PDA

View Full Version : The Case for Gay Adoption




rational thinker
12-02-2008, 11:52 AM
http://reason.com/news/show/130325.html

dannno
12-02-2008, 01:00 PM
Great article :cool:

My parents are completely brainwashed into opposing the "homosexual agenda". It doesn't matter to them who is right, it's just about fighting the "homosexual agenda".

zach
12-02-2008, 01:23 PM
Great article :cool:

My parents are completely brainwashed into opposing the "homosexual agenda". It doesn't matter to them who is right, it's just about fighting the "homosexual agenda".

Ain't it the truth.. if it goes against reasoning, then it's for the homosexual agenda.

Now seriously.

RonPaulMania
12-02-2008, 04:47 PM
Great article :cool:

My parents are completely brainwashed into opposing the "homosexual agenda". It doesn't matter to them who is right, it's just about fighting the "homosexual agenda".

Your parents are right. The homosexual agenda is everywhere destroying and shutting down all opposition from opposing viewpoints. The group, NARTH, has shattered much of the idiotic homoerotic claims based on spurious science. Why isn't NARTH taken seriously? For the same reason Ron Paul isn't by the public. The powers that be want to push immorality to further government control.

Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

SeanEdwards
12-02-2008, 04:53 PM
Gay adoption is gay.

Dieseler
12-02-2008, 04:58 PM
Great article :cool:

My parents are completely brainwashed into opposing the "homosexual agenda". It doesn't matter to them who is right, it's just about fighting the "homosexual agenda".

Cool.
Imagine where you would be if they had embraced the homosexual agenda instead of the heterosexual one.
Heterosexual Parents.
Some can't live with them.
No one can exist without them.

RonPaulMania
12-02-2008, 05:01 PM
Here are some of the problems inherent in homosexual adoption:

-Who is the mother or the father? Homosexuals are publicly known not to be stable in any relationship with very few circumstances. Even the **** community acknowledges this. Divorce law favors "mothers".

-How is giving children to "couples" a better circumstance for the cause of freedom instead of promoting and giving favored status to the parents of the children to stay married through tax breaks. Laws that are favorable to marriage in circumstances of money make stable marriages more of a potential reality. I'm against the income tax, but in lieu of it not disappearing soon shouldn't laws make it easier for couples to stay together? I know it works for military men who get increased wages and tax credits, it would work better than what we have now for the sake of the children.

-How do you stop the inherent socialism in adoption? How does this help in creating an environment of liberty? How can the gov't tell who can or can't adopt and set quotas and even tell others how to raise their children unless it doesn't violate the public good or else they will be confiscated?

-Why is "Reason" publishing this when they are pro-abortion? When did they start caring about children?

dannno
12-02-2008, 05:16 PM
Your parents are right. The homosexual agenda is everywhere destroying and shutting down all opposition from opposing viewpoints. The group, NARTH, has shattered much of the idiotic homoerotic claims based on spurious science. Why isn't NARTH taken seriously? For the same reason Ron Paul isn't by the public. The powers that be want to push immorality to further government control.

Truth is treason in the empire of lies.



Cool.
Imagine where you would be if they had embraced the homosexual agenda instead of the heterosexual one.
Heterosexual Parents.
Some can't live with them.
No one can exist without them.

Why can't we all just embrace the liberty agenda?

That was my whole point.

SeanEdwards
12-02-2008, 05:20 PM
Children deserve both mothers and fathers.

dannno
12-02-2008, 05:23 PM
Children deserve both mothers and fathers.

Could you PLEASE read the fricking article??

Your argument has been destroyed several times. It makes no sense. None. Zero. It is completely 100% irrelevant to this topic.

coyote_sprit
12-02-2008, 05:32 PM
Children deserve both mothers and fathers.

Well someone's got to be the bitch in a gay relationship. How's that work for mother?:p

SeanEdwards
12-02-2008, 05:33 PM
Your argument has been destroyed several times.

You destroyed our understanding of reproductive biology? Amazing, amazing!

coyote_sprit
12-02-2008, 05:40 PM
You destroyed our understanding of reproductive biology? Amazing, amazing!

Not really they just became guardians to some kids who were created by reproductive biology. Amazing, amazing!

Freedom 4 all
12-02-2008, 05:46 PM
Your parents are right. The homosexual agenda is everywhere destroying and shutting down all opposition from opposing viewpoints. The group, NARTH, has shattered much of the idiotic homoerotic claims based on spurious science. Why isn't NARTH taken seriously? For the same reason Ron Paul isn't by the public. The powers that be want to push immorality to further government control.

Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

NARTH isn't taken seriously because none of their wild claims are supported by anything resembling real science. Any even remotely reputable psychologist will tell you that it is impossible to change someone's sexuality. Also there is zero evidence to suggest a gay home produces problems that wouldn't exist in a hetero home.
I really don't want to trash anyone's religion but places like NARTH can't pretend that they scientists when they work from the preconceived notion that homesexuals are evil sinners. Science must be 100% objective and preconceptions like that are unacceptable to the scientific method.

SeanEdwards
12-02-2008, 05:48 PM
Not really they just became guardians to some kids who were created by reproductive biology. Amazing, amazing!

They should never have been foster parents in the first place.

dannno
12-02-2008, 05:49 PM
You destroyed our understanding of reproductive biology? Amazing, amazing!

No, you just refuse to accept the FACT that there are kids who aren't going to be adopted by heterosexual couples, and those kids deserve and loving family and you are trying to deny it to them.

And you still obviously haven't read the fricking article yet, as that was the entire point!

dannno
12-02-2008, 06:22 PM
Hellloo hellloo hellooo





















Eccchoo echoo echooo




Sean, I have seen your argument destroyed time after time by arguments that mirror my above post, and you NEVER respond to them after they are made. You always seem to disappear after the point above is made in almost every thread I've seen on this topic. I'd like to see you respond to the argument I outlined above, because it makes your argument completely and logically irrelevant. Every time I see it I think you're going to stop posting your ridiculous and irrelevent argument, and then next thing I know it comes up again. So I'm going to PM this URL to you so you won't miss it this time.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
12-02-2008, 06:54 PM
I'm continually baffled at the people who rail against the Waco injustice, yet display the same attitude towards gay parents that was used against the Davidians

The_Orlonater
12-02-2008, 07:08 PM
-Who is the mother or the father? Homosexuals are publicly known not to be stable in any relationship with very few circumstances. Even the **** community acknowledges this. Divorce law favors "mothers".

There are 2 fathers or 2 mothers. It's not like they're bad parents contrary to what your primitive book of lies and contradictions says.


-How is giving children to "couples" a better circumstance for the cause of freedom instead of promoting and giving favored status to the parents of the children to stay married through tax breaks. Laws that are favorable to marriage in circumstances of money make stable marriages more of a potential reality. I'm against the income tax, but in lieu of it not disappearing soon shouldn't laws make it easier for couples to stay together? I know it works for military men who get increased wages and tax credits, it would work better than what we have now for the sake of the children.

It's a better cause for freedom because it's illegal for gays to marry. The state itself is doing this. If the gay couple decide to get married and want to voluntarily raise and love a kid who has no parents or was given up upon, then why shouldn't they? Fuck your tyrannical religious laws. Religion always was and is mind control and was made up. Read the Book, "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, it destroys every religion.


-How do you stop the inherent socialism in adoption? How does this help in creating an environment of liberty? How can the gov't tell who can or can't adopt and set quotas and even tell others how to raise their children unless it doesn't violate the public good or else they will be confiscated?

Well, I don't believe in the state telling who can or who can not adopt a child.
I too hate the public good, but alas I must be in it for the next few years of my life.


-Why is "Reason" publishing this when they are pro-abortion? When did they start caring about children?

Your collectivist thoughts are delusional. Sometimes and abortion could be necessary. Those who advocate abortion aren't wanting to abort everything in sight. We realize that it's sometimes necessary.

lucius
12-02-2008, 07:18 PM
It violates the rights of children and "causes harm to the children it is meant to protect."

For the children...sounds familiar.

FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS, surely they jest.

Theocrat
12-02-2008, 09:00 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider whether gay couples should exist in the first place? Once you answer that correctly, then the question of whether gay adoptions should be legal goes away.

Liberals are good at getting us to answer the wrong questions. For instance, they sometimes ask, "Should creation be taught in the public schools?" Never do they consider the question of whether we should have public schools in the first place.

That's how I feel this issue of gay adoption is reasoned. It's totally oblivious to a more important question at hand. No! Homosexuals should never adopt children because God doesn't give them the right to be in a marital union, to begin with.

Case dismissed.

nickcoons
12-02-2008, 10:44 PM
Homosexuals should never adopt children because God doesn't give them the right to be in a marital union, to begin with.

Before requiring that we are bound to follow the rules of your god, you first have the burden of proving that he exists. Without existing, he can't make rules for us to follow. Your case is far from dismissed.

rational thinker
12-03-2008, 01:48 AM
SeanEdwards, you are a special case. I know based on your history on this forum that you are a militant atheist and so you probably don't have any religious bias, and yet you are anti gay adoption, anti gay marriage, and anti abortion. I find that kind of odd.

SeanEdwards
12-03-2008, 02:07 AM
SeanEdwards, you are a special case. I know based on your history on this forum that you are a militant atheist and so you probably don't have any religious bias, and yet you are anti gay adoption, anti gay marriage, and anti abortion. I find that kind of odd.

:D



Sean, I have seen your argument destroyed time after time by arguments that mirror my above post, and you NEVER respond to them after they are made. You always seem to disappear after the point above is made in almost every thread I've seen on this topic. I'd like to see you respond to the argument I outlined above, because it makes your argument completely and logically irrelevant. Every time I see it I think you're going to stop posting your ridiculous and irrelevent argument, and then next thing I know it comes up again. So I'm going to PM this URL to you so you won't miss it this time.


I'd rather see orphans placed in an institutional setting with both men and women acting as caregivers than have them be forced to experience a childhood in an unnatural setting that deprives them of both male and female role models. And ideally those role models should be married so that children can be exposed to normality for at least a little while.

Gay parents are a mistake. They occur because a gay person was confused and had children before realizing they were gay, or they occur when selfish gay people decide that it's their right to be a parent, and they don't care that the kid needs both a mother and father.

coyote_sprit
12-03-2008, 04:44 AM
Has anyone stopped to consider whether gay couples should exist in the first place? Once you answer that correctly, then the question of whether gay adoptions should be legal goes away.

Liberals are good at getting us to answer the wrong questions. For instance, they sometimes ask, "Should creation be taught in the public schools?" Never do they consider the question of whether we should have public schools in the first place.

That's how I feel this issue of gay adoption is reasoned. It's totally oblivious to a more important question at hand. No! Homosexuals should never adopt children because God doesn't give them the right to be in a marital union, to begin with.

Case dismissed.
Can I secede from your god?

Theocrat
12-03-2008, 08:58 AM
Before requiring that we are bound to follow the rules of your god, you first have the burden of proving that he exists. Without existing, he can't make rules for us to follow. Your case is far from dismissed.

The proof for the existence of God is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything in an absolute, certain, and satisfying fashion, for God is the precondition of intelligibility about anything in our universe (since He created it).


SeanEdwards, you are a special case. I know based on your history on this forum that you are a militant atheist and so you probably don't have any religious bias, and yet you are anti gay adoption, anti gay marriage, and anti abortion. I find that kind of odd.

Are you implying that "atheists" are usually predisposed towards homosexual and baby-killing tendencies? I find that interesting.


Can I secede from your god?

No. It is impossible for anyone to remove himself from the presence of the sovereign, omnipresent God. You'll just have to learn what He requires of mankind in this life by figuring out what His purpose is for you.

heavenlyboy34
12-03-2008, 09:17 AM
The proof for the existence of God is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything in an absolute, certain, and satisfying fashion, for God is the precondition of intelligibility about anything in our universe (since He created it).



Are you implying that "atheists" are usually predisposed towards homosexual and baby-killing tendencies? I find that interesting.



No. It is impossible for anyone to remove himself from the presence of the sovereign, omnipresent God. You'll just have to learn what He requires of mankind in this life by figuring out what His purpose is for you.



I don't mean to be insulting Theo, but you haven't made a solid case. Just SAYING god exists is not sufficient evidence. This is one reason militant atheists gain ground-theists make these kind of weak arguments all the time, to no avail (in the arena of ideas).

sailor
12-03-2008, 09:18 AM
I am against gay adoption. I am for lesbian adoption.

Seriously, giving a child to two guys, that is just fucked up. Two women, thats better. And no, I do not care if it is against gender equality or whatever.


Albeit ideally all orphanages would be private so it would be the private decision of the orphanage what constitutes a suitable parent and not a decision of the general public.

yongrel
12-03-2008, 09:19 AM
If the argument is that it should be illegal for a child to be raised by anything other than a man and a woman, shouldn't we be outlawing single parents too?

I mean, if you only oppose gay adoption because you think a child needs a "natural" home environment, shouldn't we be putting the children of single mothers in foster care too?

Gay men and women are just as capable of providing a loving, nurturing, and stable home life as heterosexuals. Perhaps moreso even, since when a gay couple choose to adopt, they do so because they can afford to do so and they want to do so. No accidents and unready parents. Mature, responsible, and secure adults that want to raise children.

Minlawc
12-03-2008, 10:48 AM
I am against gay adoption. I am for lesbian adoption.

Seriously, giving a child to two guys, that is just fucked up. Two women, thats better. And no, I do not care if it is against gender equality or whatever. .

That's actually kinda my view, surprisingly.

Two guys raising a child is kind of creepy...



Albeit ideally all orphanages would be private so it would be the private decision of the orphanage what constitutes a suitable parent and not a decision of the general public.


Agreed.

Freedom 4 all
12-03-2008, 11:19 AM
Are you implying that "atheists" are usually predisposed towards homosexual and baby-killing tendencies? I find that interesting.
.

I'm pretty sure I have never met an atheist, agnostic, Universalist, moderate Christian, or member of a non-Islamic other religion who is actually against the gays. It's only the fundamentalist wing really, everyone else where I come from at least is either for them or don't care. Baby killing(abortion) on the other hand is an entirely different story.

dannno
12-03-2008, 11:24 AM
Two guys raising a child is kind of creepy...
.

How is it "creepy"?? Ideal? Certainly not.. but creepy?? And how is it worse than being in a big state run foster home?

SeanEdwards
12-03-2008, 12:54 PM
I am against gay adoption. I am for lesbian adoption.

Seriously, giving a child to two guys, that is just fucked up. Two women, thats better. And no, I do not care if it is against gender equality or whatever.


Albeit ideally all orphanages would be private so it would be the private decision of the orphanage what constitutes a suitable parent and not a decision of the general public.

I feel sorry for the boys being raised by lesbian mothers. They get deprived of a relationship with a father, and their home life demonstrates that there is no role for them as a parent.

And a daughter raised by lesbians doesn't get to learn that a man can be a beneficial partner in a childrearing environment.

These are broken homes. We should not elevate them to equal status with normal homes, no matter how nice or wealthy or caring the gay parents may be. All of that is irrelevant. Society should not be promoting the idea that more gay people should try their hand at parenting.

SeanEdwards
12-03-2008, 01:09 PM
If the argument is that it should be illegal for a child to be raised by anything other than a man and a woman, shouldn't we be outlawing single parents too?



That used to be the case. Not that it was illegal, but it was socially unacceptable. Unmarried mothers were typically forced by social stigma to place their children up for adoption. This was often done secretly to try and preserve the reputation of the unmarried mother.



I mean, if you only oppose gay adoption because you think a child needs a "natural" home environment, shouldn't we be putting the children of single mothers in foster care too?


It may seem extreme to pressure young women into putting their children up for adoption, but isn't it possible that the pendulum has swung to far the other way, with society making it acceptable and even normal for women to have children on their own? Now organizations like the APA publish papers that assert that men are detrimental to families, and the numbers of children being raised in broken homes has skyrocketed since the 1970s. And if that wasn't enough damage here comes a new wave of selfish gay people demanding their right to fuck up yet another generation of children. The end result of all this "progress" is that we've created a massive explosion of permanent bachelors who will never experience being a parent.

sailor
12-03-2008, 04:20 PM
How is it "creepy"?? Ideal? Certainly not.. but creepy?? And how is it worse than being in a big state run foster home?

I`m glad you agree even a single mother is better than "2 fathers".




It may seem extreme to pressure young women into putting their children up for adoption...

Don`t be silly. So now just because the father split she must give the child up to an orphanage? :eek:

SeanEdwards
12-03-2008, 05:10 PM
Don`t be silly. So now just because the father split she must give the child up to an orphanage? :eek:

I know, what was I thinking? Of course 50%+ of children are better off growing up in broken homes with Uncle Sam as their daddy. That's progress!

The One
12-03-2008, 05:20 PM
......

dannno
12-03-2008, 05:33 PM
These are broken homes. We should not elevate them to equal status with normal homes, no matter how nice or wealthy or caring the gay parents may be. All of that is irrelevant. Society should not be promoting the idea that more gay people should try their hand at parenting.

But isn't a loving gay parent household better than a big state run foster care center??

I don't know why you keep dodging the real issue here. I've even PM'd you about it, and nothing. You won't deal with the issue here. Nobody is saying we should take kids out of "normal" mother/father homes and give them to homosexual couples. Nobody. So why do you continue to make an argument for a case nobody is presenting? If that was the argument, then you would win. But you are losing because you are arguing the wrong point.

Goldhunter27
12-03-2008, 05:56 PM
I'm a little shocked that this argument is going on these forums.

So many claims, so little evidence.

Someone want to post some statistics or facts?

If so, please make sure that they're from an unbiased organization.

sailor
12-03-2008, 06:49 PM
I know, what was I thinking? Of course 50%+ of children are better off growing up in broken homes with Uncle Sam as their daddy. That's progress!

Who gives a screw? She gave birth to him, she owns the little bugger. So buzz off cuz its none of your buisiness.

Stop sticking noses into people`s lives.

heavenlyboy34
12-03-2008, 06:59 PM
Who gives a screw? She gave birth to him, she owns the little bugger. So buzz off cuz its none of your buisiness.

Stop sticking noses into people`s lives.

But she technically only contributed half of the necessary DNA material. ;)

literatim
12-03-2008, 07:07 PM
If the argument is that it should be illegal for a child to be raised by anything other than a man and a woman, shouldn't we be outlawing single parents too?

No one is arguing that it should be illegal for a child to be raised by anyone other than a man and a woman, but that it should be illegal to knowingly not place a child in a normal husband-wife family. That includes single people, not just gays.


I mean, if you only oppose gay adoption because you think a child needs a "natural" home environment, shouldn't we be putting the children of single mothers in foster care too?

No. A child has the sovereign protection given to him/her by their biological parents. Children up for adoption do not have that and are instead protected by the state.


Gay men and women are just as capable of providing a loving, nurturing, and stable home life as heterosexuals. Perhaps moreso even, since when a gay couple choose to adopt, they do so because they can afford to do so and they want to do so. No accidents and unready parents. Mature, responsible, and secure adults that want to raise children.

No they aren't. Women and men are biologically and mentally different. They treat the child differently and both men and women give off different hormones which are vital in proper biological and mental development.

clemensol
12-04-2008, 10:37 AM
It really amazes me how many so called defenders of liberty want to use government to enforce their moral beliefs on others.

clemensol
12-04-2008, 10:38 AM
Your parents are right. The homosexual agenda is everywhere destroying and shutting down all opposition from opposing viewpoints. The group, NARTH, has shattered much of the idiotic homoerotic claims based on spurious science. Why isn't NARTH taken seriously? For the same reason Ron Paul isn't by the public. The powers that be want to push immorality to further government control.

Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

lol, if you don't know why narth isn't taken seriously, you have some serious issues.

Krugerrand
12-04-2008, 11:15 AM
It really amazes me how many so called defenders of liberty want to use government to enforce their moral beliefs on others.

We're talking about kids here. That complicates the arguments of liberty, since children lack the ability to find for themselves.

Some here are arguing that it's better for children to have gay parents. Some are arguing that it is not better for the children. It is fair to have government establish standards that protect children.

Children and liberty is especially challenging. Can I raise my children anyway that I want? The sects that tried to force underage girls into marriages just learned the answer is no. I don't want to change the direction of the thread; I simply want to support that it is a legitimate discussion in the context of liberty.

M House
12-04-2008, 11:25 AM
Is it better for the kid to have an adopted but gay family or no family at all?

dannno
12-04-2008, 11:42 AM
Some here are arguing that it's better for children to have gay parents.

Better than what?! Please be specific.

This thread is retarded. We have 5 people like SeanEdwards arguing that heterosexual couples are better fit to raise children than gay couples, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue. The fact is that there are more kids available for adoption than heterosexual couples who wish to adopt. So kids can either be in a state run foster care with NO parents, or they can have a loving family. Those who honestly wish to deprive a child from having a family should really re-think their stance.

Melissa
12-04-2008, 11:50 AM
Better than what?! Please be specific.

This thread is retarded. We have 5 people like SeanEdwards arguing that heterosexual couples are better fit to raise children than gay couples, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue. The fact is that there are more kids available for adoption than heterosexual couples who wish to adopt. So kids can either be in a state run foster care with NO parents, or they can have a loving family. Those who honestly wish to deprive a child from having a family should really re-think their stance.

and hopefully all of those that are against gay adoption on this board when there are not enough heterosexual couples making adoptions have adopted children themselves.

literatim
12-04-2008, 12:07 PM
Better than what?! Please be specific.

This thread is retarded. We have 5 people like SeanEdwards arguing that heterosexual couples are better fit to raise children than gay couples, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue. The fact is that there are more kids available for adoption than heterosexual couples who wish to adopt. So kids can either be in a state run foster care with NO parents, or they can have a loving family. Those who honestly wish to deprive a child from having a family should really re-think their stance.

Anyone who says there are more children than couples willing to adopt them don't have any clue. I knew a family trying to adopt and they had to wait on a list for years because of the lack of children up for adoption. There is a reason that families adopt children from outside the country despite its extra cost.

Melissa
12-04-2008, 12:13 PM
Anyone who says there are more children than couples willing to adopt them don't have any clue. I knew a family trying to adopt and they had to wait on a list for years because of the lack of children up for adoption. There is a reason that families adopt children from outside the country despite its extra cost.

You are talking about new babies, I have worked with children in Foster care, tons have no hope of adoption, and would take any kind of parent, so that is false to say that there are more adoptive parents then kids, if that was the case no kids would be in foster homes waiting

SeanEdwards
12-04-2008, 12:14 PM
Better than what?! Please be specific.

This thread is retarded. We have 5 people like SeanEdwards arguing that heterosexual couples are better fit to raise children than gay couples, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue. The fact is that there are more kids available for adoption than heterosexual couples who wish to adopt. So kids can either be in a state run foster care with NO parents, or they can have a loving family. Those who honestly wish to deprive a child from having a family should really re-think their stance.

The kids would be better off in foster care as long as there are reproductively normal caregivers to act as role models.

I don't think gay people are harmful to children, and I have no problem with gay people being part of a child's life, but they should be like aunts and uncles and not surrogate mommies and daddies. Children deserve a chance to bond with reproductively compatible role-models early in life, that's just how it is.

dannno
12-04-2008, 12:19 PM
The kids would be better off in foster care as long as there are reproductively normal caregivers to act as role models.



No, I'm talking about a foster care center.. NO family vs. A family. You are still trying to deprive kids of having a family.

TinyMachines
12-04-2008, 12:24 PM
Anyone who says there are more children than couples willing to adopt them don't have any clue. I knew a family trying to adopt and they had to wait on a list for years because of the lack of children up for adoption. There is a reason that families adopt children from outside the country despite its extra cost.

Just because they have to WAIT doesn't mean that there aren't children up for adoption at the time. What it means is that the government system of adopting children is so tedious (with many inept case workers) that it takes a long time to adopt a child.
My dad ran a home for women who were pregnant but not married during my entire childhood. I lived in that home with my family and we lived along with lots of women struggling with the decision to give up their children or not. My dad wouldn't take them into the home unless they committed to adoption. But of course if they see the baby and want to keep it, it's their choice. About 35% did.
Anyway, there were lots of babies up for adoption. It just takes a long time to get the system worked out. It's due to our inefficient government.

There are definitely more children up for adoption than couples who qualify to adopt them under our current arbitrary standards. It's one of the very sad things about our government. It always seems to hurt people more than people could manage on their own.

TinyMachines
12-04-2008, 12:31 PM
The proof for the existence of God is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything in an absolute, certain, and satisfying fashion, for God is the precondition of intelligibility about anything in our universe (since He created it).

You can give anything a supernatural status and satisfy all of the questions humans are not yet able to answer. That is a ridiculous argument. Give, oh let's say...a book unquestioning faith and we can prove things certainly, because we can use the book as a reference. Sound familiar? Please, let's argue theology more. I grew up around theologians, so if that is your attempt at it, I'd say study a bit more.

Freedom 4 all
12-04-2008, 12:46 PM
You can give anything a supernatural status and satisfy all of the questions humans are not yet able to answer. That is a ridiculous argument. Give, oh let's say...a book unquestioning faith and we can prove things certainly, because we can use the book as a reference. Sound familiar? Please, let's argue theology more. I grew up around theologians, so if that is your attempt at it, I'd say study a bit more.

I know where he's going with this, the argument actually goes back to Descartes. He didn't explain it very clearly and it in no way implies biblical literalism or any religion as the "right" one but I'll put it up if anyone's interested.

TinyMachines
12-04-2008, 01:02 PM
go for it

clemensol
12-04-2008, 01:42 PM
We're talking about kids here. That complicates the arguments of liberty, since children lack the ability to find for themselves.

Some here are arguing that it's better for children to have gay parents. Some are arguing that it is not better for the children. It is fair to have government establish standards that protect children.

Children and liberty is especially challenging. Can I raise my children anyway that I want? The sects that tried to force underage girls into marriages just learned the answer is no. I don't want to change the direction of the thread; I simply want to support that it is a legitimate discussion in the context of liberty.

The problem is that the argument that children are better off in a foster home than with a loving gay couple is not grounded in any sort of fact, it is based off of personal bias.

If the biological parent of the child doesn't want the child to be adopted by a gay couple then they are welcome to give the child to an adoption agency that does not offer gay adoptions.

Either way, until you can prove some sort of negative side effect associated with gay adoption, its neither your nor the government's business.

Freedom 4 all
12-04-2008, 04:37 PM
go for it

Alright, here goes, short version as I'm in exam crunch time. Descartes wanted a way to know things with absolute certainty and employed a method of hyperbolic doubt (Doubt any idea that could even potentially be false). He realized that he could not even prove 2 + 2 is 4 because there could be an evil demon tricking him, and if there was such a demon existed there would be no way he could know that. However, he came to the conclusion that he MUST exist because he is thinking, and thus he must be a thing that thinks. A thing that thinks is not nothing, hence he exists. Next he realized that he had innate knowledge about God, a perfect being. Seeing as no such perfect thing exists on earth, the idea must have come from God himself, hence God exists.
Descartes based his rationalle of accepting uncontroversial ideas like math as absolutely true based on the idea that God exists, is Himself no deceiver and would not allow there to be a deceiver. If you fail to accept these premises, Descartes states that nothing can be known for certain.

Theocrat
12-04-2008, 05:21 PM
Alright, here goes, short version as I'm in exam crunch time. Descartes wanted a way to know things with absolute certainty and employed a method of hyperbolic doubt (Doubt any idea that could even potentially be false). He realized that he could not even prove 2 + 2 is 4 because there could be an evil demon tricking him, and if there was such a demon existed there would be no way he could know that. However, he came to the conclusion that he MUST exist because he is thinking, and thus he must be a thing that thinks. A thing that thinks is not nothing, hence he exists. Next he realized that he had innate knowledge about God, a perfect being. Seeing as no such perfect thing exists on earth, the idea must have come from God himself, hence God exists.
Descartes based his rationalle of accepting uncontroversial ideas like math as absolutely true based on the idea that God exists, is Himself no deceiver and would not allow there to be a deceiver. If you fail to accept these premises, Descartes states that nothing can be known for certain.

That's not my argument at all. I was simply saying that without beginning with God's thoughts and purposes for His own creation (based on the Bible) as the starting point to make sense of anything in the world, one cannot understand anything in the universe without being illogical, irrational, and immoral. It is also impossible for finite man to prove anything without starting with the belief that an almighty and sovereign God exists first.

All thoughts about reality, morality, truth, beauty, and logic, absent from acknowledging God become relative, at best, and damnable, at worst, because it leaves each man to decide what reality, morality, truth, beauty, and logical for himself. Thus, there is no absolute standard to judge which one is true and right. Man cannot account for inductive principles without God, nor can they account for deductive judgments without Him.

Without God, it can both be the case that gay adoption is right and not the case that gay adoption is right. Thus, people can contradict one another, and no one is the wiser for doing it (since there is not an agreed objective standard to judge by). It just becomes "My opinion is better than yours because of A, B, and C" over against "My opinion is better because of X, Y, and Z." That is basically what the discussion in these thread has become because men have forgotten that God ultimately determines whether it gay adoption is morally right or wrong. Talk about missing the point.

SeanEdwards
12-04-2008, 06:42 PM
No, I'm talking about a foster care center.. NO family vs. A family. You are still trying to deprive kids of having a family.

Why can't married couples be hired to run the foster center?

And you are still trying to deprive children of gender appropriate role models because you have some politically correct notion that gay people are nice and therefore deserve children.

TinyMachines
12-04-2008, 08:47 PM
That's not my argument at all. I was simply saying that without beginning with God's thoughts and purposes for His own creation (based on the Bible) as the starting point to make sense of anything in the world, one cannot understand anything in the universe without being illogical, irrational, and immoral. It is also impossible for finite man to prove anything without starting with the belief that an almighty and sovereign God exists first.

All thoughts about reality, morality, truth, beauty, and logic, absent from acknowledging God become relative, at best, and damnable, at worst, because it leaves each man to decide what reality, morality, truth, beauty, and logical for himself. Thus, there is no absolute standard to judge which one is true and right. Man cannot account for inductive principles without God, nor can they account for deductive judgments without Him.

Without God, it can both be the case that gay adoption is right and not the case that gay adoption is right. Thus, people can contradict one another, and no one is the wiser for doing it (since there is not an agreed objective standard to judge by). It just becomes "My opinion is better than yours because of A, B, and C" over against "My opinion is better because of X, Y, and Z." That is basically what the discussion in these thread has become because men have forgotten that God ultimately determines whether it gay adoption is morally right or wrong. Talk about missing the point.
So what you're saying is that man cannot determine principles of right and wrong without the knowledge of what "God" says is right and wrong? Where are you getting these crazy notions. I have never even heard someone argue something so off the wall. I know for certain many things. This is not based on "God." It's based on things that I find obvious in nature. If you want to argue that "nature is God's realization so it is because of God that I gained this certainty" then there is no way to even talk to you because there is no way to prove either way. YOU can't prove anything with certainty either. That's why it's called faith. If you're going to try to say that it's not faith, and that you're 100% certain, then you are denying the very religion you claim to follow.

Theocrat
12-04-2008, 09:46 PM
So what you're saying is that man cannot determine principles of right and wrong without the knowledge of what "God" says is right and wrong? Where are you getting these crazy notions. I have never even heard someone argue something so off the wall. I know for certain many things. This is not based on "God." It's based on things that I find obvious in nature. If you want to argue that "nature is God's realization so it is because of God that I gained this certainty" then there is no way to even talk to you because there is no way to prove either way. YOU can't prove anything with certainty either. That's why it's called faith. If you're going to try to say that it's not faith, and that you're 100% certain, then you are denying the very religion you claim to follow.

You're correct. I am saying that man cannot determine what right and wrong are without God's standard of what right and wrong is. God created us with consciences to know right from wrong, but even that alone is not sufficient enough. We must also live by that standard of right and wrong as God sees fit, but herein lies the dilemma. By God's requirements, we have to keep his moral law perfectly, which none of us can do. If we do just one wrong deed (sin), we are condemned before God and make ourselves worthy of eternal punishment because God takes sin that seriously. Every human who has ever lived faces that terrible reality, whether he or she believes it or not. That is the reason why man needs a Savior to deliver him from the penalty of death, or else he will have to suffer that penalty upon himself when he dies (a consequent of sin). God's gift of salvation is then available to all those who trust in the sacrifice of His own Son Jesus Who took that penalty upon Himself freely by dying on a cross for sinners that did not deserve to be delivered from the penalty or debt they owed to God. That was God's biggest expression of love He ever bestowed upon the human race. Through accepting this gift, men can have access to their Creator in a deeper and intimate way which is as real as the words I'm typing out right now.

I've said all that to say this: unless man is reconciled to God through the atoning work of Jesus Christ and the regenrative power of the Holy Spirit (whereby we have a new soul which actually yearns to love and know God), we will never understand the real definition of what morality, reality, logic, truth, beauty, etc. are because we will only view these concepts through sinful eyes that reduce them in limited and relative ways. Yet, even in this state, ungodly men can still know what's right and wrong on a basic level, all the while denying their Maker Who placed such knowledge within them in the first place. The Bible calls this act "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." It's essentially not giving credit to God for establishing a moral law which actually protects humans from hurting one another.

The fact that you reason, understand logic, utilize science, make moral judgments, and try to prove things as true only testifies that in your "heart of hearts," you acknowledge God in some capacity, for you assume things and live in such a way which one would expect if there was a transcendent God controlling and fashioning the universe in a consistent way. Yet, you deny the foundation (God) of those beliefs in your conscience. When it comes to making moral decisions about whether gay adoption is right or who has the authority to legalize it, the answer is not found in man's arbitrary reason or stunted understanding of what's moral. The answer can only be found in the Person Who created humans in the first place.

Looking to nature only gives us evidence that there is a God out there, so that we are without an excuse for not knowing God exists. However, it doesn't reveal anything personal about Him, like His purpose for our lives, how He interacts with His creation, etc. You've made the claim that I can't prove anything with certainty, but how can you yourself even be certain about that? The only way you make a statement like that and it be true is that you must have absolute knowledge (or access to it) about the universe itself. God has provided us with that information, and He provides it in His word. I encourage you to read it sometime and find out for yourself what we can expect from God and how to approach His universe with the expectation of its uniformity.

On one final note, let me just address your claim that faith has no certainty attached to it. Your assertion is a classic misunderstanding of what faith is, from a Biblical standpoint. The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Nowhere does God command His creatures to just believe things without any reason for it. In fact, God gave numerous miraculous signs to show His people that He was in fact God, and through these miracles, many people believed. God gave feasts, covenant signs, deliverance from enemies, prophets, and a host of other divine indicators to manifest His existence to His people so that they could know He is God by believing in Him. Read how God's people pour over knowledge and wisdom in the Psalms and Proverbs. Faith is never without evidence, so you need to abandon that humnaistic understanding of "faith." No Christian believes in God just because they want to, and it's an insult to even suggest so.

What I want to know is on what side of the gay adoption issue do you stand. How do you know that your stance is the true and right one, and by what standard do you judge it to be so? Is it just your opinion, or is it something more objective that everyone is obligated to live by?

TinyMachines
12-04-2008, 11:23 PM
Theocrat, I won't quote because I know people hate scrolling through long quotes.

I didn't say there was no evidence base in faith. I only said that there wasn't certainty. I understand this because I believed in Christianity for the first twenty years of my life. And unlike most of the people around me, I studied it vigorously because in the last two years things didn't seem to add up so well anymore. Especially when I started reading into the origins of many religions. I also had some major problems with the way many people who claimed to be Christians lived their lives since it seemed to be so contradictory to the Bible. In reading about many different religions I realized that there was one central common theme in every text. The Bible puts it as, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." This makes sense to everyone. The theory that my brothers and I had for a while was that God created the world with that idea in mind, and then he created different religions in different regions to fit the social customs, yet still keeping the same central idea.
However, over the past few years I have come to think that it is basically inherent in most humans that you want to treat other people kindly because you would like them in return to treat you kindly. The religion part just came from a rationalization of an unexplainable world, in which people tied in their core beliefs.

"Your assertion is a classic misunderstanding of what faith is, from a Biblical standpoint. The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)."
Exactly. Faith is not certain, but only believed through evidence. Evidence doesn't mean certainty, it only leads you to make conclusions.

I said, "If you want to argue that "nature is God's realization so it is because of God that I gained this certainty" then there is no way to even talk to you because there is no way to prove either way."
However, there are a few things not pertaining to the argument that I obviously found room to talk about.

You want to know my stance?
I believe that anyone who wants to have a child, and can convince the child's parent(s) that they would be a good guardian for the child should be allowed to take care of the child whether the person be gay, single, or divorced several times. Most children only perceive their parents as role models in the very early years of their life, long before they go into the pubescent stage. I don't think that having a gay parent will affect the child's sex life significantly even if one believes that homosexuality is immoral. The government should definitely NOT be telling us how to run our families. "The American Dream" is a scary...A man, his wife, and two and half kids and a two car garage. It is terribly based on consumerism and social identity (collectivism) instead of individualism and goodwill towards others.

RonPaulMania
12-05-2008, 09:07 AM
Tiny,

I come from a classical educated background on Christianity. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and not seen. That does not mean it's not a certainty. I've never seen society yet I have a certainty it exists through the means of mental abstraction, the same applies for all concepts: liberty, happiness, humanity, etc.. No one has seen "justice", nor happiness, nor humanity. We see physical actions of their face, their color, their physical gender, but we bulk them under concepts (ideas) based on perception (what we physically sense).

Faith in the human way, like faith in the dollar vs. real value, is not applicable to what faith is. Faith is a gift by God of things not seen, but it has greater certitude than any other knowledge because it is God who reveals. When I say that Jesus Christ is God I say that with more authority than 2+2=4. All truth has 3 major categories of metaphysical, that which "is" and is true because it exists; then comes epistemological which are those truths because we know them and our mind conforms to metaphysical truth; and lastly moral truth when we say the truth we know or lie about it. Just as we cannot think of a color which we have never seen, everything comes from reality whether that reality is physical and senses, or metaphysical and judged.

Faith and reason cannot contradict each other. Faith can be above reason, but contradictory to it. Before you cite what you think is a contradiction please refer to the meaning of it. Therefore my faith is certain and is not contradictory because nothing I believe is contradictory to natural truth, and God, the author of all truth, which can be logically deduced through reason but I don't have the time for it, is the source of my faith and the source of all metaphysical truth.

Krugerrand
12-05-2008, 10:38 AM
I was simply saying that without beginning with God's thoughts and purposes for His own creation (based on the Bible) as the starting point to make sense of anything in the world, one cannot understand anything in the universe without being illogical, irrational, and immoral.

I disagree. I've encountered individuals/actions that classify as moral-atheist and immoral-Christian.

Descartes made a better case. He thinks. Therefore he is.

pcosmar
12-05-2008, 10:55 AM
The Fact is,
Most gays were born to and raised by Heterosexuals.

I know Gay patents that have raised straight children.

I guess my real world experience is the cause of my WTF attitude to this whole question.

Krugerrand
12-05-2008, 10:56 AM
You want to know my stance? I believe that anyone who wants to have a child, and can convince the child's parent(s) that they would be a good guardian for the child should be allowed to take care of the child whether the person be gay, single, or divorced several times.

What about over age 65? somebody who is 21? 18? What about the mentally handicapped? paralyzed from the neck down? in bankruptcy? What about somebody who already has 18 kids?

I agree that the government should not be telling us how to run our lives. Still, the government must protect children. All of the categories I listed above exist with children. Do I advocate taking their children away from them, no. In many cases, they make better parents than some more 'typical' parents.

I think it is complicated and there is no "right" to adoption by anybody.

Theocrat
12-05-2008, 11:58 AM
Alright, here goes, short version as I'm in exam crunch time. Descartes wanted a way to know things with absolute certainty and employed a method of hyperbolic doubt (Doubt any idea that could even potentially be false). He realized that he could not even prove 2 + 2 is 4 because there could be an evil demon tricking him, and if there was such a demon existed there would be no way he could know that. However, he came to the conclusion that he MUST exist because he is thinking, and thus he must be a thing that thinks. A thing that thinks is not nothing, hence he exists. Next he realized that he had innate knowledge about God, a perfect being. Seeing as no such perfect thing exists on earth, the idea must have come from God himself, hence God exists.
Descartes based his rationalle of accepting uncontroversial ideas like math as absolutely true based on the idea that God exists, is Himself no deceiver and would not allow there to be a deceiver. If you fail to accept these premises, Descartes states that nothing can be known for certain.


I disagree. I've encountered individuals/actions that classify as moral-atheist and immoral-Christian.

Descartes made a better case. He thinks. Therefore he is.

The problem with Descartes' solution to understanding what is real is that he himself begs the question in his very argument. How does he do that? Well, going back to his analysis, he asserts, "I doubt, therefore, I must exist to do the doubting." The flaw in his reasoning is his use of the personal indicator "I." "I" already presupposes personal identity and existence, but that is the thing he is supposed to be proving in the first place! Instead of saying "I doubt, therefore I must exist first to do the doubting," Descartes should have simply stated in the third person "Doubting is occurring." Yet, he assumes his own existence to prove his own existence, and his argument is inevitably one of a circular nature.

Theocrat
12-05-2008, 12:10 PM
The Fact is,
Most gays were born to and raised by Heterosexuals.

I know Gay patents that have raised straight children.

I guess my real world experience is the cause of my WTF attitude to this whole question.

A gay person's whole existence is based upon the union of a man and a woman. Yet, their whole lifestyle is a living contradiction of the biological process by which they have come to be in the first place. It gets even worse when gay men start acting like women, the very beings they claim to not be attracted to. The same applies to gay women acting as men. Homosexuality is total hypocrisy by its adherents.

Some on this thread are seeming to make an argument that gays have a right to adopt children, but you see, that just takes us back to what our rights are, and who ultimately grants them to us. Since rights cannot be mere natural things because they are not made of natural matter, and since rights cannot originate from impersonal nature itself, the only conclusion, then, is that rights come from God. However, God does not give anyone the right to be gay nor to enter into a gay marital relationship (because this would be a perversion of God's intended covenant between a man and a woman).

Therefore, from this we should realize that gay adoption is not a right at all, so the government should not have anything to do with it insofar as trying to protect it as a civil right for homosexuals.

acptulsa
12-05-2008, 12:14 PM
Interesting they start by talking about Arkansas. That is one of the worst states in terms of stealing children who are neither neglected nor abused from their families. The impetus to do this, of course, is federal funds. The more children they rip from the loving arms of their natural parents, the more federal funds they get.

They get some pretty hefty fees from placing them, too. Seems to me to be just another case of if you have the money, you're right.

Natalie
12-05-2008, 12:43 PM
It gets even worse when gay men start acting like women, the very beings they claim to not be attracted to.

You know what's even weirder? When men have sex changes to become lesbians :eek: I read about some guy doing that! I just don't understand :confused:

Natalie
12-05-2008, 12:46 PM
You know what's even weirder? When men have sex changes to become lesbians :eek: I read about some guy doing that! I just don't understand :confused:

Like this guy:

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_110608_news_transgender_mayor.18a1f2fa7.html

Dresses like a woman, but doesn't consider himself gay. Does he think he is a lesbian trapped in a man's body? Ha!

heavenlyboy34
12-05-2008, 12:49 PM
Like this guy:

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_110608_news_transgender_mayor.18a1f2fa7.html

Dresses like a woman, but doesn't consider himself gay. Does he think he is a lesbian trapped in a man's body? Ha!

He's not a very convincing impression of a woman. :p:eek:

TinyMachines
12-05-2008, 01:08 PM
God does not give anyone the right to be gay nor to enter into a gay marital relationship (because this would be a perversion of God's intended covenant between a man and a woman).

If I'm not mistaken, the Bible says that God gave humans free will. Also, God no longer has a reign of "Christian" kings to depend on to bloodily enforce his moral code. If you claim that America is that land, then you are kidding yourself. People moved here for freedom from prejudices like this.


Therefore, from this we should realize that gay adoption is not a right at all, so the government should not have anything to do with it insofar as trying to protect it as a civil right for homosexuals.
So what you're saying is that you want no separation of church and state since you want government to ignore rights based on religious prejudice?

"I'm signing these executive orders for me. Don't worry, the next president won't use them I'm sure."

TinyMachines
12-05-2008, 01:12 PM
What about over age 65? somebody who is 21? 18? What about the mentally handicapped? paralyzed from the neck down? in bankruptcy? What about somebody who already has 18 kids?

I agree that the government should not be telling us how to run our lives. Still, the government must protect children. All of the categories I listed above exist with children. Do I advocate taking their children away from them, no. In many cases, they make better parents than some more 'typical' parents.

I think it is complicated and there is no "right" to adoption by anybody.
The government must protect the children from what? The government should be letting people choose the guardian for their children. If people find someone fit to raise their child in one of those categories, so be it. Obviously, kids having children (girls under 18) can't decide these matters and their guardian is there to help, so it's not like we have completely unexperienced people making the decision.
I have much more faith in the parent than the case worker to decide.

nickcoons
12-05-2008, 08:31 PM
The proof for the existence of God is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything in an absolute, certain, and satisfying fashion, for God is the precondition of intelligibility about anything in our universe (since He created it).

You're simply making a baseless claim (god must exist in order to prove anything) in order to support another baseless claim (god exists). If god must exist because without him the universe could not have been created, then it begs the question, "Who created god?" At best, the existence of god is simply a link in the chain of creation, and not the beginning of it.

heavenlyboy34
12-05-2008, 08:42 PM
you're simply making a baseless claim (god must exist in order to prove anything) in order to support another baseless claim (god exists). If god must exist because without him the universe could not have been created, then it begs the question, "who created god?" at best, the existence of god is simply a link in the chain of creation, and not the beginning of it.

qft

nickcoons
12-05-2008, 08:46 PM
A thing that thinks is not nothing, hence he exists.

I'm with you up to this point.


Next he realized that he had innate knowledge about God, a perfect being. Seeing as no such perfect thing exists on earth, the idea must have come from God himself, hence God exists.

But this is where the argument takes a wrong turn. How did he determine that the knowledge was innate? Unless he was sensory deprivated his entire life until he came up with this theory, there'd be no way to know that (and even then...).

nickcoons
12-05-2008, 08:51 PM
I was simply saying that without beginning with God's thoughts and purposes for His own creation (based on the Bible) as the starting point to make sense of anything in the world, one cannot understand anything in the universe without being illogical, irrational, and immoral. It is also impossible for finite man to prove anything without starting with the belief that an almighty and sovereign God exists first.

All you're saying is that a base point needs to be assumed upon which everything else is built, and you've arbitrarily chosen god as that base point. One could just as easily choose perception or bananas as their starting point. I think bananas are delicious, but I'll stick with perception.

I can observe the universe and use that perception to make decisions about reality's existence. The fact that you've chosen god as a starting point does not alleviate you from the restrictions of your own perception.

nickcoons
12-05-2008, 09:02 PM
A gay person's whole existence is based upon the union of a man and a woman. Yet, their whole lifestyle is a living contradiction of the biological process by which they have come to be in the first place.

Is your whole lifestyle based on your sexual preference?

M House
12-05-2008, 09:12 PM
It's all about the nookie.

Theocrat
12-05-2008, 09:26 PM
You're simply making a baseless claim (god must exist in order to prove anything) in order to support another baseless claim (god exists). If god must exist because without him the universe could not have been created, then it begs the question, "Who created god?" At best, the existence of god is simply a link in the chain of creation, and not the beginning of it.

There is no question-begging in my argument. God is, by definition, the uncreated Creator of everything. He is eternal, without beginning nor end. That's why God is the precondition for making our universe intelligible.


All you're saying is that a base point needs to be assumed upon which everything else is built, and you've arbitrarily chosen god as that base point. One could just as easily choose perception or bananas as their starting point. I think bananas are delicious, but I'll stick with perception.

I can observe the universe and use that perception to make decisions about reality's existence. The fact that you've chosen god as a starting point does not alleviate you from the restrictions of your own perception.

God's existence is not based on mere human perception. He is real despite what man perceives Him to be. We all know our perceptions can be subjective, and they can even misguide us sometimes. I am not saying God exists because I perceive him in my own experiences. Rather, God is all-powerful and all-wise, and therefore, He initiates Himself towards mankind through revelation, creation, and conscience.

M House
12-05-2008, 09:29 PM
So um like what other things can this guy do, he needs to just publish his resume and he'd like convince alot more followers easily.

nickcoons
12-05-2008, 09:32 PM
There is no question-begging in my argument. God is, by definition, the uncreated Creator of everything. He is eternal, without beginning nor end. That's why God is the precondition for making our universe intelligible.

Then we at least agree that something has always existed, we just don't agree on what it is. The gap is that what you see as being the thing that always existed is somehow by necessity a sentient entity that created everything else. How are you determining that?


God's existence is not based on mere human perception. He is real despite what man perceives Him to be. We all know our perceptions can be subjective, and they can even misguide us sometimes. I am not saying God exists because I perceive him in my own experiences. Rather, God is all-powerful and all-wise, and therefore, He initiates Himself towards mankind through revelation, creation, and conscience.

I still see no basis for any of that.

Theocrat
12-05-2008, 09:49 PM
Then we at least agree that something has always existed, we just don't agree on what it is. The gap is that what you see as being the thing that always existed is somehow by necessity a sentient entity that created everything else. How are you determining that?

I determine it by the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19, 20)

Since God created the universe, He makes the rules and decides what's ultimately right and wrong, which includes whether gay couples can be together in marriage and adopt children.

nickcoons
12-05-2008, 10:00 PM
I determine it by the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

So you don't consider the very real possibility that the bible is just a bunch of meaningless stories thrown together into a book?

Theocrat
12-05-2008, 10:05 PM
So you don't consider the very real possibility that the bible is just a bunch of meaningless stories thrown together into a book?

I did consider that once, even as a Christian, but then I did some intensive studies on the subject and became convinced that the Bible is indeed God's word, divinely inspired and preserved as He meant it to be.

It makes sense to me that an all-powerful and all-wise God Who created all things and sustains all things in our universe can write His words in a book even through sinful men without there being an error in it. We can't impose human limitations upon God Who far surpasses anything that men can do. It would be illogical and, quite frankly, ignorant to assume otherwise.

heavenlyboy34
12-05-2008, 10:19 PM
I did consider that once, even as a Christian, but then I did some intensive studies on the subject and became convinced that the Bible is indeed God's word, divinely inspired and preserved as He meant it to be.

It makes sense to me that an all-powerful and all-wise God Who created all things and sustains all things in our universe can write His words in a book even through sinful men without there being an error in it. We can't impose human limitations upon God Who far surpasses anything that men can do. It would be illogical and, quite frankly, ignorant to assume otherwise.

But the books you cite as written by God were clearly written by men. I've never heard of a credible scholar on any side of this issue say that God literally wrote the scriptures (the 10 commandments notwithstanding). Who exactly get the credit for writing these things down varies from scholar to scholar.

Another thing-if God is real and omnipotent/omniscient as you claim, he would have guided his prophets (and the council of trent, the Nicean council, etc.) without error. Plus, a real God would have no reason to allow keepers of the faith to ban books from the canon (such as the gnostic gospels) or allow corrupt men to exploit his religion (see the Holy Roman Empire, etc.). Until you can resolve this flaw in your philosophy, your arguments will continue to contain gaps and be-in the practical sense-invalid.

heavenlyboy34
12-05-2008, 10:23 PM
So you don't consider the very real possibility that the bible is just a bunch of meaningless stories thrown together into a book?

btw-I don't think the stories are totally meaningless-they are allegorical, designed to teach "moral" lessons to jews and Christians. Sadly, these ideas were all corrupted by men almost immediately. (JMHO)

nickcoons
12-06-2008, 07:53 AM
I did consider that once, even as a Christian, but then I did some intensive studies on the subject and became convinced that the Bible is indeed God's word, divinely inspired and preserved as He meant it to be.

It makes sense to me that an all-powerful and all-wise God Who created all things and sustains all things in our universe can write His words in a book even through sinful men without there being an error in it. We can't impose human limitations upon God Who far surpasses anything that men can do. It would be illogical and, quite frankly, ignorant to assume otherwise.

If you have to presuppose that an all-powerful god exists as a basis for the bible being god's word, which is itself the reasoning behind claiming that god exists, then your argument becomes circular.

BTW, if god is all-powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that even he can't life it? Whether the answer is yes or no, it means he is not all-powerful.

nickcoons
12-06-2008, 07:54 AM
btw-I don't think the stories are totally meaningless-they are allegorical, designed to teach "moral" lessons to jews and Christians. Sadly, these ideas were all corrupted by men almost immediately. (JMHO)

I didn't mean to imply that I thought they were meaningless; was just asking the question.

RonPaulMania
12-07-2008, 01:50 PM
If you have to presuppose that an all-powerful god exists as a basis for the bible being god's word, which is itself the reasoning behind claiming that god exists, then your argument becomes circular.

BTW, if god is all-powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that even he can't life it? Whether the answer is yes or no, it means he is not all-powerful.

Nick, Theocrat is a fideist, and while I'm not, your arguments are silly, sophmoric, and your questions and propositions are illogical. Yes, you can know things without knowing of God, but you cannot understand things in their complexity properly without God. Take rights for example. Rights are those things which pre-suppose morality. Morality presupposes spiritual ideas, spiritual ideas presuppose stability, and all of these things lead to God as cause and principle. That's based theodicy, which is metaphysics applied to first cause, which is named God in most books of philosophy, although Aristotle and the like called him by the proper philosophical term as applied by cause to effect: First Mover, First Efficient and Final Cause, etc..

God is all powerful, but not all illogical. God can do all things which are possible. God cannot contradict Himself. God cannot do and not do something simultaneously as God does not imply motion to a terminus as "He is who is". God cannot make a rock that He cannot lift. God cannot make a circle square, or any other circular argument.

First you criticize the guy for a circular argument (which I agree with), and then you finish with a circular argument?

Many atheists on this board cannot argue logically, and while presenting themselves authorities on issues of ethics and right reason never studied either study judiciously. It's like an ignoramus on history or math arguing with a mathematician or historian. You should review all of philosophy before you continue thinking you have some knowledge or insights. You are a curse to yourself and the cause of freedom if you continue to promote illogical thought. I mean that objectively, not as a personal slam against you.

Freedom is the right to promote what makes us free, and that has to align with the truth.

BuddyRey
12-07-2008, 02:13 PM
Great article :cool:

My parents are completely brainwashed into opposing the "homosexual agenda". It doesn't matter to them who is right, it's just about fighting the "homosexual agenda".

The idea of a "homosexual agenda" has always seemed completely asinine to me.

If there really is such a thing at all, and the "Velvet Mafia" really did manage to overthrow the Federal government, I'm sure its aims would prove quite innocuous. They would probably just want to establish Judy Garland's birthday as a National Holiday, abolish plaid, and hire Christopher Lowell to spruce up the White House a bit.

nickcoons
12-07-2008, 06:39 PM
Yes, you can know things without knowing of God, but you cannot understand things in their complexity properly without God. Take rights for example. Rights are those things which pre-suppose morality. Morality presupposes spiritual ideas, spiritual ideas presuppose stability, and all of these things lead to God as cause and principle.

Morality presupposes spiritual ideas only to a theist. Atheists such as Ayn Rand have no problems defining morality in the absence of spirituality.


God is all powerful, but not all illogical. God can do all things which are possible. God cannot contradict Himself. God cannot do and not do something simultaneously as God does not imply motion to a terminus as "He is who is". God cannot make a rock that He cannot lift. God cannot make a circle square, or any other circular argument.

First you criticize the guy for a circular argument (which I agree with), and then you finish with a circular argument?

A circular argument is one where the conclusion is both based on the premise and is the basis for the premise. That has nothing to do with the "rock" question that I asked.

The implication behind the question is that there can be no such thing as an all-powerful being. A being that can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift is not powerful enough to lift the rock, and therefore is not all-powerful. A being that cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift is not powerful enough to create the rock, and therefore is not all-powerful. How do you suppose that this resembles a circular argument?


Many atheists on this board cannot argue logically, and while presenting themselves authorities on issues of ethics and right reason never studied either study judiciously.

Then I think you misunderstand the term "atheist". An atheist is one who is not a theist. It doesn't mean that the belief that god does not exist is held (though some atheists will make that claim). It takes no amount of studying to be an atheist. Believing in the existence of something takes evidence that that thing exists. I don't believe that god exists any more than I believe there is a pile of cash sitting on my bed. I have no evidence or reason to believe that either of them are true. If someone tells me that there is a pile of cash on my bed, I won't dispute it, but since they're making the claim then the burden of proof is on them. Without satisfactory evidence on their part, I'll dismiss their claim as I rightly should.

People do not innately believe in god; they are taught god, or create the concept of god to fill in the gaps in their knowledge of nature because of intellectual laziness. Therefore, the default position is that there is no god.

My comments throughout have been logical and rational. Your claim that there can be no morals without god or spirituality is just nonsensical.

RonPaulMania
12-08-2008, 09:59 PM
Morality presupposes spiritual ideas only to a theist. Atheists such as Ayn Rand have no problems defining morality in the absence of spirituality.

I hate to tell you this, but you are proving my point about learning some logic and basic philosophy. Rand has no problem talking about morality from a spiritual perspective, not in a Godly spiritual perspective, but where ideas are spiritual, not physical in nature. She denies the existence of God, but not ideas. You are making clear confusions in the matter.


A circular argument is one where the conclusion is both based on the premise and is the basis for the premise. That has nothing to do with the "rock" question that I asked.

I agree, and that's what you did. The premise is God is all-powerful, so you make the famous analogy of the rock so big that God cannot lift it, which is based on the fact God is all-powerful. It never answers what does it mean to be all-powerful or that nothing is impossible to God. You haven't logically defined your terms, just made your own premises and then extrapolated into a contradiction.


The implication behind the question is that there can be no such thing as an all-powerful being. A being that can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift is not powerful enough to lift the rock, and therefore is not all-powerful. A being that cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift is not powerful enough to create the rock, and therefore is not all-powerful. How do you suppose that this resembles a circular argument?

You still haven't answered the previous statement, and carefully avoided it. Let me repeat myself: "God is all powerful, but not all illogical. God can do all things which are possible. God cannot contradict Himself. God cannot do and not do something simultaneously as God does not imply motion to a terminus as "He is who is". God cannot make a rock that He cannot lift. God cannot make a circle square, or any other circular argument."

In other words, God cannot make a contradiction logical because you pose a question. God cannot make love hate, or circles squares. God is bound by the logic God set. You have not refuted that God is all-powerful, but that God is not illogical. You are positing motion to God, and God is Unmoved so you make a false understand of what God is. Most of what philosophy can prove about God is the negation of material. God is a Spirit (not material), God is infinite (yet infinity is simply the negation of the finite), etc..




Then I think you misunderstand the term "atheist". An atheist is one who is not a theist. It doesn't mean that the belief that god does not exist is held (though some atheists will make that claim). It takes no amount of studying to be an atheist. Believing in the existence of something takes evidence that that thing exists. I don't believe that god exists any more than I believe there is a pile of cash sitting on my bed. I have no evidence or reason to believe that either of them are true. If someone tells me that there is a pile of cash on my bed, I won't dispute it, but since they're making the claim then the burden of proof is on them. Without satisfactory evidence on their part, I'll dismiss their claim as I rightly should.

God exists (theism)
God does not exist (atheism)
It's really that simple.

I would agree with you though that God is not easily evident, although evident through induction. Just because you cannot come to that reason, does not mean that reason does not exist. Just because there is a bunch of money on your bed and you can't see because the lights are off, does not mean the money isn't there. God is the same way. Proof that God exists is evident, but not clearly so.


People do not innately believe in god; they are taught god, or create the concept of god to fill in the gaps in their knowledge of nature because of intellectual laziness. Therefore, the default position is that there is no god.

That denies all cultural and sociological truths throughout time. You are clearly incorrect and now you are denying history and all society. There has never been a clear atheist society in history. Man wonders about where they come from, where the ideas of justice and goodness come from and reasonable assume there is a God.


My comments throughout have been logical and rational. Your claim that there can be no morals without god or spirituality is just nonsensical.

You haven't studied philosophy and it's obvious. You haven't studied minor logic and it's evident. You deny sociological and historical truths based on your views, which is incorrect.

Theocrat
12-08-2008, 10:23 PM
If you have to presuppose that an all-powerful god exists as a basis for the bible being god's word, which is itself the reasoning behind claiming that god exists, then your argument becomes circular.

BTW, if god is all-powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that even he can't life it? Whether the answer is yes or no, it means he is not all-powerful.

I'm simply saying that the Bible makes the claim that God exists and that He has inspired and preserved His own word. If the Bible is what it claims to be as the eternal, wise words of the sovereign, powerful Creator of the universe Who sustains all things, then of course it makes sense that I start with the Bible as my final authority for explaining Who God is. You say that's a circular argument, and you're right. But what is the alternative? If the Bible is not the final authority on proving God's existence, then whatever proves the authority of the Bible becomes the final authority. Thus, the Bible ceases to be the final authority, and that's opposite of what it claims to be. God is perfectly at liberty to write His words down in a book, using the pens of men superintended by His Holy Spirit, and have His word unadulterated. He is powerful enough to do that, if He is almighty and all-knowing. There is no logical inconsistency in believing that. Do you not presuppose an author exists before or while you read the work(s) of that author? The same applies to God and His revelation.

You're mistaken by assuming that just because God can't do something, He can't be all-powerful. There are plenty of things which God can't do. He can't sin. He can't learn. He can't contradict Himself. Yet, we know that these are supremely noble and righteous characteristics to have in any being, and it doesn't limit them in any way. When we say that God is all-powerful, we don't mean that His power is related to mere physically elements, for we know God can and has overcome the elements of this world by various miracles (splitting the Red Sea, raising the dead, etc.). When we say God is all-powerful, we mean that He possesses the ability to control and order all things at His command, whether it's moral standards, scientific laws, personal revelation, etc. Your question of whether God can create objects so heavy that He can't lift is irrelevant because there is no reason why God would need to accomplish such a feat to prove His omnipotence, just as there's no reason why God would create square circles or dry water. It's simply moot.

Dr.3D
12-08-2008, 10:34 PM
The implication behind the question is that there can be no such thing as an all-powerful being. A being that can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift is not powerful enough to lift the rock, and therefore is not all-powerful. A being that cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift is not powerful enough to create the rock, and therefore is not all-powerful.

Deja vu.... I have heard that silly argument so many times I almost feel like this is a rerun.

Can't these people come up with anything original?

William2012
12-08-2008, 11:15 PM
A link for anyone who wishes to test there own faith and practice some comparitive religion
http://www.sacred-texts.com/

Hope I am not going to create anger here, especially since I am new to this forum. I feel the need to put my piece in.
Again nothing against any religion, but there are some points I must make here.



In all honesty christianity is a recycling of older egyptian religions as well as others.

For instance the concept of hell originated in the religion called zoroastrianism, it was adopted because it was a useful method of terrifying the ignorant masses into submission.
for a quick overview http://www.hell-on-line.org/AboutZOR.html

Another story stolen from the Zoroastrians was the flood story,

When the world had become overwhelmed by the constant multiplication of its immortal beings, Ahura Mazda (see Ahura Mazda) decided that the earth must be enlarged and a new beginning made. He warned the faithful king Yima (see Yima, Zoroastrian Cosmogony) that a great flood was coming to cleanse the world and that Yima had to protect himself and two of each species in his castle on top of the highest mountain. The flood came, and the world, except for Yima's castle and its inhabitants, was destroyed. When the flood passed, Yima opened his doors and the world was inhabited again.

Of course it can be argued that the Zoroastrians themselves plagiarized from the Sumerian mythos.

Egyptian
Horus and Jesus

1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin.

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. <> Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

3. Horus was of royal descent. <> Jesus was of royal descent.

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. <> Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. <> The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. <> Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. <> Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. <> Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

9. Horus had 12 followers. <> Jesus had 12 disciples.

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. <> Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] <> Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. <> The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words “Bet” and “Anu” which translates “the house of Anu”. The ‘y’ on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u’.

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified.

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. <> Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. <> Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. <> The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means “anointed one” <> Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”

Who knows maybe Satan has a time machine.




It should be noted I do not disbelieve in god, neither though do I believe in god.

Theism and Atheism are both faith based

This is to say I need proof.
But who knows maybe will be Ahura Mazda

RockEnds
12-09-2008, 12:58 AM
Whatever did mankind do before the state created child adoption, Anna Freud invented the best interest of the child, and Harlow's monkey experiment inspired Ms Freud's psychological parent model? And how did we survive before the eugenics movement fueled early 20th century adoption experiments. I suppose children needlessly suffered from a lack of a "permanent" placement. Eh, there was no SSI to send their adoptive parents the check for attachment disorder, anyway. I guess there was no incentive to employ an army of bureaucrats to stick their nose into family matters.

Reason is full-bore libertarian with this one. Oh, yeah.

Krugerrand
12-09-2008, 08:15 AM
Egyptian
Horus and Jesus

1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin. ....

I had to look into this list, as I had not seen it before. It looks more like spam than reputable scholarship. When I found what appeared to be simple research into Horus (not trying to compare to the Christian's Jesus) , most items on this list were suspiciously absent or contradictory. I stumbled upon many comparison lists, but they were a basic re-hash of the same without reconciling the differences and anomalies that were on the Horus only sites.

http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/horus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm

I do not want to say the above are or are not the product of reputable scholarship, but it leaves me with a taste that the posted list is disingenuous - that it tries too hard to dispute Christian faith than to seek truth.

But, perhaps if it gets repeated enough, it can become truth.

William2012
12-09-2008, 10:06 AM
I had to look into this list, as I had not seen it before. It looks more like spam than reputable scholarship. When I found what appeared to be simple research into Horus (not trying to compare to the Christian's Jesus) , most items on this list were suspiciously absent or contradictory. I stumbled upon many comparison lists, but they were a basic re-hash of the same without reconciling the differences and anomalies that were on the Horus only sites.

http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/horus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm

I do not want to say the above are or are not the product of reputable scholarship, but it leaves me with a taste that the posted list is disingenuous - that it tries too hard to dispute Christian faith than to seek truth.

But, perhaps if it gets repeated enough, it can become truth.

Well I really reccomend reading through all the books here http://www.sacred-texts.com/
Its interesting to see how Christianity changed various cultures as well, I recommend reading the Popul Vuh([Under Native American]Christianity changing Mayan mythos)
The complete Zend Avesta(Under Zoroastrianism), Alot of excellent data under "ancient near east"(very good data, and a basis for all Abrahamic Religions)

I would go out on a limb, with pure conjecture right here.\/ \/ \/
The whole anti-gay religious thing came because gays are not fruitful and they don't multiply. Decreasing the spread of religion.

nickcoons
12-09-2008, 10:15 AM
I hate to tell you this, but you are proving my point about learning some logic and basic philosophy. Rand has no problem talking about morality from a spiritual perspective, not in a Godly spiritual perspective, but where ideas are spiritual, not physical in nature. She denies the existence of God, but not ideas. You are making clear confusions in the matter.

You are the one confusing the matter. You made it clear that you were talking about "godly spiritual" when you mentioned that spirituality leads to god.


I agree, and that's what you did. The premise is God is all-powerful, so you make the famous analogy of the rock so big that God cannot lift it, which is based on the fact God is all-powerful. It never answers what does it mean to be all-powerful or that nothing is impossible to God. You haven't logically defined your terms, just made your own premises and then extrapolated into a contradiction.

This is not a circular argument. God being all-powerful is the basis I use for being able to lift/create a rock, but lifting/creating a rock is not the basis for being all-powerful, it is simply a conclusion of it. If you think that's an incorrect conclusion based on how you define "all-powerful", then that's fine. But just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it circular.


You still haven't answered the previous statement, and carefully avoided it. Let me repeat myself: "God is all powerful, but not all illogical. God can do all things which are possible. God cannot contradict Himself. God cannot do and not do something simultaneously as God does not imply motion to a terminus as "He is who is". God cannot make a rock that He cannot lift. God cannot make a circle square, or any other circular argument."

What is there to answer? It wasn't avoided. I didn't answer it because I accepted what you were saying.


God is bound by the logic God set.

Why? Even most humans are capable of breaking the bonds they've imposed on themselves. Why wouldn't god have this capability?


You have not refuted that God is all-powerful, but that God is not illogical. You are positing motion to God, and God is Unmoved so you make a false understand of what God is.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you say god is. I don't deny that possibility.


God exists (theism)
God does not exist (atheism)
It's really that simple.

It really is simple, but your above statement is factually wrong. An atheism ("a-theism") is one who does not believe that god exists. This is not the same as believing that god does not exist. The former is the absence of a belief, and the latter is the existence of a belief.

Some atheists will make the positive claim that they believe that god does not exist, but I don't. I find this to be a more ridiculous position then theism, because not only are they burdened by proving whether or not god exists, but they are trying to prove the non-existence of something.


I would agree with you though that God is not easily evident, although evident through induction. Just because you cannot come to that reason, does not mean that reason does not exist. Just because there is a bunch of money on your bed and you can't see because the lights are off, does not mean the money isn't there. God is the same way. Proof that God exists is evident, but not clearly so.

I accept that as a possibility.


That denies all cultural and sociological truths throughout time. You are clearly incorrect and now you are denying history and all society. There has never been a clear atheist society in history. Man wonders about where they come from, where the ideas of justice and goodness come from and reasonable assume there is a God.

I explained this in my previous message, fairly clearly I thought.


You haven't studied philosophy and it's obvious. You haven't studied minor logic and it's evident. You deny sociological and historical truths based on your views, which is incorrect.

Then your ability to detect the obvious is severely flawed.

Look, we can continue this discussion, which I do find very interesting. But I would ask that you do it without the personal attacks. They add nothing of value.

nickcoons
12-09-2008, 10:18 AM
I'm simply saying that the Bible makes the claim that God exists and that He has inspired and preserved His own word. If the Bible is what it claims to be as the eternal, wise words of the sovereign, powerful Creator of the universe Who sustains all things, then of course it makes sense that I start with the Bible as my final authority for explaining Who God is. You say that's a circular argument, and you're right. But what is the alternative?

The alternative is that the bible was written by man and it's not an authority on anything. Since you don't believe this, then there has to be a reason swaying you to one direction over the other. It's this reason that I'm interested in.

nickcoons
12-09-2008, 10:20 AM
Deja vu.... I have heard that silly argument so many times I almost feel like this is a rerun.

Can't these people come up with anything original?

Why do theists put the burden on atheists to "come up with anything" at all? Theists make the claim that god exists, so the burden of proof is on them. As atheists, our job is to sit back and let you prove your point.

dannno
12-09-2008, 11:10 AM
Why do theists put the burden on atheists to "come up with anything" at all? Theists make the claim that god exists, so the burden of proof is on them. As atheists, our job is to sit back and let you prove your point.

Well, except that atheists have a fervent belief that God does not exist..

I would say your statement is correct for agnostics, but not atheists who are adamantly opposed to the idea that God exists. I would need proof that God doesn't exist, and that is just as difficult to prove as the fact that God does exist.

William2012
12-09-2008, 11:18 AM
Somebody made a comment about Theism and Atheism being the only options?

What about Agnosticism. Why can't one choose to neither Deny nor Confirm without proper evidence?

If some demiurge created me and gave me a rational brain, did he/she/it do this just to torture me?
To make me a form of Religious schizophrenic by expecting me to have faith in something that has not been Experienced/Sensed?

I would love to know there was an all powerful Father/Mother figure, but I do not and I can not.

And I have looked, I have poured over the Bible, Tanakh , Torah, Quran, Zend Avista, The Vedas, Tao Te Ching, I Ching, Sumerian and Babylonian text, Mayan Aztec and Incan text, and many more.

I think I probably have put more effort into attempting to find a religious/spiritual truth than most practitioners of Abrahamic Religions.

I have found very little that has helped me, Some good advice here and there, and I have met some good people in my search.

I have eaten Teonanacatl, practiced Yoga, and poured over text after text.

I am not enlightened, nor do I feel protected.

The only thing close to truth I have experienced is the study of the laws of the universe.
Everything from Einstein to Planck to Pythagoras, In science its even considered good to look at something that may possibly destroy our whole view of the universe. As such I have studied the electric universe,and the fractal universe.

I will admit there seems to be a movement towards religion in science (String Theory / M-Theory / Dark Matter / Even Black holes) where largely unproven hypothesis are called theory, this does scare me.

Mathematics should follow Observation, not the other way around.



Ultimately though, one can not call themselves a religious devout until they have tested there ideological belief systems, by weighing them against others. Study your competition.

nickcoons
12-09-2008, 11:34 AM
Well, except that atheists have a fervent belief that God does not exist..

I would say your statement is correct for agnostics, but not atheists who are adamantly opposed to the idea that God exists.

Again, an atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. Throw the letter "a" in front of something and it means "not".

"Abiotic" is a term used in biology to refer to non-living chemicals. That is, they are "not biotic."

"Atypical" means unusual, irregular, i.e. "not typical."

I hope you see where I'm going with this :).

Now it is true that there are atheists that claim positively that there is no god, but this is not a definition of atheism.


http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/AtheismBelief.htm

Once we understand what agnosticism really is, it should also become clear that agnosticism is not a "third option" between theism and atheism. There is no single continuum between atheism and theism where agnosticism is occupying a middle ground. Theism and atheism are about what a person believes; agnosticism is about what a person claims they do or can know. Belief and knowledge are obviously related, but they aren't the same thing and they answer different questions.


http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/LackBeliefGod.htm

Atheists are simply those who do not accept the truth of this claim — they may deny it out right, they may find it too vague or incomprehensible to evaluate properly, they may be waiting to hear support for the claim, or they may simply not have heard about it yet. This is a broad and diverse category and there is no particular counter-claim made by all atheists. As someone who doesn't agree with the theist, the atheist doesn't have any particular position, claim, or belief to defend. It's the theist who has something to defend, and if they didn't want to be put in such a position they should have refrained from making a claim in the first place.


I would need proof that God doesn't exist, and that is just as difficult to prove as the fact that God does exist.

I'll take that a step further and say that it would be even more difficult to prove that god does not exist. But I have yet to meet anyone (that I know of) making that claim.

Krugerrand
12-09-2008, 11:49 AM
The whole anti-gay religious thing came because gays are not fruitful and they don't multiply. Decreasing the spread of religion.

This sure has drifted into an "existence of God" discussion. (btw, I do not have time to devote to study comparative religions. "Creature From Jekyll Island" will have to come first.)

I will agree with those that do not accept religious-based reasons to advocate a gay-adoption position. That said, ignoring religious based rationale does not make gay adoption a good policy.

William2012
12-09-2008, 12:08 PM
This sure has drifted into an "existence of God" discussion. (btw, I do not have time to devote to study comparative religions. "Creature From Jekyll Island" will have to come first.)

I will agree with those that do not accept religious-based reasons to advocate a gay-adoption position. That said, ignoring religious based rationale does not make gay adoption a good policy.

Good read.

What would you say then about a single women or single father adopting a child?

Krugerrand
12-09-2008, 02:26 PM
Good read.

What would you say then about a single women or single father adopting a child?

I lean towards lumping them in with these:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1855731&postcount=67

William2012
12-09-2008, 03:34 PM
What about over age 65? somebody who is 21? 18? What about the mentally handicapped? paralyzed from the neck down? in bankruptcy? What about somebody who already has 18 kids?

I agree that the government should not be telling us how to run our lives. Still, the government must protect children. All of the categories I listed above exist with children. Do I advocate taking their children away from them, no. In many cases, they make better parents than some more 'typical' parents.

I think it is complicated and there is no "right" to adoption by anybody.

Well even if we choose to let our governments decide whats best for our children,
Why not state then that as long as they are fit to be a parent they can be?

I mean gays have adopted children in the past. The kids turn out healthy, happy, and heterosexual(Unless they were genetically predetermined to be homosexual).

Its not immoral to be gay(Again genetic pre-disposition, another way of putting it if you believe in God is that God made them that way)

I think its a reaction to overpopulation really, which is really quite the genius mutation.

nickcoons
12-09-2008, 08:21 PM
Well even if we choose to let our governments decide whats best for our children,
Why not state then that as long as they are fit to be a parent they can be?

The fitness of adoptive parents should be determined solely by the current guardians of a child. The government should have zero role in this.

Andrew Ryan
12-09-2008, 08:24 PM
The fitness of adoptive parents should be determined solely by the current guardians of a child. The government should have zero role in this.
No, we need the government to prevent gay couples from adopting children.

nickcoons
12-09-2008, 08:43 PM
No, we need the government to prevent gay couples from adopting children.

And here's the kicker.. your belief that the government must prevent gay couples from adopting children is going to cost money to enforce, and you are necessarily going to support that the government steals my property in order to pay for the enforcement of something to which I do not agree.

Danke
12-09-2008, 08:45 PM
Well, except that atheists have a fervent belief that God does not exist..

I would say your statement is correct for agnostics, but not atheists who are adamantly opposed to the idea that God exists. I would need proof that God doesn't exist, and that is just as difficult to prove as the fact that God does exist.

+1

The_Orlonater
12-09-2008, 09:08 PM
+1

It's a world full of crime, counterfeit, and war. There is no lovable god.

Danke
12-09-2008, 09:26 PM
It's a world full of crime, counterfeit, and war. There is no lovable god.

Who said he is lovable, or unlovable? :eek:

TinyMachines
12-10-2008, 12:03 AM
Some people think the universe is made of hexigons and an evil god rules our universe.

heavenlyboy34
12-10-2008, 12:09 AM
The fitness of adoptive parents should be determined solely by the current guardians of a child. The government should have zero role in this.

I agree with you there, but what if the current guardians are insane or otherwise mentally unfit to do so? :confused: Tannehill (The Market For Liberty) always makes exceptions for cases like this.

nickcoons
12-10-2008, 01:14 AM
I agree with you there, but what if the current guardians are insane or otherwise mentally unfit to do so?

So instead of the parents giving the child up for adoption because they are incapable of choosing suitable guardians, they should retain guardianship themselves? Or are you suggesting that the government should choose which biological parents are fit to make the decision, and make the decision themselves for parents that it deems unfit?

If biological parents are sane and mentally fit, then they have the desire and ability to choose adoptive guardians that are as well or better qualified than themselves.

If biological parents are insane or mentally unfit, then it would be difficult for them to choose adoptive guardians that are less qualified than themselves, even by accident, mathematically speaking.

I don't think I could entrust government with that ability, because it would be abused far more often than it would prevent unfit guardians from adopting children. The result would be a net negative.

Declaring someone "unfit" to be a parent can be a monumental task, primarily because it's so vague. Ideally, we'd probably like all children to be in homes where their guardians make an above-average income, have experience parenting, come from good family backgrounds themselves, live in nice suburban neighborhoods, etc. I just don't think it's realistic to expect that we can achieve a 100% success rate, especially if this is done through central planning where the decisions being made are not based on what's really best for the children, but on political whim.

There will be parents who are unfit to either raise children or to choose suitable guardians. There is no system that will achieve perfection, especially not one where it's basis for existence is force.

Natalie
12-10-2008, 01:19 AM
You should come to the chat now. partAAy!! in the chat!!

SeanEdwards
12-10-2008, 01:41 AM
The fitness of adoptive parents should be determined solely by the current guardians of a child. The government should have zero role in this.

The state is forced to have a role in some cases. Parents die, or lose custody of their children due to abuse, etc. So the state can become the legal guardian of the child.

nickcoons
12-10-2008, 03:22 AM
The state is forced to have a role in some cases. Parents die, or lose custody of their children due to abuse, etc. So the state can become the legal guardian of the child.

Why should the state, and by extension unrelated citizens, be the default guardian in such cases, and bear the costs?