Obviously it's easier for everyone to have a good time if we are kind and moral."

Life is not meaningless, and if it is, why even bother living? How can you go through life knowing you're a worthless piece of dust that means nothing and has no purpose and will be forgetten? Sounds pretty sad to me. Certainly doesn't sound like having a good time. But being kind and moral takes sacrifice, and it's not always fun, so why would you do it?

"If you need a book to tell you not to be a dick, that's fine. I would add though that if it sometimes says it's OK to be a dick, rather than using the book to justify your behavior, you are actually free to ignore it's advice.

Some Christians do this."

I've sort of already answered this, but again, the law of God isn't based on the book. On the contrary, the book is based on the law of God. The Bible never says it's okay to be a dick. Condemning the evil of homosexuality is not being a dick. Rather, promoting it and trying to pervert or ignore the natural law is being much more of a dick than following it. People who ignore the law of God are not in fact Christians, but that's simply what they call themselves, just like a man who cuts off his dick calls himself a woman, but in fact he isn't

The book was written by men, I know it's not your narrative but the law of god is based on the book.

"The Bible never says it's ok to be a dick."

The Bible condones rape-(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)"Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we dest60royed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance."

God condones murder- (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho."

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

Rape and murder-"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

"The Bible never says it's ok to be a dick"

"Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do."

This is your idea of morality?!

" In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.”

What was that you were saying about compassion? Your god is a baby killing monster.

God Commands Burning Humans

"[The Lord speaking] “The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has, for he has broken the covenant of the LORD and has done a horrible thing in Israel.” (Joshua 7:15 NLT)

At the LORD’s command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD’s command, he shouted, “O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you.“ (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)

Burn Nonbelievers

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)"

MORALITY? LOLWHUT?

"I know what the wafers represent..."

They don't represent anything. Symbols represent things. Protestants' communion is a symbol, but we believe ours to be completely transformed.

"I didn't used to be Catholic although I've been to Mass and I've been offered wafers more than once, I personally didn't feel like it was appropriate to take one. It's common knowledge that they're bland though."

Catholic Mass? Even if you're not Catholic, you can always go up and receive a blessing. But I appreciate your respect for it by not taking one. I've seen a few non-Catholics take it just because everyone else does. And yeah I guess that's true that most people know they're not exactly bursting with flavor.

"The Church of the Subgenius being a parody religion is debatable, it has similarities with Taoism."

Okay. The parody thing is just what I found in my couple minutes of research"

Oh, okaay, you're actually eating Jesus? Fair enough.

Yeah, it's described as a parody on Wiki, but it's an attitude, a lifestyle.

"Exactly, like you said, it's not all factual"

Correct, but the presence of parables doesn't make an entire book fiction.

"Seriously? They have similar standards because they know how they want to be treated and then if you treat others well, you generally get treated well. People are moral because it feels good."

Why do you suppse it feels good?

"Rape and murder are taboo because they cause harm, humans don't want harm, harm feels bad. Religion doesn't come into it."

Why don't humans want harm? Other animals are completely okay with harming each other and it doesn't make them feel bad. Humans are the only species with religion. That's not a coincidence.

"Morality, compassion, kindness, these are things that come with intelligence; they are not religious ideas. They are words with describe our highly developed emotions in our highly developed brains."

So you do think any other species will ever learn morality? They've had billions of years to evolve, and yet we're a relatively new species and are the only ones who understand these things

"The book was written by men, I know it's not your narrative but the law of god is based on the book."

I'm aware it was written by men. I never claimed the Bible came from God. The laws of God were known before the Bible was ever written. People just wrote down the laws.

Here's another important thing to note: not all Christians get their teachings purely from the Bible. I know that Protestants do, but Catholics value Tradition and the Church just as much as Scripture. The problem with making Scripture the ultimate authority is the problem we're discussing right now--you mentioned areas of the Bible you find morally unsound, and now you expect me to defend them. I'm not going to defend the wrongs done in the Old Testament however. The Old Testament is not a list of the laws of God, nor is the New Testament for that matter. All the verses you just sent me were historical scenarios that have been recorded. I'm not Jewish, and I don't defend everything the Jews did back then. Remember that there isn't a single Christian in the Old Testament. And also, times were different back then, and what those specific Jews did was more acceptable back then than today. I'm in no way defending what they did, but to be fair, you have to take it in context. You said the Bible condones rape and murder, which it doesn't. None of the scenarios say the Jews raped anyone, but that is your inference of what they would have done next. And yes they killed people, but in the context of a war/battle. You can attack stories from the Old Testament if you want, but it doesn't list what I believe. If you'd like to read a list of my beliefs, I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You also mention Genesis and the Story of Abraham and Isaac, which I'm plenty familiar with, and you completely missed the point. You admitted that it was a test of faith, but then you glossed over that and went on about what God "almost had him do," even though we both know God had no intention of having Abraham go through with it. And yes, listening to God IS my idea of morality.

"Your god is a baby killing monster."

It's funny that the verse you quoted to support that statement says consecrate, not kill. Also it's funny you bring up baby killing. My God has revealed that killing babies is an evil, horrible thing to do, which is why my religion is highly against abortion. So no, it's your lot that's "baby killing monsters," not mine.

"Oh, okaay, you're actually eating Jesus? Fair enough."

Yes. We believe that we consume the actual substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. I know it sounds kind of crazy and weird at first, but Jesus Himself commanded us too at the Last Supper. It's a rather complex and confusing belief (after all, it is the center of our Faith), and if you had any other questions about it, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability

"Yeah, it's described as a parody on Wiki, but it's an attitude, a lifestyle."

Would you mind filling me in about it a little then? I'm a bit curious, and I like learning about what other people believe and why.

The Old Testament commanded it for Jews. We've already talked about how the Bible isn't just a list of rules. If Chrstians were doing that 1000 years ago, I'm not going to defend them for it, but that still was quite a while ago.

The death penalty is a complex issue, especially because the Pope tried to change our teaching on it a few years ago. He condemned it entirely, so even if people deemed it okay then, he condemned it now. I'm totally not saying we should disregard the past though, and I don't think his motives are always right anyway. If you have specific questions about the Church's teaching on the death penalty and when it's okay or not, I'll answer to the best of my ability.

Morals come from God. I didn't say they came from the Bible. Morals don't come from the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible came after. The Bible is useful for learning about morality to a degree, but it's not the ultimate source of morality and rules. If it was, it would skip over all the historical aspects. That's why the Catholic Church has a Catechism. We don't follow the laws of God because the Bible commands us to. We follow the laws of God becajse God commands us to, and the Bible is just a source that records some of those commands.

"How does that mean it's the basis for morality?"

The laws are what God gave us to base our morality on. In other words, God established with was moral and immoral, ordered and disordered, right and wrong, and He gave us laws to follow so that we could know what's right and wrong.

"Why should I care what a god says?"

There's a lot of reasons. I guess there's less if you don't believe in Him, and if you'd like to start there, I can give some of the reasons for why He exists. I'll start with the classic Ex motu, which states: 1) Some things are moved. 2) Everything that is moved is moved by a mover. 3) An infinite regress of movers is impossible. 4) This first mover is what we call God

Once we've established that God exists, there are plenty of reasons to care what He says. (Now I'm guessing that you won't suddenly believe in God because of one simple argument, but I'd be happy to discuss more with you if you're open to that.)

Reason 1: He created you, so He knows everything about you and what's best for you.
2: He gave you life in this world; that's a wonderful gift, and the least you can do in return is follow His commands
3: He gives you the opportunity for eternal salvation, which is a gift so amazing it's impossible to fully understand until you experience it, so again the least you can do is follow His laws
4: Even though we all sin, we always have the chance to change and ask for forgiveness at any point in our lives before we die
5: God gives us second, third, fourth, etc. chances to change. His mercy is limitless

I get that a lot or most of these reasons hinge on the fact that God exists, but they're why I choose to listen to God. I'd happily back up and discuss God's existence though if you'd rather do that. If we discussed that first, perhaps it would help me explain why we should all care what God says.

Heterosexuals can become homosexuals, though. All homosexuals were once heterosexuals, because everyone is born heterosexual. But I would not call turning heterosexuals homosexual a "cure" or "therapy" since homosexuality is an illness.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are both sexualities, if homosexuality is an illness, it means that heterosexuality is too. Trying to convince people that everyone is born straight is part of The Straight Agenda.

Has nothing to do with an agenda. It's called biology. We've mapped out the entire human genome, and there is no gene that can make you born gay. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Homosexuality is an illness because it is unnatural. Heterosexuality isn't an illness because it is natural and how children are made.

I hate to have to point this out, but the natural and proper function of a p**is is not to be inserted into another man's anus. That is an unnatural and disordered use of those body parts. You'd probably think someone was mentally ill if they repeatedly tried to shove their toes into their own ears. Same idea, different body parts. Both are the unintended use of the part.

I assume you don't kiss people then? It's disordered and unnatural, tongues aren't meant for being stuck in other mouths.

Do you know why people don't repeatedly shove their toes in their ears? Oh, fine, I'll put you out of your misery...

It doesn't feel good.

You sound like you are saying that you think the only point of having sex is to produce a child and I'm guessing you don't use contraception because that's unnatural. It sounds like you're either a virgin, which would explain a lot or that you have a whole commune of kids. If it's the latter, what are you doing on here?!

I don't stick my tongue in other people's mouths.

So as long as it feels good, it's okay?

"You sound like you are saying that you think the only point of having sex is to produce a child and I'm guessing you don't use contraception because that's unnatural. It sounds like you're either a virgin, which would explain a lot or that you have a whole commune of kids. If it's the latter, what are you doing on here?!"

Close. I believe there's two reasons to have sex, one being to produce children, and the other being to unite two spouses. You are mostly correct about my view on contraception. I do believe it's unnatural, but it also allows people to mutually use each other for pleasure without having to take the natural responsibility for their action.

Do you always just call people virgins when you run out of ideas lol? You did that to Toby earlier. I like how you think I either must be a virgin or must have a lot of kids

Pleasure? Isn't that immoral and unnatural? It doesn't produce a child, what's the point?

No, I occasionally ask out of curiosity because you have such strange attitudes towards sex.

"Pleasure? Isn't that immoral and unnatural? It doesn't produce a child, what's the point?"

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I never said pleasure what inherently immoral or unnatural. The point is uniting the spouses into deeper love. I already said that.

"No, I occasionally ask out of curiosity because you have such strange attitudes towards sex."

Perhaps my views are strange to you. They are to many people of the age of the Sexual Revolution. But if I was interviewed by people from every age in history, most would find my views moral and traditional.

"My point is that both homosexual sex and sex with birth control are both immoral and unnatural. You're talking in second person that whole paragraph, and I can't tell if you're referring to me or just some random person.

"You've acknowledged that sex is about more than producing children, so your criticism that it doesn't produce children hardly continues to work as an argument against homosexual sex."

It does work because both factors must be present for sex to be moral. Those factors being an openness to procreation (which is impossible with homosexuals) and the uniting aspect (which homosexuals can possess)"

You said that you have sex with contraception, you're now saying that it's immoral. You are criticising strangers for having what you deem as immoral sex whilst engaging in it yourself.

You are a flagrant hypocrite.

"You said that you have sex with contraception, you're now saying that it's immoral. You are criticising strangers for having what you deem as immoral sex whilst engaging in it yourself."

Wait what? I never said I use contraception. If I did anywhere, I misspoke. Sorry for any confusion. I've never used contraception and I never will. I reread this thread to see if I approved of contraception anywhere, but I can't find it. The first time I mentioned it was when I said, "You are mostly correct about my view on contraception. I do believe it's unnatural, but it also allows people to mutually use each other for pleasure without having to take the natural responsibility for their action."

I said contraception allows people to mutually use each other for pleasure. That's not a good thing.

"You said that you have sex with contraception, you're now saying that it's immoral. You are criticising strangers for having what you deem as immoral sex whilst engaging in it yourself."

Wait what? I never said I use contraception. If I did anywhere, I misspoke. Sorry for any confusion. I've never used contraception and I never will. I reread this thread to see if I approved of contraception anywhere, but I can't find it. The first time I mentioned it was when I said, "You are mostly correct about my view on contraception. I do believe it's unnatural, but it also allows people to mutually use each other for pleasure without having to take the natural responsibility for their action."

I said contraception allows people to mutually use each other for pleasure. That's not a good thing."

Ah, gotcha...you were saying that mutual pleasure is not a good thing. You can see how I misunderstood?

Infertile couples obviously can't have babies either, you said that sex that can't produce babies is immoral. Is sex between infertile couples immoral?

"Ah, gotcha...you were saying that mutual pleasure is not a good thing. You can see how I misunderstood?"

Yeah I see. Sorry about that confusion

"Infertile couples obviously can't have babies either, you said that sex that can't produce babies is immoral. Is sex between infertile couples immoral?"

That's a good question. Most of the time when people get married and one is or more is infertile, they don't know it yet until they've tried to get pregnant multiple times and finally get tested. In that case, they're already married, so it's not like I'd want them to get divorced or anything like that. If there's a slight possibility of producing a child, it's okay. (I know that there's a slight possibility of producing a child when couples use contraception, but the difference there is that the couple using contraception is actively trying to avoid children, whereas the infertile couple are trying to have a child.) If it turns out that they can't have children, adopting would be the best choice, but that still leaves the question of whether or not it's moral for them to have sex. Since this is obviously kind of a complicated scenario, I'll explain it by explaining another one at the same time. (Sorry if that makes it more confusing.) So I believe that a normal couple that has kids can still have sex after menopause because of the uniting aspect even though they can't have any more kids after that point. It's kind of the same idea for infertile couples. They tried to have kids before they realized they couldn't, and once they figure it out, that doesn't mean they can never have sex again, but obviously they shouldn't be happy about their infertility or start indulging excessively in it just because they found out they were infertile. Does that make sense?

"That's a good question. Most of the time when people get married and one is or more is infertile, they don't know it yet until they've tried to get pregnant multiple times and finally get tested. In that case, they're already married, so it's not like I'd want them to get divorced or anything like that. If there's a slight possibility of producing a child, it's okay. (I know that there's a slight possibility of producing a child when couples use contraception, but the difference there is that the couple using contraception is actively trying to avoid children, whereas the infertile couple are trying to have a child.) If it turns out that they can't have children, adopting would be the best choice, but that still leaves the question of whether or not it's moral for them to have sex. Since this is obviously kind of a complicated scenario, I'll explain it by explaining another one at the same time. (Sorry if that makes it more confusing.) So I believe that a normal couple that has kids can still have sex after menopause because of the uniting aspect even though they can't have any more kids after that point. It's kind of the same idea for infertile couples. They tried to have kids before they realized they couldn't, and once they figure it out, that doesn't mean they can never have sex again, but obviously they shouldn't be happy about their infertility or start indulging excessively in it just because they found out they were infertile. Does that make sense?"

I understand what you're saying although that doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense.

Reading that reminded me that I started reading A Handmaid's Tale and keep meaning to get back to it? Have you heard of it? You might enjoy it.

"I understand what you're saying although that doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense."

That's true. I'm glad you understand even if it seems weird.

I've heard of it, but I haven't read it. I'll try to do that sometime

"and the other being to unite two spouses. You are mostly correct about my view on contraception. I do believe it's unnatural, but it also allows people to mutually use each other for pleasure without having to take the natural responsibility for their action."

Ok, so you not only understand that two people have sex to unite their relationship and to experience pleasure but you actually practice it.

Do you understand that this is exactly what same sex couples are doing?

What same sex couples are doing is arguably more natural because they don't need to use contraception which you have agreed is unnatural.

"Ok, so you not only understand that two people have sex to unite their relationship and to experience pleasure but you actually practice it."

I practice what?

"Do you understand that this is exactly what same sex couples are doing?"

It's not the same because it can't possibly conceive a child. It only checks one of the boxes.

"What same sex couples are doing is arguably more natural because they don't need to use contraception which you have agreed is unnatural."

Not even close. No one "needs" to use contraception as you said, and for most of history, no one did

"I practice what"

You engage in the practice of both having sex to unite your relationship and to experience pleasure.

This is exactly what same sex couples are doing.

You use contraception, you have sex whilst taking measures to ensure it does not produce a child. Your evidence that gay sex is unnatural is that it doesn't produce children and then you take unnatural measures to create the same effect.

You've acknowledged that sex is about more than producing children, so your criticism that it doesn't produce children hardly continues to work as an argument against homosexual sex.

"You engage in the practice of both having sex to unite your relationship and to experience pleasure."

Pleasure is part of uniting. The two reasons I mentioned are uniting and procreating, not uniting and pleasure.

"You use contraception, you have sex whilst taking measures to ensure it does not produce a child. Your evidence that gay sex is unnatural is that it doesn't produce children and then you take unnatural measures to create the same effect."

I'm confused as to what you're saying here. My point is that both homosexual sex and sex with birth control are both immoral and unnatural. You're talking in second person that whole paragraph, and I can't tell if you're referring to me or just some random person.

"You've acknowledged that sex is about more than producing children, so your criticism that it doesn't produce children hardly continues to work as an argument against homosexual sex."

It does work because both factors must be present for sex to be moral. Those factors being an openness to procreation (which is impossible with homosexuals) and the uniting aspect (which homosexuals can possess)

Heterosexuality is not an illness. That is like saying having COVID-19 is not an illness, but not having COVID-19 is an illness.

What are you suggesting the detrimental symptoms of homosexuality are?

Suddenly developing fabulous dress sense? Breaking out in glitter? Early onset of not being stuck at home in a monotonous life with a partner that doesn't appreciate you and kids that never stop asking for things? Frequent attacks of being able to have fun and go clubbing? Suffering from having a wonderful supportive community?

Doctor, Doctor, help?! I'm in a relationship with someone who not only values me but is incredible in bed, they have a perfect understanding of how to make me feel good because they have the same anatomy. Oh no.

you're weird

The detrimental symptoms of homosexuality are being weird?

That sounds a lot more like you having a problem than anybody else having a problem.

Y'know, I reckon bigotry is a mental illness, it's definitely not healthy. All your weird obsession with what's in other people's pants and what they do with it, it's actually quite perverted.

Why are you so obsessed with how other people have sex?

Is it because you're still a virgin? Is it because you're married and you've only ever slept with your spouse and you're insanely curious about what it would be like to sleep with other people?

You sound sexually repressed. You know you can go to therapy for that?

lol are you sure I am the pervert here? You are the one calling me a "sexually repressed virgin". And I already said that I support homosexual rights. I am not "obsessed" with their private life. But I do not support indoctrinating children with the homosexual agenda. Begone, creep.

It's not possible to indoctrinate someone with something that is innate.

Haha! Aw, do you have a wand or do you just waft your hand when you say that to people?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Homosexuality is not "innate"

Yes it is and yes it is. It's unnatural and you can't be born with it. And it is curable. Plenty of people have had unwanted same-sex attraction, gone to therapy, and been cured

Do you know the definition of natural? Look it up.
Of course homosexuality is natural!!

Nobody has been cured of homosexuality.

I do know the definition of natural. And we've already discussed this. I proved you wrong and then you never responded. But since you seem to have forgotten that, I'll say it again.

You argued that homosexuality is natural because animals do it and some humans do it. I pointed out that animals kill each other for food, and I asked you if that was natural and if we should adopt that idea because animals do it. I also pointed out that "some people" commit bestiality, and that doesn't make it natural just because "some people do it," which was your argument. Same idea. Just because some people act of same-sex attraction doesn't make it natural. Let's use bestiality as a comparison to homosexuality because you don't like my use of rape or murder.

Both are unnatural. Neither hurts a person. Both are disordered and immoral. Some people do each one. Doesn't make them natural or right.

"Nobody has been cured of homosexuality."

Plenty of people have been cured by conversion therapy, but you're just unaware of any because the left cancels anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

Oh! I remember, you twisted my words and seemed like you were being obtuse.

I did not argue that homosexuality is natural because animals do it, I argued that it's natural because it's found in nature. That is the definition.

I pointed out that the fact that some animals are homosexual is evidence that it's not an exclusively human behavior and is evidence that it has nothing to do with morality.

It just is.

Bestiality does not involve consent, obviously. You keep comparing homosexuality to things that aren't comparable.

Nobody is cured by 'conversion therapy', you are accepting a lie because it fits your narrative.

"Oh! I remember, you twisted my words and seemed like you were being obtuse."

I only argued the exact things you brought up: homosexuality in animals, and homosexuality in humans. I thought I was pretty clear.

"I did not argue that homosexuality is natural because animals do it, I argued that it's natural because it's found in nature. That is the definition."

Kind of the same difference. Just because homosexuality exists naturally as you say in animals, that doesn't make it natural for humans. It's natural for animals of the same species to kill each other for food. Does that make it natural for humans too?

"I pointed out that the fact that some animals are homosexual is evidence that it's not an exclusively human behavior and is evidence that it has nothing to do with morality."

I'm aware that homosexuality is not exclusively human, but it still has everything to do with morality. Morality is what sets humans apart from animals. We have consciences. I think you'd agree that murder is wrong, but when animals kill each other, that's nature because they have no conscience. Same with homosexuality. It happens in nature with animals, but it's still immoral for humans to do it.

"Bestiality does not involve consent, obviously. You keep comparing homosexuality to things that aren't comparable"

Animals have instinct, not consent. You're trying to discount my comparisons because of small details. My point isn't to say that homosexuality and bestiality are the same, but I think you know that. My only point was that they're both unnatural. You don't need consent for something to be unnatural.

"Nobody is cured by 'conversion therapy', you are accepting a lie because it fits your narrative."

On the contrary, you ignore and cancel people who have been cured by conversion therapy because it doesn't fit your narrative. I know people who've been cured by it.

No, homosexuality is a mental illness, and it is curable.

"The medical community" knows that there is no "gay gene".

Not sure what medical community you're referring to. The medical community that mapped out the human genome knows there is no gay/straight gene

Okay so we've established that there is no gene that can make you gay, correct? So you can't be born gay.

So if you can't be born gay, how else can you become gay if not by mental illness? If it's not in your genetics, your mind is the only other place it could come from. Hence homosexuality is a mental illness

Are you claiming that there's a 'heterosexual gene'?

Nope. There's no homosexual or heterosexual gene. Heterosexuality is an inherent part of species that reproduce sexually as opposed to asexually

Okay so we've established that there is no gene that can make you straight, correct? So you can't be born straight.

So if you can't be born straight, how else can you become straight if not by mental illness? If it's not in your genetics, your mind is the only other other place it could come from. Hence heterosexuality is a mental illness.

Your logic, dude.

"Okay so we've established that there is no gene that can make you straight, correct? So you can't be born straight."

I already addressed this argument when I said, "Heterosexuality is an inherent part of species that reproduce sexually as opposed to asexually"

Sexual reproduction is only possible through heterosexuality. It's not a gene that makes people straight. It's the fact that they're a species with reproduces sexually. There are only 2 types of reproduction. Sexual, and asexual. Sexual reproduction isn't possible through homosexuality, but I'm sure you know that.

"So if you can't be born straight, how else can you become straight if not by mental illness? If it's not in your genetics, your mind is the only other other place it could come from. Hence heterosexuality is a mental illness."

You don't "become straight." You are that way because of the type of reproduction your species uses.

"I don't believe it's been confirmed one way or another"

It has been. We've mapped out the entire human genome and we know what each gene does, and there isn't one that makes you gay. I learned that in freshman biology. At a public school. And don't worry, they're plenty liberal. They've had transgender bathrooms since before they were even a big thing.

"How do you know that? Genes aren't the only thing that determine how someone develops in the womb."

What do you suppose could make someone gay in the womb besides genetics?

"So you're either born with something or it's a mental illness?"

No. You took what I said about one thing and claimed that I applied it to literally everything that happens once you're born. I applied it to homosexuality. And you didn't disprove my statement; you only said my logic is flawed. Do you have a correction for my "flawed" argument?

"And many mental illnesses are something that a person is born with. If you're saying that homosexuality is a mental illness then you're also saying that people are born with it, so you can't have it both ways."

Yes I know people can be born with mental illnesses, but only ones determined by genetics. You can't be born with depression or anxiety because they are determined by outside factors. It's the same for being gay. It's determined by outside factors. You claimed that to have a mental illness, you must be born with it. To use your words, that shows a profound ignorance of psychological and medical issues.