[Discussion] Is everything bad a religion?

[NarutoKage2]

That's not what you said though



No mention of stoning or punishments. Just that forcing your views on others is evil.


Out of like 290



So it has been outlawed :lol



Do you know what imposition means?

Yes but I’m sure you don’t:

You must be registered for see links

Meaning sense 1 , imposing, forcing, foisting etc.


Also no need to be curt, do you always get this riled up by other people giving views that don’t agree with your own?

What I stated was quite simple, namely imposing your view on somebody else. Simply stating your own opinion doesn’t count as an ‘imposition’, since nobody has to agree with you. So homosexuals, or anybody else, giving speeches, doing parades etc that they have a right to exist as gays and not be discriminated against is NOT imposition as no one is being forced to agree with them, it just so happens that a large number of people do.

Imposition would be if people didn’t agree with a proposition, but were forced to accept it. Fact is, being gay is something that most people in the western world have accepted as a norm. Hence there is no ‘imposition’ involved here, and your example is a bad one.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Yes but I’m sure you don’t:

Meaning sense 1 , imposing, forcing, foisting etc.

Also no need to be curt, do you always get this riled up by other people giving views that don’t agree with your own?

What I stated was quite simple, namely imposing your view on somebody else.

Being forced to believe or accept something doesn't just mean physical violence. You do know there are other means?

Simply stating your own opinion doesn’t count as an ‘imposition’, since nobody has to agree with you.

Passing laws does though.

So homosexuals, or anybody else, giving speeches, doing parades etc

What is the purpose of those?

that they have a right to exist as gays and not be discriminated against

Says who?

is NOT imposition as no one is being forced to agree with them,

Yeah, except according to the laws, we do.

it just so happens that a large number of people do.

Yeah, after years of brainwashing and forcing homosexuality to be removed as being a mental illess. lmao

Imposition would be if people didn’t agree with a proposition, but were forced to accept it.

Oh, like how racists didn't agree with the proposition of treating blacks fairly, but it was still imposed on them. I guess the law makers were evil according to your idea that any type of imposition is evil. lmao

Fact is, being gay is something that most people in the western world have accepted as a norm.

Except it isn't the norm. And what is or isn't accepted as a norm doesn't change what is right and wrong. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

 

[NarutoKage2]

homosexuality is actually very common:

You must be registered for see links

Guess all those animals must be suffering from mental illness. ?


Racism is at least as bad as discriminating against gays, as both are things you are born with, you ignorant turd.

 

[Made in Heaven]

homosexuality is actually very common:

You must be registered for see links

Guess all those animals must be suffering from mental illness. ������

lmao animals? This guy for real?

Racism is at least as bad as discriminating against gays, as both are things you are born with, you ignorant turd.

Not for being gay. Even if it were, the actions are still controllable

 

[NarutoKage2]

So God didn’t create the animals? Are you conceding that point? If no, then why did he make them indulge in homosexual behaviour? Or is it that God is powerless to control the behaviour of animals that he himself made?

 

[Made in Heaven]

So God didn’t create the animals? Are you conceding that point? If no, then why did he make them indulge in homosexual behaviour? Or is it that God is powerless to control the behaviour of animals that he himself made?

Same reason he makes animals indulge in rape, murder, cannibalism, and so on. Like, tf? Are you really gonna sit there and try and use animals as an excuse? What kind of clown logic?

 

[NarutoKage2]

Same reason he makes animals indulge in rape, murder, cannibalism, and so on. Like, tf? Are you really gonna sit there and try and use animals as an excuse? What kind of clown logic?

You didn’t answer the question.

Ad hominem attacks, which is all you seem capable of doing, only serves to highlight your insecurity. Quite revealing.The animal example is actually very instructive because they aren’t going to be judged and are incapable of ‘sin’, so your argument of labelling homosexuality as sin( or mental illness) begs the question: are the animals mentally ill ? Answer: No, just people like you. ?

Also, the examples you cited only prove that morality is a human construct that doesn’t exist in nature. Just what an atheist would say. Not a good argument for somebody arguing for a divinely inspired morality, since your alleged divine moraliser is also the author of nature. Just because the argument is embarrassing to you doesn’t invalidate it.

Anyways, I’m done. Go on believing that belief in God is natural, while homosexuality, which literally occurs in nature and is observable everywhere, is not.

 

[Made in Heaven]

You didn’t answer the question.

I did, I'm sorry you can't understand it.

Ad hominem attacks, which is all you seem capable of doing only serves to highlight your insecurity. Quite revealing.

And yet your the one throwing around insults like 'turd'. Who's attacking who? I suggest you stop self projecting.

The animal example is actually very instructive because they aren’t going to be judged and are incapable of ‘sin’, so your argument of labelling homosexuality as sin( or mental illness) begs the question: are the animals mentally ill ? Answer: No, just people like you. ������

No, animals aren't mentally ill, they have different minds and psychological behaviors than Humans. You're comparing different lifeforms and thinking they're all the same :lol Humans who are homosexuals are mentally ill though. Why do you think sexual abuse leads to people being homos?

Also, the examples you cited only prove that morality is a human construct that doesn’t exist in nature. Just what an atheist would say.

The point went well over your head. The examples I showed is that animals are not held to any sort of moral code by God because they are not capable of that level of thinking, therefore, whether animals rape, kill their own children, eat their own waste, mindlessly attack one another, commit homosexuality or murder, it means nothing.

Not a good argument for somebody arguing for a divinely inspired morality, since your alleged divine moraliser is also the author of nature.

God creates different life forms to function in different ways. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. It just so happens that Humans engaging in homosexuality is bad. Otherwise you shouldn't have a problem with a female Human eating a male Human's head after ***, I mean, animals do that too, right? :lol

Anyways, I’m done. Go on believing that belief in God is natural, while homosexuality, which literally occurs in nature and is observable everywhere, is not.

Rape and murder are also in nature. What caveman level thinking is going on in that head of your to be using different species to advocate for the way our species should act? Male and Female Humans alone have many differences, and you want to use animals as an excuse to allow faggotry? Don't do drugs kids.

 

[salamander uchiha]

I did, I'm sorry you can't understand it.



And yet your the one throwing around insults like 'turd'. Who's attacking who? I suggest you stop self projecting.


No, animals aren't mentally ill, they have different minds and psychological behaviors than Humans. You're comparing different lifeforms and thinking they're all the same :lol Humans who are homosexuals are mentally ill though. Why do you think sexual abuse leads to people being homos?


The point went well over your head. The examples I showed is that animals are not held to any sort of moral code by God because they are not capable of that level of thinking, therefore, whether animals rape, kill their own children, eat their own waste, mindlessly attack one another, commit homosexuality or murder, it means nothing.



God creates different life forms to function in different ways. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. It just so happens that Humans engaging in homosexuality is bad. Otherwise you shouldn't have a problem with a female Human eating a male Human's head after ***, I mean, animals do that too, right? :lol



Rape and murder are also in nature. What caveman level thinking is going on in that head of your to be using different species to advocate for the way our species should act? Male and Female Humans alone have many differences, and you want to use animals as an excuse to allow faggotry? Don't do drugs kids.

I don't quite understand his argument, Do you? From what I gathered he doesn't understand evolution, natural selection or survival of the fittest, am I right? Or is he arguing something can come from nothing?

homosexuality is actually very common:

You must be registered for see links

Guess all those animals must be suffering from mental illness. ������

You need to re-read the article and get yourself some comprehension lessons while you're at it. They tried to portray homosexuality and dismissed it while they were at it. A word of advice when you try to argue for something make sure you have something that doesnt undermine it.

Racism is at least as bad as discriminating against gays, as both are things you are born with, you ignorant turd.

Actually it's not, under evolutionary principles sodomite are obsolete, being racist/discriminatory would be an evolutionary benefit and part of survival of the fittest. For your genes to survive and be passed on would require means for you to retain your alpha status, you do that via racism.

The fact that humans have morality undermines the notion of evolution altogether because it undermines the fundamental principles(the alpha attributes).

Btw there's a reason why early atheists argued for the eternal nature of the universe, it was discredited in the 20th cenutry when new discoveries(finite energy, origin point, expansion etc) were made. That's why they dont discuss it anymore and focus on lesser things(evolution) to distract the people, because a questioning mind will conclude a creator/originator. On the other hand a brainwashed mind bombarded with propganda will believe whatever he's taught(indoctrinated) is science, even if it's pseudo science.

 

[NarutoKage2]

​

I don't quite understand his argument, Do you? From what I gathered he doesn't understand evolution, natural selection or survival of the fittest, am I right? Or is he arguing something can come from nothing?



You need to re-read the article and get yourself some comprehension lessons while you're at it. They tried to portray homosexuality and dismissed it while they were at it. A word of advice when you try to argue for something make sure you have something that doesnt undermine it.




Actually it's not, under evolutionary principles sodomite are obsolete, being racist/discriminatory would be an evolutionary benefit and part of survival of the fittest. For your genes to survive and be passed on would require means for you to retain your alpha status, you do that via racism.

The fact that humans have morality undermines the notion of evolution altogether because it undermines the fundamental principles(the alpha attributes).

Re read the whole article and don’t just skim through it. Homosexual behaviours are fairly common in the natural world and across a wide range of animal species.
When the article ‘dismisses’ homosexuality, it only refers to it’s exclusiveness, not the fact of homosexual behaviour itself. I’m actually well aware of the ‘apparent’ undermining of homosexuality by that article. Quite disappointing how skewered people’s thinking becomes just due to their desperation to cling onto Stone Age beliefs.

You have a very poor understanding of evolution if you believe that human morality is problematic. Also ‘race’ denotes an entire group within the same species, from an evolutionary standpoint such a classification does not even exist since the possibility of gene flow remains. Whatever genes do in fact survive in a population over time do so only in a very general sense via their proxies, I. e physical bodies.

You might want to educate yourself, morality helps maintain cohesive behaviours in groups and reduces the likelihood of negative consequences accrued to an individual. In a social animal like man, being moral enhances the prospects for procreation and survival rather than diminishing it. So it makes perfect sense that we evolved to be moral.


@ Made in heaven: so since you don’t like what I have to say, I’m a kid and am also apparently on drugs, is that it? Pathetic. If I were to reason like you, I’d say that you’d need to stop PMSing and start thinking with your head instead. But I won’t.

 

[salamander uchiha]

​


Re read the whole article and don’t just skim through it. Homosexual behaviours are fairly common in the natural world and across a wide range of animal species.
When the article ‘dismisses’ homosexuality, it only refers to it’s exclusiveness, not the fact of homosexual behaviour itself. I’m actually well aware of the ‘apparent’ undermining of homosexuality by that article. Quite disappointing how skewered people’s thinking becomes just due to their desperation to cling onto Stone Age beliefs.

I did read the article and it's not prevalent and neither is it like human homosexuality. After each example it was undermined and a reason explaining it away was presented. Re-read the article none of those animals can actually be called homosexuals.


EDIT: An exert from the article which I'll explain in English.

We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are.

Humans and animals aren't the same in their homsexuality.

But we can expect to find many more animals that don't conform to traditional categories of sexual orientation.

The excuse is we may find more animals that don't have an orientation.

They are using *** to satisfy all sorts of needs, from simple pleasure to social advancement, and that means being flexible.

The reason why the animals behave like this are for personal benefit of some sort.

End of the Edit.

You have a very poor understanding of evolution if you believe that human morality is problematic. Also ‘race’ denotes an entire group within the same species, from an evolutionary standpoint such a classification does not even exist since the possibility of gene flow remains. Whatever genes do in fact survive in a population over time do so only in a very general sense via their proxies, I. e physical bodies.

Not true, at all. It's you who has a poor understanding of it, desired traits and exclusive traits for the survival of that branch of the species would inherently make a species racist. The fact that morality exists and undermines it, undermines evolution.

You might want to educate yourself, morality helps maintain cohesive behaviours in groups and reduces the likelihood of negative consequences accrued to an individual. In a social animal like man, being moral enhances the prospects for procreation and survival rather than diminishing it. So it makes perfect sense that we evolved to be moral.

Actually it doesn't, since the alpha of the species is sought after for breeding and ensures survival and passing on of the best traits while the weak disappear altogether. The fact that humans don't conform to such rules(both alpha and beta) and mate based on relationships, understanding, attachment, love is complete contradiction with the primary principles. In other words humans don't conform to Darwinian evolution so to try and apply it to them is reach of the highest order.

 

[NarutoKage2]

I did read the article and it's not prevalent and neither is it like human homosexuality. After each example it was undermined and a reason explaining it away was presented. Re-read the article none of those animals can actually be called homosexuals,



Not true, at all. It's you who has a poor understanding of it, desired traits and exclusive traits for the survival of that branch of the species would inherently make a species racist. The fact that morality exists and undermines it, undermines evolution.



Actually it doesn't, since the alpha of the species is sought after for breeding and ensures survival and passing on of the best traits while the weak disappear altogether. The fact that humans don't conform to such rules and mate based on relationships, understanding, attachment, love is complete contradiction with the primary principles. In other words humans don't conform to Darwinian evolution so to try and apply it to them is reach of the highest order.

Bolded: what do you think a ‘species’ even is? Quite simply: any grouping of a given living thing or animal that is able to have viable offspring. So ‘species’ aren’t racist towards each other, or do you have racist feelings towards chimpanzees? Groupings within our own species , I.e races have no evolutionary basis since black people can have viable offspring with white people.

Won’t respond to the rest of your points, a simple google search or reading a good book on evolution would suffice to disprove your statements.

Edit: For anyone who claims that homosexuality is a mental illness, or that human morality could not possibly have evolved, is there any scientific paper or publication that you would be so kind as to share that reaches either of those conclusions? Thanks. And if not kindly be cognisant of the fact that your statements are nothing more than your own biased and prejudiced opinions, and not statements of fact.

 

[salamander uchiha]

Bolded: what do you think a ‘species’ even is? Quite simply: any grouping of a given living thing or animal that is able to have viable offspring. So ‘species’ aren’t racist towards each other, or do you have racist feelings towards chimpanzees? Groupings within our own species , I.e races have no evolutionary basis since black people can have viable offspring with white people.

Again with the flawed rebuttal

First point humans and chimpanzee's can't mate therefore theirs no need for it. The survival of that humans genes isn't at stake. Secondly to the black and white issue yes then yes racism would be a natural evolutionary quality because if the white woman breeds with the black man then it decreases the white male's chances of passing on his genes and retain those traits. He would ensure the sruvial of his own genes via becoming hostile and racist. Therefore, racism has a perfectly rational part in evolution.

Won’t respond to the rest of your points, a simple google search or reading a good book on evolution would suffice to disprove your statements.

I have read a few and a simple Google search won't disprove anything. The fact you can't bring a rebuttal and refer me to other things is deflection. For The theory of evolution to be legitimate it must be testable against it's founding principles it doesn't stand up to them under scrutiny. Instead we are printed with excuses and deflection to try and explain away the short comings.

Btw I added this edit in the previous post I'll add it again.


EDIT: An exert from the article which I'll explain in English.

We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are.

The statement: Humans and animals aren't the same in their homsexuality.

But we can expect to find many more animals that don't conform to traditional categories of sexual orientation.

The excuse: is we may find more animals that don't have an orientation.

They are using *** to satisfy all sorts of needs, from simple pleasure to social advancement, and that means being flexible.

The reason: why the animals behave like this are for personal benefit of some sort. A human sodomite doesn't gain a benefit except by becoming defunct and dying out.

End of edit.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Again with the flawed rebuttal

First point humans and chimpanzee's can't mate therefore theirs no need for it. The survival of that humans genes isn't at stake. Secondly to the black and white issue yes then yes racism would be a natural evolutionary quality because if the white woman breeds with the black man then it decreases the white male's chances of passing on his genes and retain those traits. He would ensure the sruvial of his own genes via becoming hostile and racist. Therefore, racism has a perfectly rational part in evolution.



I have read a few and a simple Google search won't disprove anything. The fact you can't bring a rebuttal and refer me to other things is deflection. For The theory of evolution to be legitimate it must be testable against it's founding principles it doesn't stand up to them under scrutiny. Instead we are printed with excuses and deflection to try and explain away the short comings.

Btw I added this edit in the previous post I'll add it again.


EDIT: An exert from the article which I'll explain in English.



The statement: Humans and animals aren't the same in their homsexuality.



The excuse: is we may find more animals that don't have an orientation.




The reason: why the animals behave like this are for personal benefit of some sort.

End of edit.

Yes, exactly, so they are exhibiting homosexual behavior.


@racism point: in a human society it works that way but a single individual not being able to procreate has no bearing on an evolutionary timescale, where changes have to be consistent across hundreds or thousands of generations for a new species to emerge.

 

[salamander uchiha]

Yes, exactly, so they are exhibiting homosexual behavior.

No they're not, their was a clear distinction made between the animals and humans. So when you tried to argue it's the same or tried to justify human sodomy via animals you were clearly talking nonsense.

@racism point: in a human society it works that way but a single individual not being able to procreate has no bearing on an evolutionary timescale, where changes have to be consistent across hundreds or thousands of generations for a new species to emerge.

I accept your concession and don't care for the excuse as it's based off of pure conjecture. I find it laughable you argued that believing in God which is natural and rational was a stone age belief, yet the excuse you're spouting is the nonsense.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Edit: For anyone who claims that homosexuality is a mental illness, or that human morality could not possibly have evolved, is there any scientific paper or publication that you would be so kind as to share that reaches either of those conclusions? Thanks. And if not kindly be cognisant of the fact that your statements are nothing more than your own biased and prejudiced opinions, and not statements of fact.

It is a mental illness and was considered as such until faggots started rioting about it. Just as being trans is not considered a mental illness anymore lmao.

Human morality could not have evolved because morality contracts evolution. Plus evolution has yet to be proven anyways, even that clown Dawkins can't give an example of mutations adding information to an animal. Talk about an L

You must be registered for see links

​
@ Made in heaven: so since you don’t like what I have to say, I’m a kid and am also apparently on drugs, is that it? Pathetic. If I were to reason like you, I’d say that you’d need to stop PMSing and start thinking with your head instead. But I won’t.

Way to avoid the actual arguments over a 4 word joke. :lol

 

[NarutoKage2]

No they're not, their was a clear distinction made between the animals and humans. So when you tried to argue it's the same or tried to justify human sodomy via animals you were clearly talking nonsense.




I accept your concession and don't care for the excuse as it's based off of pure conjecture. I find it laughable you argued that believing in God which is natural and rational was a stone age belief, yet the excuse you're spouting is the nonsense.

Only with regards to it’s exclusiveness did you not read what he wrote? Humans who are homosexual are EXCLUSIVELY homosexual and don’t engage in heterosexual acts, in animals it’s both behaviours. You need to do the justifying, still waiting for a link to a scientific journal concluding homosexuality in humans as unnatural or a mental anomaly .

I’m not arguing that belief in God is natural or not, just that homosexuality is and that racism has no evolutionary basis.

 

[NarutoKage2]

@ Made in Heaven so YouTube videos count as scientific journals? LOL. And you think that I’m being the kid here . Ok that was a riot .

 

[Made in Heaven]

@ Made in Heaven so YouTube videos count as scientific journals? LOL. And you think that I’m being the kid here . Ok that was a riot .

Doesn't really matter. That poor sap who wanks evolution and makes his career out of that pseudo science failed to give one example of a mutation adding information to a creature. Can you give me an example?

 

[salamander uchiha]

Only with regards to it’s exclusiveness did you not read what he wrote? Humans who are homosexual are EXCLUSIVELY homosexual and don’t engage in heterosexual acts, in animals it’s both behaviours. You need to do the justifying, still waiting for a link to a scientific journal concluding homosexuality in humans as unnatural or a mental anomaly.

You clearly didn't read or rather didn't understand the article. Yhe animals in all examples did it to gain some benefit for preservation of their genes and neither was it their natural condition they did it of choice. The human homosexuals also do it of choice but once they become homosexuals they lose the ability to pass on their genes. Now why would I need to provide proof of something when it undermines the basic nature of man under evolutionary principles, breed and pass on you're genes to survive? Clearly it's an unnatural occurrence and has no benefit to the one who's about to become obsolete(lose his ability to pass on his genes).

I’m not arguing that belief in God is natural or not, just that homosexuality is and that racism has no evolutionary basis.

Read above it's not natural, to argue it's natural is irrational, as for racism I've addressed it being natural under evolutionary principles. I'm glad you're not arguing against the belief in God, which would be very foolish. I was under the impression you were dismissing God.

Doesn't really matter. That poor sap who wanks evolution and makes his career out of that pseudo science failed to give one example of a mutation adding information to a creature. Can you give me an example?

Mutations are negative(cancer as an example) they've never been positive or added information. They take and destroy not improve and advance your genes. That's why the theory of evolution(transitioning aspect) of it is extremely flawed.