Total posts: 3,457
-->
@Mopac
The thing is, that assumes your conclusion, and that is literally the only piece of evidence you've given to support your reasoning. (That god is true)
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Which we have already discussed - A) IS overruled by Oxford's which has different interpretations of Supreme being (which is the only one alluded to there) and that B) Most references that you get otherwise are from religious claims, not actual facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What? No, do you actually try to spread that lie around? Just because a greek root of a word men's something that doesn't mean the modern-day word means the same thing. You are wrong on so many levels. We have actual evidence that consciousness is completely based on the brain, definitely, no soul required. You are dangerous if you spread that lie around, you propagate false information which could hurt someone or make them doubt how important mental health is.
How dare you? Do you actually have the audacity to claim that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So? It's mostly a homosexual population, not to mention, as I've already told you, transgender people are the lowest statistic there, and your study used bixsexuals. Now. do you have any actual evidence to support your claims? Or more vapid rebuttals?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Why should it? I legitimately don't see a reason to support that definition. Because a religion says that's the definition? Well then its an assertion and has to be proved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
- Accelerating Acceptance 2017 survey shows that Millennials (people ages 18-34) are significantly more likely to openly identify as LGBTQ than generations before them. Specifically, Millennials are more than twice as likely (20% vs. 7%) to identify as LGBTQ than the Boomer generation (people ages 52-71) and two-thirds (20% vs. 12%) more likely than Generation X (people ages 35-51).
SO yes, it does massively change statistics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But again, I've already proven my point, you've chosen to pursue this line singularly because its the one suspected weak spot in your eyes. Do you have evidence that homosexuality is unnatural? Do you have solid evidence that being non-heterosexual inherently makes you more abusive? Anything of that sort?
Also LGBTQ - Lesbian (That's homosexual), Gay (Also Homosexual), Bisexual (Your study uses them, therefore so do I get to count them as homosexual), Transgender (They can be gay, bi, etc, but they aren't inherently so, but they are also the lowest percentage), Queer (Just a group name for non-heterosexual - therefore regarding any of the formerly stated letters)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Are they?
GLAAD Studies are showing a massive rising of open LGBTQ individuals due to there being fewer and fewer individuals who are hateful towards them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes, it would - it means that the number of gay people are underestimated, and therefore the indicative proportions would be lower than reported.
Not to mention, you haven't at all addressed literally any point. So even if I agreed with you here, you would be incorrect in every other aspect, but I don't agree. Because you still haven't presented valid evidence. As in - linked being homosexual and being an abuser beyond a vapid mischaracterization based on likely incomplete data, as well as not taking the entire case into the picture
Some resources that show the abuse of LGB people
Another source to go against your unfound claim of pedophilia
This article over a study similar to yours and why it's incorrect
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/
Etc, etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because a large percentage of them are in a closet to hide themselves from bigots that would mistreat them. Also from um, how do I say this, oh no I know precisely how - from homophobes. Considering that I presented multiple lines of argument and we've only explored one.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
you believe the ultimate reality is the universe, that makes you a pantheist.
Well, that is what ultimate reality is, but still no. We have a word for the observable universe, it's called the observable universe, you would have to prove that too. Also, that would still be defining god into existence, so still no.
In other words, you believe God exists. .
Nope, that's you being arrogant, and ironically trying to be a know-it-all, but you don't know it all.
I am not a pantheist however, I am probably more accurately described as a panentheist.
I'm not sure what the difference is, I'm guessing its somewhere along the lines that the ultimate reality is made up of the physical realm and the spiritual? Well you'd need more proof for that.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Of course God exists. I am certainly condescending to your ignorance.
Haven't proven that - if anything you're the ignorant one here, not that I've actually made that claims
I can't present evidence to you, because you wouldn't know what evidence is. You after all, are superstitious concerning God and unwilling to be taught different. You aleady know what God is, so that is that.
Um, any evidence that was logically valid and true, me knowing or not knowing what it would be has no bearing on your burden to present it. No, I disagree that god is fundamentally true as a concept, that would have to be logically proven, which you have not done. I know what your god is, but you haven't proven anything regarding that god.
It is also the reason you'll never understand what I believe with this attitude. It will forever be gibberish to you.
What attitude? Not accepting blank assertions? How about this - I believe that the emerald tiger of Bazeathabe - who is defined as the ultimate reality - is the one who created the universe. Do you believe me?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Wrong, that anything we can't observe evidence of or it doesn't. Observe - not purely as in seeing it - detecting it, measuring it, etc, etc.. Also I haven't once declared victory, that's you. Literally, every other post, "God is the truth" that is literally you. I, on the other hand, have continuously said that if you had reliable evidence to support your claims I would change my mind. Not my fault you refuse to do so.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then god is as reality appears to be, in other words, the observable universe, in other words not god. Again, no grounding.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Well in some cases, yes, but whenever it says God literally commanded the death of cities, there is no other way to take that, he commanded the death of cities. That isn't an interpretable line. That's just the fact of what the bible says.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If you have no empirical evidence of an ultimate reality that is beyond the observable universe, and no philosophically backing (which you don't) then you have no grounds at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Because people are rarely thinking about logic and reasoning whenever there hyped up in their delusions or dogma. Pretty simple that.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Really just pointing out that god, especially of the old testament, really liked human death and suffering
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Ironically enough I never knew there was a different crocodile, this is all I knew.
Do you and your uncle have similar beliefs, or do they completely come to odds with each other?
What's been your favorite part of DART so far?
What do you think of the people here?
What do you think of the people here?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
What about the thing with lots wife? Or the times he orders to kill cities and stuff?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then what is the ultimate reality? Because even if I were to accept your first premise (that god is equivalent to such terms) then you would have to prove that the ultimate reality is more than just the observable universe, you've caused another problem for yourself
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Why is god the same as the ultimate reality? You still haven't answered that?
If god is the ultimate reality then god is nothing more than the observable universe, which is both defining a god into existence and unnecessarily presumptious,
Created:
-->
@Mopac
No, I refuse that definition because it is making an assertion while begging the question for no justifiable reasons. Its logically incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
They should be accounted in the total number of homosexuals. That should seem obvious, also, they need to be accounted, because as you have failed to refute, the entire study is flawed in it's methodology. The reason why there would even be an increased rate of abuse in homosexuals is that homosexuals are abused more often than any other section on sexuality, and people who are abused are more likely to become abusers, thus it is not the homosexuality that would even lead to such a result, but the cruel bigots in the first place.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
But you're essentially saying:
God is true because god is true. That's begging the question
Created:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Do you? I'd argue you're separated even now.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Thats actually wrong, that is one of the definitions of magic, the one being used to describe a god here is as follows: "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." As defined by Lexico, not to mention the bible describes god as walking around even in places much before Jesus, or calling for Adam and Eve, or a multitude of something
Created:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Hmm.... Prove it
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think this quote perfectly summates the definition of god as used throughout history:
God: (1) A magical anthropomorphic immortal, central to most religions, typically a primarily spiritual being who’s continued existence may be independent of whichever physical form(s) it may choose. (2) The name by which the sole or dominant divinity is known by virtually major religions: Hindu, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikh, and even some Buddhists where applicable.
Aron Ra
Created:
-->
@Mopac
No, not whenever your definition so drastically differs from the classical definition, I believe that you believe what you say, I don't believe that what you think god means is actually what god means.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The fact that several massive events almost killed all life on earth (and has several times) kinda disproves even the earth was made for life, in fact, you would have to prove it was made at all to get any implications from its being there.
I am not assuming that god did not create the universe, that is not my burden to prove, but yours, and whenever I said chance not having an agency was nonsense, I meant you saying it at all, clearly, it doesn't and if ou read my response honestly you would know that. Finally, any god that did exist would be supernatural, literally impossible by the laws of physics
Created:
-->
@Mopac
First of all, nothing I said was in reference to politics, and if it's how a church has defined it, its up to them to demonstrate the assumptions of the definitions.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't know what caused the big bang, but do to the fact that no one has proven a god exists and there is evidence against a gods existence, then anything is more likely than a god causing the big bang.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I know you try to define god into existence, doesn't work that way sorry
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don;t believe anyone has objective morality, because no one can justify the standard
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I'm open to changing my mind, ya know, just... present valid evidence. I mean... I would never worship that god, but I would believe if someone could preset valid evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And why not? Are homosexual teens not also homosexual?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
@Elminster
All of this is ignoring the point, regardless if I choose to or not (which it isn't I've already presented the evidence), that it views being homosexual as something which is wrong in the first place. That's the major paradigm that I fight against. Being homosexual isn't wrong or evil. That's what I majorly object to.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
I'm just getting what the general consensus from my research.
Created:
I'm speaking generally here
Created:
-->
@Elminster
Which is wrong, Orthodoxy believe in constant prayer, essentially asking forgiveness for every sin they make. And yes, even believing that each person is inherently sinful. That's why they ask forgiveness in the first place, it is an essential hallmark of all Christianity, and is what the bible and this sect actually teaches:
All Orthodox Churches use the Mystery of Penance, or Confession, but in Greek speaking Churches only priests who have been blessed by the Bishop as 'Spiritual Fathers' are allowed to hear confession. Children may be admitted to the sacrament of Confession as soon as they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes.... if you don't count them, but you should, as you would with any other population of people
Created:
-->
@Elminster
Wrong actually - Orthodox do declare that humans choose to act in sin, but they also believe we are inherently evil and sinful since the fall of adam
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Nah its cool, if you really wanted a good place to find most of it, that'd be the very first place and track my conversation with SirAnonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
I've climbed from 190th place in Forum to 88th in two days, well then.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes, we call it cherry-picking, sound familiar?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It's definitely an idea, if it were possible it would be very interesting
Created:
-->
@Mopac
No, you just aren't convincing, at all, you're arguments, your assertions, none of it is evidently true nor convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
This is becoming my venting place, anyone else know the people who suddenly stop responding whenever you ask for them to actually look at your evidence? LIke, they just dismiss it out of hand, and then you actually push them to respond to the evidence, and they just poof?
Created: