"Wrong"

I've heard that argument before and am not persuaded for a couple of reasons, the main reason being that everyone can take a few minutes to do their own search, read, satisfy themselves regarding the sources and subject, and then debate from a position of knowledge - you could have done as much in the time it took you to write your response.

My other major reason is that this forum is entertainment, its not my job to educate everyone who reads or responds to my post particularly when they have the worlds greatest library at their fingertips, I don't have the time to prepare detailed papers, and after being on this forum for so long I have found it is often a waste of time.

The one area I always provide solid sources is items related to gun rights.

That's why you should take 10 minutes and do your own research. You get to see the various arguments from the various sources, you satisfy yourself on the accuracy and issues.

Remember, in this discussion I have already done the reading, I already provided you with the names of 3 good examples. Its not productive for me to retrace my steps and spend time putting together the data to spoon feed you. You are asking me to devote my time to bringing you up to speed for the sake of continuing this discussion.

See above.

 

I wouldn't worry about what "God" in the Bible thinks about homosexuality....

after all, this is a guy who ordered children and babies to be killed. So how much moral authority does he have?

 

The best thing I like about the bible is that God goes from vengeful, to so called loving from the OT to the NT, yet people proclaim that God cannot change his will.

Even if there was a second "Jesus" that came to the Earth, he would be locked up in a cell with the key thrown away before a conservative would hear him out.

 

That's the paradox-

1. They claim "God is eternal and never changing".

2. But if you ask them about "no wool-blend clothes" or God ordering the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child and baby in the Amalekite tribe.....they say "God isn't the same in the New Testament like He was in the Old Testament. He changed His mind."

 

Obviously any one who makes an assertion in a debate has the onus to provide the evidence to support it, if they do not then their opponent is well within their rights to request that evidence. If, like you, that person does not want to provide them REGARDLESS of the reasoning then they have by default lost that debate.

on the other hand, if the debate is with the same person concerning the same or similar subject then yes I agree it would be pointless to post information that you opponent has already been given.

Have you debated robini123 on this subject before, if not then not addressing their requests for evidence is a cop out.

 

Its ridiculous to claim that because I have not spoon fed someone data that they can very easily and quickly find on their own, then I have "lost" or the argument is invalid. It is more likely that the person requesting the data is lazy or too biased to invest their own time in the issue.

And there is a practical aspect. I am not going to spend the time thoroughly answering every response to every post I submit. Nobody does, including you.

If you want me to invest my time educating you, then pay me. Otherwise, this forum is nothing more than an entertaining distraction from real life.

 

Again What is the relevance of this?

Nope I listed facts. You just don't like them and wish not to accept them.

 

If you're unable to follow a conversation, you might want to consider adding me to some ignore list or something.
I can't answer your multitude of questions. I haven't the time.

 

As I said, if you enter into a debate and make an assertion the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support that assertion. If I post something with without evidence I will always, when requested, supply the evidence to support what I say.

It has nothing to do with spoon feeding, being lazy or biased.

no one has requested that, you were asked for specific evidence to a specific item for which to date you have done nothing but avoid.

No one is asking you to educate anyone, supplying evidence for an issue is not educating, it is showing what the person is saying has some merit.

 

See above? That is nonsensical as I wanted you to answer my question not Google. Apparently you are not here for debate, I now understand that and move onto find those who enjoy debate. That is too bad as I was looking forward to your presentation of the actual harm that Phil suffered. Oh well... moving on.

 

I have been following but we seem to see the argument from very different perspectives. Your earlier response to me was moot as most of it I did not dispute thus my response of "and your point is".

 

Excellent point. Let's expand on it:

In Deuteronomy 13:1-4, God has a lot to say to us concerning false prophets.

(1) “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, (2) and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ (3) you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 “You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.​

Basically, God told folks in the OT to watch out for miracle-working prophets who would lead them against His teachings.
So Jesus comes along and whips out a few signs/wonders/miracles - and contradicts the OT God in almost every way possible... and that's evidence that he is God, rather than being a false prophet who led folks astray?

Just a little fun stuff for Christians to ponder.
As an atheist, I just enjoy raising these weird inconsistancies in religious teachings because they nicely illustrate how silly it is to legislate using religious dogma.

 

I must have missed your facts. Please restate them.

 

Supplying evidence is educating someone. And experience in this forum shows it has everything to do with spoon feeding lazy people. If someone really cares to discuss an issue, they will take the 15 minutes to educate themselves. If they don't, they are just in it to kill time, which is fine, but don't for a second pretend that such a person has a heart felt interest in the debate.

Think about it - you are asking me to devote my time to educate some anonymous person who has not made the slightest effort to educate themselves or uphold their side of the discussion. What is my motivation for investing in that person? Experience in this forum shows it likely will not be productive, entertaining, or educational for me. In such a one sided situation, most of the time my investment can be applied elsewhere to better outcomes.

 

Religion isn't part of this.

 

That's not a fact at all, its your wish, and its incorrect. The freedom to exercise religion, the power of the government to intrude into religious freedom, and the power of society to intrude into personal beliefs, is what this issue is all about.

 

Except one can't say "My religion tells me to hate a certain type of person....so I want the Government to deny them equal rights...and if it doesn't, the Gov't is infringing on my religious rights."

 

As we note so often on the Religion Forum, most of them don't WANT to ponder things....in fact, several appear unfamiliar with the Bible except a few key verses or the "general outline" of it.

When faced with inconsistancies or just plain ol' contradictions (and hypocrisies) in the Bible they get very defensive....but lack any ability at apologia except for "That's taken out of context"...then you ask them to explain "the context" and they can't.

Want a real fun one, ask the "Bible-believing" "pro-lifers" to tell you what God's view of abortion is (or especially the ones who leap ahead and say "God hates the murder of children")...

then quote 1st Samuel 15:3 to them.

 

Except when government itself becomes a religion to the non religious who want to impose their morality just like the religious.

Any belief can be treated as a religion when it becomes so strongly held and zealously pursued and with the belief that everybody has to follow my belief and the government gets to impose my belief on to you.

I see no difference.

Just one self righteous thug being exchanged for another.

 

I see we agree on something. Its wrong for gays to use the government to deny religious people equal rights simply because gays hate religion.

 

Tram, if gay couples are allowed to marry legally....you are still absolutely and completely free to hate gays. Not a thing in this world stopping you.

- - - Updated - - -

1. There are gay Christians....so you final prepositional phrase is false.

2. What "equal rights" are the religious being denied? Specifically.

 

Irrelevant. And a foolish argument - by your exact same argument, since there are gay Christians, then Christians are not discriminating against gays.

The right to believe a religion and exercise certain moral standards without interference from a vengeful, hate filled group who go out of their way to impose upon people.

 

not necessarily, providing evidence is also supporting your own assertions and that, as I suspect you know, is one of the fundamental objectives of a debate.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning. Are you prone to arguments from ignorance?

I am not asking you to devote any time at all, it is assumed that you have evidence to support your assertion and as such that evidence should be easy for you to come by - if you haven't then it can also be assumed that your assertion is not valid. Personally I keep any evidence I have either via links or saved documentation and as such it is "at my fingertips" should it be required.

so if someone disputes the evidence you put forward using evidence of their own you have not been educated, that seems to me to be a position of a closed opinion ergo you say something is right so it must be.

Again I ask have you debated robini123 before on this subject, if not then by what right do you claim that it would be a "one sided situation" as you have no idea whether it would be one sided or not.

I'm sorry but all I am seeing from you is evasion.

 

You claimed "gays hate religion". That is false. Since there are many believers in religion who are gay. You even admitted it.

What moral standards do you wish to exercise...specifically?

 

I don't hate homosexxuals. i hate some of their dishonesty that they do.

And secondly, yes there is. It's called thought control that you liberals love to practice, such as when I posted that video on America's Cultural Imperialism and you wouldn't even be objective enough to watch it in an even handed way and dismissed it out of hand because it was from a pro family source.

Such as every single time you people get amd at someone for finding the act disgusting and insult and berate them to no end to get them to shut up.

That's called thought control and social engineer to align with your political correctness and your narrative.