Religion

[UnionStrong]

even if your religious leaning is no religious leaning

 

[Thebrownblob]

You've yet to offer a better alternative to our beliefs. Angry rants aren't going to get much sympathy.

Funny, these are the same people who can’t be sure how many genders there are, but they’re positive about this? The hubris is hilarious.

 

[UnionStrong]

Funny, these are the same people who can’t be sure how many genders there are, but they’re positive about this? The hubris is hilarious.

They’re generally bitter, resentful people. Do we have a thread where believers rant about atheists? No? That says it all.

 

[Thebrownblob]

They’re generally bitter, resentful people. Do we have a thread where believers rant about atheists? No? That says it all.

I can appreciate agnostics At least they realize there’s something more, but they’re not sure what it is.

 

[El Correcto]

My understanding of God is that He cannot be disproved by anyone.

The onus is on you to prove your claims not the other person to disprove something you made up and have no evidence for.

If you want to start discussing evidence of your claim, that is where it starts getting a bit more interesting and disprovable.

Religion is full of claims, I know with absolutely certainty the Christian god does not exist. The claims of the “word of god” scripture are mostly inaccurate garbage that people hide behind “it’s just an allegory, god speaks in riddles” when it gets disproven.

 

[El Correcto]

If Christian claims are proved to be nonsensical and scientifically wrong you can go ahead and safely disprove the Christian part of Christian God.
If the God is left there standing without the “evidence” provided by it’s religious claims, you can pretty safely go ahead and dismiss the god part as well, since it is now proven to be baseless.

 

[vantexan]

If Christian claims are proved to be nonsensical and scientifically wrong you can go ahead and safely disprove the Christian part of Christian God.
If the God is left there standing without the “evidence” provided by it’s religious claims, you can pretty safely go ahead and dismiss the god part as well, since it is now proven to be baseless.

If homosexual claims are proven to be nonsensical and scientifically wrong you can go ahead and safely disprove the homo part of homosexuality. In the end it's not natural for them, it's just two men using an anus the way a man and a woman use a vagina. Or a woman penetrating another woman with her fingers or a penis shaped object. If the biological aspect can't be proven, and it hasn't so far, then it's a psychological choice to simulate heterosexual sex with a person of the same sex. Any claims of it being natural are baseless.

 

[Integrity]

The onus is on you to prove your claims not the other person to disprove something you made up and have no evidence for.

If you want to start discussing evidence of your claim, that is where it starts getting a bit more interesting and disprovable.

Religion is full of claims, I know with absolutely certainty the Christian god does not exist. The claims of the “word of god” scripture are mostly inaccurate garbage that people hide behind “it’s just an allegory, god speaks in riddles” when it gets disproven.

How can you disprove a personal spiritual experience?

You certainly can choose not to believe it but personally not believing a person’s experience does not disprove it.

Does it?

 

[UnionStrong]

If homosexual claims are proven to be nonsensical and scientifically wrong you can go ahead and safely disprove the homo part of homosexuality. In the end it's not natural for them, it's just two men using an anus the way a man and a woman use a vagina. Or a woman penetrating another woman with her fingers or a penis shaped object. If the biological aspect can't be proven, and it hasn't so far, then it's a psychological choice to simulate heterosexual sex with a person of the same sex. Any claims of it being natural are baseless.

Natural?

 

[vantexan]

How can you disprove a personal spiritual experience?

You certainly can choose not to believe it but personally not believing a person’s experience does not disprove it.

Does it?

Again, psychological. You may believe you speak directly with God but the Bible doesn't support that.

 

[vantexan]

Natural?

That's always been the claim, that for them it's natural.

 

[UnionStrong]

That's always been the claim, that for them it's natural.

It’s an aberration in nature, a dead end.

 

[vantexan]

It’s an aberration in nature, a dead end.

I agree, just trying to reason with our resident Christian hater.

 

[Integrity]

Again, psychological. You may believe you speak directly with God but the Bible doesn't support that.

I believe it does. Sorry.

 

[Integrity]

View attachment 473378

Atheism is a form of religion, no?

 

[Integrity]

This video proves that queers and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time. Since they failed to kill all the queers, God destroyed the dinosaurs from the face of the earth. He decided that having LGBTQ walking around would be enough weirdness/humor/horror/entertainment for mankind.

No judgement or condemnation but this is an example of hate speech, no?

 

[Integrity]

If Christian claims are proved to be nonsensical and scientifically wrong you can go ahead and safely disprove the Christian part of Christian God.
If the God is left there standing without the “evidence” provided by it’s religious claims, you can pretty safely go ahead and dismiss the god part as well, since it is now proven to be baseless.

Problem here for me belief and faith is in God who is above complete human understanding and science.

 

[Integrity]

It’s an aberration in nature, a dead end.

As is any sin, even calling someone a fool.

 

[El Correcto]

Problem here for me belief and faith is in God who is above complete human understanding and science.

Then there isn’t a conversation to be had.

 

[El Correcto]

If homosexual claims are proven to be nonsensical and scientifically wrong you can go ahead and safely disprove the homo part of homosexuality. In the end it's not natural for them, it's just two men using an anus the way a man and a woman use a vagina. Or a woman penetrating another woman with her fingers or a penis shaped object. If the biological aspect can't be proven, and it hasn't so far, then it's a psychological choice to simulate heterosexual sex with a person of the same sex. Any claims of it being natural are baseless.

I think you’re just resorting to flirting with me now, no sir I will not prove what comes naturally to me and that is my right.