Attack a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2013, 09:45 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
His name is Dr. Mark Fulton.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
A part of that conversation over there in the boxing ring just eats at me.

It states that gay sex is not a good thing because it does not produce procreation and is hence not useful.

I maintain that this is precisely why social evolution is starting to favor homosexual sex. Procreation has ceased to be crucial to the human race, it is, in fact, harmful if in excess.

The world has finite space and resources. Back in the days when the bible statements were made, there was almost infinite space and foods could be produced. Today, we are already relying on mass produced foods that have known carcinogens as preservatives. There are likely many unknown effects of food preservation that will show up in future generations.

Humans are a plague on the earth, multiplying like rats and paving over valuable resources.

Procreation is NOT a valid reason for sex - 1 child per person would maintain the fragile balance we have now and allow us to adjust to the population numbers without hastily adding chemicals with unknown properties to the food supply.

So, maintaining the population numbers allows for some sexual activity. The rest is there because through evolution and the earlier need to multiply, our body chemistry has adjusted to a need for sexual activity and it is a healthy outlet for hormonally induced drives.

Just saying. The "usefulness" of procreation is not applicable in today's world.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
21-05-2013, 11:28 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Hey dude, if you want to really have something more focused, rather than others attacking you, take this to the boxing ring, but state that you want to discuss with Mark Fulton, Starcash, Rahn127 (I would love to join the discussion, as I feel that I could adequately help on your question of knowledge, but it is freely your choice.)

This will eliminate the other people that will but in on the conversation and disrupt the flow of education between the two parties (atheism/theism).

Regards,

Steven.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
You are behind on the Boxing Front, Steven.

A match between Mark Fulton and Mojch is already under-way.

Also, Myself and Full Circle already brought the Ring up.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(21-05-2013 11:28 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Hey dude, if you want to really have something more focused, rather than others attacking you, take this to the boxing ring, but state that you want to discuss with Mark Fulton, Starcash, Rahn127 (I would love to join the discussion, as I feel that I could adequately help on your question of knowledge, but it is freely your choice.)

This will eliminate the other people that will but in on the conversation and disrupt the flow of education between the two parties (atheism/theism).

Regards,

Steven.

He already did, there is a conversation going on over there.

In this thread, we may as well express our opinions, and leave the conversation over there alone, according to the rules.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Yeah, I actually just saw it and shouted "Oh,Shit. I gotta edit."

And now that you responded to me, my misinformed post is now cemented forever, shaming me.

I also was in school, so I am not paying that much attention to TTA.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 11:38 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Hah hah!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Odd how in the boxing ring Mark Fulton (Dr.) has offered biblical text that refutes Mojch's claims and Mojch just rolls on past them.

Theists cling to their understanding of the bible. They do not acknowledge that the bible is the inerrant word of god. They chose to interpret. They have no right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
21-05-2013, 12:18 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 06:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Photo RE: Attack a Theist
I can't even tell what they're doing, now.
It started out as one thing, and now, the theist keeps changing, and altering the terms of the debate, as he gets corrected by Mark.
Seems to be devolved into an argument about sex. (How usual). Was that the original topic ?

His assertion that "Biblical marriage" is one man and one woman is utterly false.
So now he's trying to say that HIS definition, (and therefore implicitly THE "Christian" one, and of course even that is no longer the case) is best for society.

Many HUGE flaws in the theist's line of reasoning :

1. All assertions with no empirical evidence. Not one reference to even one study.
No studies at all. In fact there are studies that show that children are just as well off in gay households as not. Straight people are not going to all run off and "turn gay".
There are no studies that show gay people promote disease any more than anyone else, or the world would be better off with no homosexual behavior.
In fact there are scientific studies that proves same-sex behaviors exist in every specie on the planet, therefore is entirely "natural".

2. The most important HUGE flaw is the unspoken premise, that the laws in the Bible were original to the Bible, and that somehow religion can take credit for introducing and maintaining them. That is simply not true. Every single law, health rule, cultural adaptation, and religious rule existed ALREADY in Ancient Semitic culture, and the Bible TOOK them, and sanctioned them, They did not come FROM the Bible, they were ADDED TO the Bible. There are no exceptions. Humans wrote the scrolls, and humans in Semite culture were responsible for them. They came FROM the culture. No god(s) GAVE them to the culture.

Humans do need standards, but using one set, for everyone, from the ancient Near East in 2013 is ludicrous. Human have FAR advanced since Biblical times, and there is no reason why we have to be tied to those ancient culturally relative standards. The Hebrews were NO better off, and no more successful as a culture than anyone else. In fact they were less successful.

So what is his point ? That religion is good because it's "useful" ? That is Utilitarianism. The ends justify the means. Quite the slippery slope there.

His entire line of reasoning is assertion with no underlying justification. There is no harm done by same sex relationships. There are no studies that show gay relationships have any impact on "propagation" or that gay people cause disease, or spread disease.

After months and months of the Prop 8 California trial, where the plaintiff's attorney tried every-which-way to show there was ANY ill affect caused, and utterly failing, after calling to the stand the TOP experts, Psychologists, Sociologists, child experts, and them ALL saying there was no adverse affects proven or seen, the appeals court judge said to the plaintiff's attorney, "How exactly does gay marriage threaten traditional marriage ?" The attorney replied, "Judge, I DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW". The case against Prop 8 was struck down, and went to the SCOTUS. The case proved, there is not one adverse affect in gay people acting according to their true nature.

Below is a copy of a post I wrote some time ago. It is relevant here.

Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.
There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science.

All men were assumed to be inherently straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.

There was also no notion of a wide and varried continuum of sexual behaviors, (bisexuality etc), as science recognizes today.
Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.

The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.

The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay with a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans)), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, set of human local customs.

The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dwellers could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter example of in-hospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.

Another great irony that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality.

ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", "Who Wrote the Bible".

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their Bible, where it came from, and HOW it came about, and why it came about.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...=salvation
See : William M. Schniedewind PhD, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Dr. Richard Elliott Friedmann, "Who Wrote the Bible", (and the excellent bibliography in the back).
http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_48.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schniedewind

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-05-2013, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 12:39 PM by yumeji.)
RE: Attack a Theist
Bucky... I...

Words escape me, so here is a picture:

[Image: 1912-so-much-win-crop.jpg]
So much win!

Oh! Looks like words don't escape me totally, hurray! I am so glad you posted all that, as I was working on my own response. Especially to his hilarious list (1-6) of why homosexuality is bad. But you put it much better than I.

[Image: atheistsignature.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yumeji's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: