Are you an atheist?

[KenHigg]

Ken: The fact which you have failed to even attempt to address is:

Sexual preference is nobody's business except for consenting adults who choose to be together.

Please explain exactly why you are so disturbed by others' homosexuality.

I'd rather get clarification on if it's a choice or hardwired. The difference takes the discussion in two entirely different directions...

 

[Galaxiom]

I'd rather get clarification on if it's a choice or hardwired. The difference takes the discussion in two entirely different directions...

You have already shown your disdain for homosexuality in the post where you introduced this diversion from the main topic of the tread.

Despite having no evidence either way it sure looks like you have made up your mind.

Why should it make any difference if it is chosen or hardwired? Seems like you are avoiding the real issue by choosing to focus on something that cannot yet be independently proved either way.

I have friends who are gay and they say it was something they have been aware of from quite a young age.

 

[KenHigg]

Ok. Unless you think otherwise, we're deadlock. You think its hardwired, I think its choice. I don't see how we can discuss it any deeper, were always going to boil it back down to these.

btw, when a person (in this example gay), puts their hand in my pocket or trys to convience me a particular lifestyle is ok, they make it my business.

 

[Brianwarnock]

btw, when a person (in this example gay), puts their hand in my pocket or trys to convience me a particular lifestyle is ok, they make it my business.

Is this literal or metaphorical?

Brian

 

[KenHigg]

Is this literal or metaphorical?

Brian

.
.
.

yes

 

[Brianwarnock]

LOL
After posting I thought he is just going to say 'both' or 'yes' , thanks for not letting me down.

Think I'll go and get lunch.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

btw, when a person (in this example gay), puts their hand in my pocket or trys to convience me a particular lifestyle is ok, they make it my business.

"Putting their hand in you pocket" is a sexual assault regardless of the sexuality or the gender of the perpetrator.

Painting all homosexuals with the same brush is stereotyping.

Many homosexual people are highly committed to exclusive relationships. You would be surprised how many people with whom you are acquainted that are homosexual and you would never realise.

Trying to convince you a lifestyle is OK is free speech just as you have the right to indicate your disdain for it.

However you should be prepared to back your case with facts, something you have not done here. Otherwise be prepared to be called a bigot.

 

[KenHigg]

"Putting their hand in you pocket" is a sexual assault regardless of the sexuality or the gender of the perpetrator.

Being called a bigot by a person that is just plain stupid doesn't pack much punch

 

[Galaxiom]

Being called a bigot by a person that is just plain stupid doesn't pack much punch

Why did you quote my post? It has nothing to do with what you posted? You have not addressed the point. Clearly you prefer to stick with your homophobia.

I really don't see any point continuing this. It isn't a discussion. You have not made a single intelligent post on the subject.

I have no doubt you will continue to despise homosexual people as you unquestioningly adhere to the religious values you were taught as a child.

BTW. Leviticus is the Biblical source of the "abomination of homosexuality". A full read of his contribution reveals just how ridiculous the position of the church is on homosexuality.

 

[Vassago]

Today I received a pm from aziz saying that he will not be posting on this thread anymore as he is under the threat of disbarment for upsetting a mod.
I don't know the circumstances but I can see nothing in the thread so can only assume that an exchange of PMs took place or the mods are showing an over sensitivity.

Pity as I haven't had a chance to respond to Aziz's last resonse to me.

Brian

I am looking into the matter.

 

[Vassago]

I'll also add that I invited him back to the conversation. I find it ironic that people are telling him that he is on a dead-end path because he will not get any converts. Naturally, the same could be said of the people debating him. They will not convert him to atheism (or any other faith.) The whole argument of religion is based on faith. They believe the quotes they read from their book are just as real as the scientific evidence atheists read from their science book. Once faith is brought into it, you can't argue against it. He's already won his side of the argument because he has faith.

This is always where I drop out of a religious discussion. As soon as the person answers that he has faith, I can't defeat his faith. If you really have faith, nothing can waiver it and science really doesn't have an equal to faith. Science is constantly changing. What we "know" is never truly what we know. That's why science is full of theories instead of faith. Theories can be broken.

 

[Adam Caramon]

btw, when a person (in this example gay), puts their hand in my pocket or trys to convience me a particular lifestyle is ok, they make it my business.

I never understand this point of view. You can hold whatever personal views you choose to. You can think that gay people are bad/evil/disgusting/whatever you want. But on a governmental level, why shouldn't gay people have equal rights to straight people?

The government has a duty to treat all people as equals, as it is supposed to represent all people. How can you be effectively represented by your government if your government doesn't think you're equal to other humans?

I think the main problem is there are a lot of people that do not like change. If you have things going 80% your way, and then suddenly it drops to 75%, you think terrible things have happened. But there are a lot of people out there who only have things going 25% their way. Who's truly getting the shorter end of the stick?

This is always where I drop out of a religious discussion. As soon as the person answers that he has faith, I can't defeat his faith.

I don't think the discussions are really about defeating faith. If a religious person says they believe something based on faith, I don't have any problem with that. What that means is that they are not concerned with the facts, they're relying on their belief.

When religious people try to say that the facts agree with their belief, then they have an obligation to prove it. The evidence required for faith is nil. You can have faith in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc. The evidence required for facts is incredibly high.

Most governments base policy and laws on facts. Law is based on facts. Medicine is based on facts. Doctors don't say they believe this medicine is the best to treat your ailment, they say based on clinical trials, this medicine is the best.

If we wouldn't accept a doctor who relies on faith for treatment, or a plumber who relies of faith to fix your pipes, why would we rely on politicians that do so?

 

[aziz rasul]

Just wanted to say a GREAT thank you to everyone who supported my right to express my views freely. I really do appreciate it.

Just for the record there was no exchange of PMs between me and Rabbie, except of course the PM I received from Rabbie concerning a Final Warning.

I have PM'd a couple of contributors on this thread regarding my unpublished book entitled 'Islam - Pure and Simple' written about 5 years ago, which can be downloaded from the scribd website if they wish. There is no copyright on the book and can be shared freely.

 

[Rabbie]

Just to clarify matters. Personal insults have no place in this or any other thread on this forum. Criticise the other person's argument or point of view but don't use personal insults. Is that clear enough for everyone? I will never ban or downmark anyone for expressing their opinion but I will enforce the rules about personal insults. I hope Aziz will continue to contribute without insulting other contributors. This applies equally to everyone else.

 

[parkerjallen]

To answer poll in a word: No.

 

[Brianwarnock]

No what? No sense from a troller

Brian

 

[aziz rasul]

Rabbie, you should heed your own advice. I simply responded to your remarks which inferred I was not able to think, which I found insulting. I simply answered you with an honest observation by using your opening words. It was a case of touché. If you are willing to mete it out, you should expect a respond in like kind. I suggest that you don't insult me.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I suggest that we draw a line in the sand and non of us insult each other explicitly or implicitly

Brian

 

[Vassago]

I suggest that we draw a line in the sand and non of us insult each other explicitly or implicitly

Brian

True. Once insults come into play, the debate is relatively finished. If you can't prove your point without resulting to insults, what do you really have?

 

[aziz rasul]

You have not established this. You've stated it. I don't recall a single person on here having agreed with you. The Qur'an holds value to you because you've surrendered your will to it. That is all.

I have established this to my satisfaction and it's not a blind surrender. The fact that not a single person on the forum has accepted this does not mean I’m incorrect. Galileo was not accepted in his time even when he was in the minority. The Qur’an can be authenticated as I have done but there is also another way.

"Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies." (Sura 4:82).