Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[BlaqueKatt]

Well, I did report the post where she implied that those of us with religious belief are stupid.

Which per Fratching rules is totally fine:

There has been a great deal of misunderstanding of late about what does and does not constitute a personal attack. As everyone who has read the Site Rules should know, attacks on another member's character are forbidden.

However, it appears that some clarification is in order.

Because this is a debate forum, generalizations about groups of people (Christians, Democrats, the handicapped, eg) are permitted. Even if these generalizations are offensive to you. Fratching is not an offense-free zone.

[BlaqueKatt]

same story same link 14 topics down "Christians showing love at Gay Pride" posted july 2nd

[draggar]

Christain group's Anti-Anti Gay demonstration

A group of Christian anti-anti (not a typo) gay demonstrators attend a Gay Pride parade.

http://www.timschraeder.com/2010/06/...-at-gay-pride/

It's good to see stories like this making it to the press - most seem to be too afraid to post stories like this. (Granted, it's not mainstream media but hopefully some will pick this story up).

This also sends out a clear message that not all Christians hate the GLBT community.

[Hobbs]

Also, I think "attacks" is definitely the wrong word to be using here. Or, rather, who is being attacked. No one is attacking you, or else they'd have been booted from this thread. They are attacking your claims, the pieces of information you've made public on this forum, as one is supposed to on a debate site.

Well, I did report the post where she implied that those of us with religious belief are stupid.

I have a question for you, too. Why should anyone believe in something that cannot be proven? What are the atheists doing wrong in not believing?

They're not doing anything wrong. In fact, Ghel is doing the exact same thing the Christians are doing in the OP: trying to evangelize "non-believers." Like the Christians, those who don't beleive her beliefs are "wrong" and only she knows what is "right."

[the_std]

Because nothing in your attacks against me or in what I hold dear have at any point convinced me that there is no God. You claim there isn't, but offer no valid arguments.

Also, I think "attacks" is definitely the wrong word to be using here. Or, rather, who is being attacked. No one is attacking you, or else they'd have been booted from this thread. They are attacking your claims, the pieces of information you've made public on this forum, as one is supposed to on a debate site.

I have a question for you, too. Why should anyone believe in something that cannot be proven? What are the atheists doing wrong in not believing?

[Hobbs]

I love this. Absolutely love it. You're acting like you're trying to silence me like so many other Christians have done to non-believers before. But you can't. You can't delete my posts. Or edit them. Or prevent me from posting again. So your attempts at "silencing" me are hilarious.

And don't say you're ignoring me now. That would mean that you won't be posting to this thread ever again.

I'm not trying to silence you. I really don't get your motivation for this response. I was stating a fact; nothing you've said has convinced me that there is no God. I didn't say I was ignoring you. Although, that probably would be prudent, considering you have no valid argument.

I modified your analogy to show my point of view. If you're interested, I was inspired by Jhuger's Kissing Hank's Ass.

I'm not interested.

[Ghel]

Originally Posted by Ghel
<snip>

Because nothing in your attacks against me or in what I hold dear have at any point convinced me that there is no God.

I love this. Absolutely love it. You're acting like you're trying to silence me like so many other Christians have done to non-believers before. But you can't. You can't delete my posts. Or edit them. Or prevent me from posting again. So your attempts at "silencing" me are hilarious.

And don't say you're ignoring me now. That would mean that you won't be posting to this thread ever again.

... your twisting of my analogy ...

I modified your analogy to show my point of view. If you're interested, I was inspired by Jhuger's Kissing Hank's Ass.

[Hobbs]

<snip>

Because nothing in your attacks against me or in what I hold dear have at any point convinced me that there is no God. You claim there isn't, but offer no valid arguments.

And your twisting of my analogy is just plain uncouth and insulting to anyone with a shred of intelligence.

[Ghel]

So if you don't believe in Him, why would you expect Him to invite you into His domain? That would be like you calling me all sorts of names/accusing me of crimes, and then getting pissed off when I don't invite you to my house party.

So, Hank's throwing the party of the millennium. But he's not handing out the invitations personally. Instead, he's giving them all to Karl, who's handing them out to his friends, such as John and Mary, who are giving them to other people. I've never met Hank. John hands me an invitation. Why should I want to go to this party? John says it's going to be the greatest thing ever, but he won't tell me where the party's being held. And who is Hank? He's a great humanitarian in this city. So why haven't I heard of him before? Everyone knows Hank. I don't. And then he tells me that the main activity at the party will be kissing Hank's ass. Wait, won't there be rock music, sex, and alcohol at the party of the millennium? Well, no. Then I don't want to go. It sounds boring.

(Hobbs, you've said that you don't believe in a literal Hell, so I've left out the part where Mary says that Hank's going to kick the shit out of me if I don't kiss his ass.)

Just as I wouldn't go out of my way to be nice to someone who hates me, why should God do the same to you?

As far as I can tell, God is just a character in a book. There's nothing wrong with hating a character who only exists in a book.

"In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof. "
So where's your proof?

Talk about quote mining. It also says "This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts." Also, "Conventional knowledge is not always universal, and can carry different weight with different parties of various ideologies and cultures." "Conventional knowledge" is a bit sticky. While 70-80% of Americans are Christian, other countries and cultures follow different gods, so you would be defending your god against theirs, and yet other cultures believe in no gods. Thus, as displayed in the chart on the page I linked, the person who claims that a thing exists has the highest burden of proof, independent of all other aspects.

I still don't understand why you (plural) are trying to turn the burden of proof around on me, the non-believer, instead of simply demonstrating the truth of your claims.

On a side note: I've just read through this whole thread. What a great read! Sure it got heated a bit, but this has been a fine discussion. Thanks to all involved.

Thanks! I'm glad somebody's getting some entertainment out of it.

[Hobbs]

Hobbs:



Not believing =/= calling names/accusing of crimes.

I was talking directly to Ghel, thank you. She has accused God-by way of his followers, of pretty much everything wrong with society.

If he doesn't care that I don't believe, why would I not get into heaven. In reading the bible, I've pretty much found that if there's one thing that god cares about, its that we believe in him...and only him.

Because He knows you don't like Him, so He won't put you somewhere you don't want to be. If that's all you've learned, you need to keep reading.

[BigGiant]

Hobbs:

As I've said before, Heaven is a place where God resides. So if you don't believe in Him, why would you expect Him to invite you into His domain? That would be like you calling me all sorts of names/accusing me of crimes, and then getting pissed off when I don't invite you to my house party. Just as I wouldn't go out of my way to be nice to someone who hates me, why should God do the same to you?

Not believing =/= calling names/accusing of crimes.

Your argument makes a lot of assumptions. It also gives, with your own words, the argument that He doesn't care if you believe. In my opinion, He doesn't. Thus, even though you don't believe, that doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It merely proves you don't believe.

If he doesn't care that I don't believe, why would I not get into heaven. In reading the bible, I've pretty much found that if there's one thing that god cares about, its that we believe in him...and only him.

I also wanted to add this.

My sentiments exactly. Love, compassion and charity are what Christianity are about. Sadly it's those hateful and bigoted assholes like WBC and all the crazy fundies that give Christians a bad name.

I think the last line is a myth. Sure there are great Christians out there that don't have a problem with homosexuals, but it is not JUST the "crazy fundies" that give Christianity a bad name.

I live in the Mid-West (USA), and unless 70-80% of the Christians I know are "crazy fundies", I'd say that mainstream Christianity believes homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

On a side note: I've just read through this whole thread. What a great read! Sure it got heated a bit, but this has been a fine discussion. Thanks to all involved.

[Hobbs]

Let's look at this a different way. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, as most Christians claim, then he knows what it would take to convince me that he exists (even if I don't know) and he has the power to do it. So the very fact that I don't believe he exists tells us that either he doesn't exist or he doesn't care whether I believe.

As I've said before, Heaven is a place where God resides. So if you don't believe in Him, why would you expect Him to invite you into His domain? That would be like you calling me all sorts of names/accusing me of crimes, and then getting pissed off when I don't invite you to my house party. Just as I wouldn't go out of my way to be nice to someone who hates me, why should God do the same to you?

Your argument makes a lot of assumptions. It also gives, with your own words, the argument that He doesn't care if you believe. In my opinion, He doesn't. Thus, even though you don't believe, that doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It merely proves you don't believe.

Also, from your own link:

In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof.

So where's your proof?

[Ghel]

Burden of Proof on Wikipedia In their chart, replace "fairies" with "god" and you'll see where each of us stand. My stance is second from the bottom, "fairies (and god) probably do not exist." Those of you claiming that a god exists are at the top of the chart, with the greatest burden of proof.

As for the nature of lies, Lincoln said it far better than I ever could:

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
-- Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17

Let's look at this a different way. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, as most Christians claim, then he knows what it would take to convince me that he exists (even if I don't know) and he has the power to do it. So the very fact that I don't believe he exists tells us that either he doesn't exist or he doesn't care whether I believe.

The latter option goes contrary to what evangelical Christians claim. Additionally, if there exists a God who would punish me (or not reward me) for not believing in him despite the lack of evidence, then he's a tyrant and not worthy of my worship.

[HYHYBT]

Anyone who claims something is true without being able to back up their claim is lying.

No, that's simply not true. "Lying" means telling something that is KNOWN TO BE FALSE. It does not mean telling something that is not proven to be true.

And no, it is nobody's duty to be rude. Unless, of course, in addition to making up your own personal definition of "lie," you've done the same for either "rude" or "duty."

No, NO, NO. You're shifting the burden of proof again. You and Hobbs are both claiming that something supernatural (the Christian God, in Hobbs' case) exists. If you expect anyone else to agree with you, you need to give them some reason or evidence.

How is it that *you* get to decide where the burden of proof must lie, not only for your own beliefs but for everyone else's as well?

I am making no such claims. I am looking at your claims and explaining why I don't agree with them. Thus, all I have to do is sit here and wait for you to come up with evidence or an argument to back up your claims. Until you do, I reject your claims.

Actually, you're going further than rejecting claims. You are asserting (though you will almost certainly deny it, that's what it amounts to) that God does not exist. And, best I can tell, you are also asserting that it is foolish to believe otherwise, or even to remain neutral on the subject.

[Boozy]

Is it not possible to debate religious views without calling believers irrational and unintelligent?

It is indeed possible. Name-calling is against the rules of this forum.

However, the moderators have received zero reports about this thread. If anyone sees what they believe is a personal attack, please report the post. I haven't had the time to read this one through word-by-word.

Thanks.