Ban organized religion, says Elton John

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There was opposition to allowing no fault divorce and there has even been an option just recently established in at least one State which would restricted no-fault divorce. Part of the reason same sex marriage is so high on Christian radar scenes is the fact it was introduced by an activist court rather than by a politician who is accountable to the people. Also, we recognize the trouble the family is in and a diluting of its privileges is just one more nail in the coffin.

So does that make me a sinner for wanting the old snippity-snip but still wishing to fornicate?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So do you also dismiss views expressed by atheists because they are obviously biased?

Weren't you the one earlier in the thread dismissing science relating homosexuality to genetics for the same reason?

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So do you also dismiss views expressed by atheists because they are obviously biased?

No, and I wouldn't outright dismiss views from Christians either. But there needs to be some objectivity.

[Kobasew fan]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

When a Christian website displays information on its website that has to do with supporting its views, it can be largely dismissed because the the huge motivating factor to prove itself right. Bias exists and therefore, the information presented is prejudicial and can be self serving. The information does not come form an objective source.

See therein lies the problem. If a non-religous organization is arguing against religion it also have a huge motivating factor to prove itself right. So based on your logic all sources arguing against religion should be dismissed as prejudicial.

Think about this. Who is going to argue that religion is true except for those who believe in a particular religion. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a religous website and not dismiss secular resources. Either you need to consider both or none at all.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

See therein lies the problem. If a non-religous organization is arguing against religion it also have a huge motivating factor to prove itself right. So based on your logic all sources arguing against religion should be dismissed as prejudicial.

Think about this. Who is going to argue that religion is true except for those who believe in a particular religion. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a religous website and not dismiss secular resources. Either you need to consider both or none at all.

That is incorrect. A scientific organization trying to prove or disprove any theory has lot more credibility than a religious one. Why? Just because an organization is non-religious does not mean they are anti-religion or trying to disprove religious claims. That was an assumption you made incorrectly on your part.

Second of all, science has proven itself to be a lot more objective than religion. We always here of science correcting itself, disclaiming old scientific theories with knew knowledge. How often do you see religion correcting itself???...




Yeah, didn't think so.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So does that make me a sinner for wanting the old snippity-snip but still wishing to fornicate?

In God's eyes fornication is fine within a marriage.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In God's eyes fornication is fine within a marriage.

So common-laws are sinners and are going to hell?

[Kobasew fan]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

That is incorrect. A scientific organization trying to prove or disprove any theory has lot more credibility than a religious one. Why? Just because an organization is non-religious does not mean they are anti-religion or trying to disprove religious claims. That was an assumption you made incorrectly on your part.

Second of all, science has proven itself to be a lot more objective than religion. We always here of science correcting itself, disclaiming old scientific theories with knew knowledge. How often do you see religion correcting itself???...

Lets see now. Science has supposedly proven evolution. The purpose of this was to set out to prove that humans evolved from animals. How is this not biased. Scientists set out to prove a theory you are very likely to be biased.

As for religion correcting itself you are trying to compare apples and oranges here. Science is continuously conducting more experiments in order to prove or disprove a theory. Religion is based upon the Bible for example. The Bible is based on historical text.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Weren't you the one earlier in the thread dismissing science relating homosexuality to genetics for the same reason?

I also posted a couple of articles that refuted the conclusions but, they were dismissed because of it's source. Can you see a pattern here?

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

Lets see now. Science has supposedly proven evolution. The purpose of this was to set out to prove that humans evolved from animals. How is this not biased. Scientists set out to prove a theory you are very likely to be biased.

As for religion correcting itself you are trying to compare apples and oranges here. Science is continuously conducting more experiments in order to prove or disprove a theory. Religion is based upon the Bible for example. The Bible is based on historical text.

I don't think scientists started out with a mission to prove that man came from animals. They just started collecting more and more evidence that pointed to the fact. Thus, a theory was born.

And the fact that science is continurously WILLING to correct itself makes my point about it being that much more objective. Many discoveries in science are in conflict with what religion teaches. The fact that Religion doesn't want to adapt because it is based on some historical text furthermore proves my point that its views are biased.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, we recognize the trouble the family is in and a diluting of its privileges is just one more nail in the coffin.

See now that's the rub. You think "the family is in trouble" (what does that mean exactly?) and to fix it, you don't want gay people, who won't be starting a "traditional family" anyway, to get married.

It's like you believe that legalized same-sex marriage will lead to fewer "traditional families" or something.

It's odd. The same people who yell about the sanctity of marriage and bla bla bla are also believe it is such a weak institution that giving the rights to gay people will bring down the whole thing.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Second of all, science has proven itself to be a lot more objective than religion. We always here of science correcting itself, disclaiming old scientific theories with knew knowledge.

Yes science has pr oven itself wrong over and over again and yet people put their faith in them. Every new theory that comes up with a little shred of circumstantial evidence is presented as fact. If it conflicts with what the Bible says then there is the proof that the bible is a fairy tale. And then it is found out to be false. Look at the history of the so called missing links. How many of them had to be recanted?

[Kobasew fan]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

I don't think scientists started out with a mission to prove that man came from animals. They just started collecting more and more evidence that pointed to the fact. Thus, a theory was born.

And the fact that science is continurously WILLING to correct itself makes my point about it being that much more objective. Many discoveries in science are in conflict with what religion teaches. The fact that Religion doesn't want to adapt because it is based on some historical text furthermore proves my point that its views are biased.

First of all the Bible states in Revalation 22: 18-19:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

Now being a Christian with instructions such as this I'm not willing to change what the Bible says.

Second of all as you said science is willing to correct itself and has continued to correct itself. This just goes to show that science changes based upon the information that is found. If the Bible were to change with every change in science it wouldn't really be a Bible but more a book of scientific findings.

Finally I don't know what science has been able to prove is right without a doubt that is in contrast to the Bible.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes science has pr oven itself wrong over and over again and yet people put their faith in them. Every new theory that comes up with a little shred of circumstantial evidence is presented as fact. If it conflicts with what the Bible says then there is the proof that the bible is a fairy tale. And then it is found out to be false. Look at the history of the so called missing links. How many of them had to be recanted?

I always love the whole "science is wrong" argument especially when presented on the internet.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

See now that's the rub. You think "the family is in trouble" (what does that mean exactly?) and to fix it, you don't want gay people, who won't be starting a "traditional family" anyway, to get married.

It's like you believe that legalized same-sex marriage will lead to fewer "traditional families" or something.

It's odd. The same people who yell about the sanctity of marriage and bla bla bla are also believe it is such a weak institution that giving the rights to gay people will bring down the whole thing.

What it means is that more children are ending up growing up in a single parent home because men and women are finding it hard to live together and breaking up. It also means that people are choosing not to marry and have children because of the risks and sacrifices associated with marriage. By extending the financial benefits to other groups such as same sex couples today and multiple partners or monogamist roommates tomorrow those benefits(small as they are) will become even less of a incentive.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at the history of the so called missing links. How many of them had to be recanted?

Which only shows that science works.. who found out that Piltdown man was a fraud? Scientists. Preconceptions happen in science too, but science eventually weeds them out. Piltdown man isn't used as evidence any more.

The preconceptions that I've seen put forward by creationists still are used even though they have been shown as hoaxes.

Just as you wouldn't want me to disqualify the entirety of creationism because of a few false and misrepresented findings such as Paluxy footprints and Moab man. A few hoaxes do not disqualify good science.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What it means is that more children are ending up growing up in a single parent home because men and women are finding it hard to live together and breaking up. It also means that people are choosing not to marry and have children because of the risks and sacrifices associated with marriage. By extending the financial benefits to other groups such as same sex couples today and multiple partners or monogamist roommates tomorrow those benefits(small as they are) will become even less of a incentive.

And the question will be asked once again, what do same sex marriages have to do with a bunch of straight people breaking up and kids living in single parent homes?

Absolutely nothing.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

Finally I don't know what science has been able to prove is right without a doubt that is in contrast to the Bible.

There's no direct evidence of a global flood (and lots of evidence against it). There's no evidence that the Hebrew people had a mass Exodus from Egypt, and no evidence half a million people wandered the Sinai for 40 years. Genisis mentions camels but they weren't widely used until 1000BC.

Just a few off the top of my head.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What it means is that more children are ending up growing up in a single parent home because men and women are finding it hard to live together and breaking up. It also means that people are choosing not to marry and have children because of the risks and sacrifices associated with marriage. By extending the financial benefits to other groups such as same sex couples today and multiple partners or monogamist roommates tomorrow those benefits(small as they are) will become even less of a incentive.

Anyone who gets married and has children and on the basis of those "financial incentives" shouldn't be breeding anyway.

Again, it's like you don't have any faith in the whole concept of marriage. The marriages/traditional families will stick together or fall apart no matter what the rules regarding same-sex marriage is.

If people want to get married and have kids, they will do it. Nobody, and I really mean nobody, will avoid getting married and having kids because some other group (same-sex couples) are allowed to get married.

[skins]

Originally Posted by photon

There's no direct evidence of a global flood (and lots of evidence against it). There's no evidence that the Hebrew people had a mass Exodus from Egypt, and no evidence half a million people wandered the Sinai for 40 years. Genisis mentions camels but they weren't widely used until 1000BC.

Looking for 2 minutes, I found this:

http://globalflood.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/geology.htm