It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction. — Gregory A
It can't get more unscientific. Moreover, Dawkins uses dogma in his books just the same as the religious dogma he fights so vigorously. — EugeneW
It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction.
— Gregory A
Here below is an extract from Wikipedia regarding a person who could possibly help you understand how confused you are when you type things like:
"Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights"
Peter is one of the best-known homosexual activists in the UK and has fought all his life for LGBT rights.
I can look up examples of such people from the right-wing of UK politics if you want me to.
Some British Conservative and Liberal MP's have marched beside Peter at Gay pride events etc.
Peter Gary Tatchell (born 25 January 1952) is a British human rights campaigner, originally from Australia, best known for his work with LGBT social movements.
Tatchell was selected as the Labour Party's parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey in 1981. He was then denounced by party leader Michael Foot for ostensibly supporting extra-parliamentary action against the Thatcher government. Labour subsequently allowed him to stand in the Bermondsey by-election in February 1983, in which the party lost the seat to the Liberals. In the 1990s he campaigned for LGBT rights through the direct action group OutRage!, which he co-founded. He has worked on various campaigns, such as Stop Murder Music against music lyrics allegedly inciting violence against LGBT people and writes and broadcasts on various human rights and social justice issues. He attempted a citizen's arrest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in 1999 and again in 2001.
There are many other examples of such activists from across the political spectrum and in many many countries, especially USA.
38 minutes ago — universeness
These are such lowbrow words Gregory A, you shame yourself.What would an Aussie know. They are all limpwrists anyhow — Gregory A
Yeah, you just showed that with your comment on all AustraliansRacists are rea — Gregory A
All LGBTQ activists being homosexual would not make all homosexuals LGBTQ activists. The activist faction is on the left. Got it. LGBTQ activists, not all being on the left would not mean LGBTQ activism is not on the left. Got it. — Gregory A
Atheism is not exclusive to the left, it's just an easy default for them because it is amoral and imposes no accountability. — whollyrolling
In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because it commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist). — Agent Smith
. Atheism is not exclusive to the left, it's just an easy default for them because it is amoral and imposes no accountability — whollyrolling
:fire:[T]he question is whether theism is true or not true (and N O T "whether or not (which g/G?!) exists")? — 180 Proof
In no sense is that "true". Theism consists of positive extraordinary claims and thereby a theist bears the burden of proving that such claims are true. Failing to meet that burden, however, it is reasonable to conclude that theism – the arguments in support of its claims – is not true and therefore is unwarranted, or unbelieveable – negative atheism (i.e. 'one does not believe the unproven claims about a deity are true'). NB: A positive atheist, however, bears the burden of proving that the claims (themselves, despite supporting arguments) of theism are not true.In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because ... (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist). — Agent Smith
[T]he question is whether theism is true or not true (and N O T "whether or not (which g/G?!) exists")?
— 180 Proof
:fire:
In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because ... (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist).
— Agent Smith
In no sense is that "true". Theism consists of positive extraordinary claims and thereby a theist bears the burden of proving that such claims are true. Failing to meet that burden, however, it is reasonable to conclude that theism, its claims, are not true and therefore is unwarranted, or unbelieveable – negative atheism (i.e. 'one does not believe the unproven claims about a deity are true') — 180 Proof
A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A
No. If one believes T is [truth-value] because one is "ignorant" of T, then that would be an argument from ignorance. However, to believe T is not true because the T-claims are not demonstrated to be true (or more likely true than not true) is an argument from an unmet burden of proof (such as e.g. a jury verdict of "not guilty" or "not proven") which is valid. — 180 Proof
If you can determine that "C is not true", then it is not "undecidable". And whether or not "God exists", as I've pointed out, is not the question I'm interested in. — 180 Proof
The left changes its guiding principles and the movements it promotes as if it's changing underwear. BLM had as its central tenet the destruction of Western culture and its institutions before the group seemed to dissolve due to fraud and abandonment, and "cancel culture" is self-explanatory — whollyrolling
Please feel free to explain the morality behind a movement which desires the destruction of all institutions and a state of resulting lawlessness. — whollyrolling
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here: "Apparently you dont need a God for a culture of blame." — whollyrolling
There are forms of atheism which believe that there is no God, however there are other forms of atheism which simply lack the belief that there is a god. The latter form of atheism cannot be invalid because in order to be invalid one must be making an argument. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
would "believe", how do you go about believing in nothing?
It doesn't answer anything, it opines. — whollyrolling
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.