Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Stealth Moose doesn't consider the other side of his arguments.If "homophobia" as he calls it, is something distinctly characteristic of Abrahamic morality, then you shouldn't expect to find it in non-Abrahamic religions, you shouldn't expect to find it in secular communities, and you shouldn't expect to find it in a group that is, arguably, perfectly and diametrically OPPOSED to Abrahamic morality.
That's because this is a:
... And that was never my argument. I said specifically that homophobia is a byproduct of nature = good fallacies perpetuated by Abrahamic religions, but not necessarily exclusive to them. Satanists always appeared rather unhinged or off the wall in general and I never bothered to evaluate their moral beliefs. This isn't dodging the question when you're strawmanning in the first place.
Learn 2 Debate.
But you do.He's giving special attention to Islam and Christianity for reasons known only to himself.
Or you know, people who will listen. I know a great deal more about Christianity and Islam, and they are far more common here and in the West, where I would be exposed to their preaching, and I would be far more likely to challenge their more common viewpoints than those of the less vocal or entirely absent alternatives. I've even said as much when you asked before.
Common sense is your friend.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why didn't God just turn everyone homo? That would have killed off the human race without all the flood stuff.
People lived for hundreds of years back then; so God would have had to watch male-on-male butt****ing for hundreds of years; God didn't want that, God wanted a fresh start in about a year's time. /factsfromthebible
Originally posted by Robtard
People lived for hundreds of years back then; so God would have had to watch male-on-male butt****ing for hundreds of years; God didn't want that, God wanted a fresh start in about a year's time. /factsfromthebible
Wow! You would think that a god that created the universe in 6 days could have done it right the first time.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your "what if" is incorrect. For example circumcision is distinctly characteristic of Abrahamic religions, but we find it in secular communities, and other religions.
I can't speak for the other religions, but one reason you find circumcision performed in secular communities is that it has a variety of benefits, so much so that it is routine medical practice in some areas.
Incidentally, whereas Stealth Moose asked the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Do you give any credit to any Abrahamic faith?
4. If any of the above are true, why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would respond I certainly give credit to some of the tenets of Abrahamic faith, and the reason is that many of those tenets have testable, verifiable benefits.
For instance circumcision is one, common to Judaism and Christianity at least, and there was actually a piece about circumcision the other day on the New York Times website:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks, Study Reports
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
April 7, 2014, 10:38 am
A review of studies has found that the health benefits of infant male circumcision vastly outweigh the risks involved in the procedure.
But the study, published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, also found that while the prevalence of circumcision among American men ages 14 to 59 increased to 81 percent from 79 percent over the past decade, the rate of newborn circumcision has declined by 6 percentage points, to 77 percent, since the 1960s.
The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.
One cost-benefit analysis that considered infant urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases found that if circumcision rates were decreased to the 10 percent typical in European countries, the additional direct medical costs over 10 years of births would be more than $4.4 billion.
“Male circumcision is in principle equivalent to childhood vaccination,” said the lead author, Brian J. Morris, emeritus professor of medical sciences at the University of Sydney ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A version of this article appears in print on 04/08/2014, on page D6 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Childhood: Benefits From Circumcision.)
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
If he is saying "What?"😆 😆 😆
Yup!
👆 Gifs are the only divine thing besides cats, high-end cars, and beautiful women.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I can't speak for the other religions, but one reason you find circumcision performed in secular communities is that it has a variety of benefits, so much so that it is routine medical practice in some areas.Incidentally, whereas Stealth Moose asked the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Do you give any credit to any Abrahamic faith?
4. If any of the above are true, why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would respond I certainly give credit to some of the [b]tenets
of Abrahamic faith, and the reason is that many of those tenets have testable, verifiable benefits.For instance circumcision is one, common to Judaism and Christianity at least, and there was actually a piece about circumcision the other day on the New York Times website:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks, Study Reports
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
April 7, 2014, 10:38 amA review of studies has found that the health benefits of infant male circumcision vastly outweigh the risks involved in the procedure.
But the study, published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, also found that while the prevalence of circumcision among American men ages 14 to 59 increased to 81 percent from 79 percent over the past decade, the rate of newborn circumcision has declined by 6 percentage points, to 77 percent, since the 1960s.
The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.
One cost-benefit analysis that considered infant urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases found that if circumcision rates were decreased to the 10 percent typical in European countries, the additional direct medical costs over 10 years of births would be more than $4.4 billion.
“Male circumcision is in principle equivalent to childhood vaccination,” said the lead author, Brian J. Morris, emeritus professor of medical sciences at the University of Sydney ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A version of this article appears in print on 04/08/2014, on page D6 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Childhood: Benefits From Circumcision.) [/B]
This is like saying I give credit to Islam because I look good in a turban or getting up at five am to pray is good for my natural body clock. It doesn't actually address the problem of a codified way of life being determined by a collection of Middle-eastern stories or fables which in turn presuppose supernatural events and dismisses the burden of proof.
There's no point in giving credit to tenets of a faith when those tenets are not based on scientific or objective fact but instead merely have the good fortune to land on the right side of the coin. A similar example would be people in medieval Finland putting frogs in their milk because the shaman told them the gods liked it, and centuries later it turns out that the frogs secrete antibacterial substances. We don't say "shit, whatever that shaman was preaching, I'd better respect it".
If you do, you need a helmet.
So no, that doesn't answer the questions I provided you. And you only barely attempted to answer two of them, so try again.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Learn [to] debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKdaRcptVz8&feature=related
(1 min 56 sec mark to 3 min 42 sec mark)
(Relevant transcript)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" [Want to know my] concern about Congress?
I checked these numbers ...
57% of the Senate
38% of the House,
cite "Law" as their profession ...
and when you look at law ...
well, what happens in the courtroom?
It doesn't go to what's right, it goes to who argues best ...
the entire profession is founded on who the best arguers are ...
... the practice ... is bred in debating teams ...
... you know the subject, but you don't know which side you're going to be put on ...
... the act of arguing, and not agreeing, seems to be fundamental to that profession ...
... and Congress is half that profession ...
... where is the rest of life represented ...?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Neil DeGrasse Tyson)
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I don't have to pretend.Let me ask again.
1. Are you a Christian?
2. Are you of any Abrahamic faith?
3. Do you give any credit to any Abrahamic faith?
4. If any of the above are true, why?
5. Why do you defend Abrahamic believers at KMC but refuse to self-identify?
6. Why do I have to answer these same questions but you are exempt?
7. Why are you so fond of misdirection?
mmm
Correct me if I'm wrong: The above is exactly the kind of fallacious line of questioning you advocate below to say what shouldn't have any bearing on a "true" debate?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose[*] Take the argument to the opposition, questioning their morals, their upbringing, their true motives, and their behaviors in an effort to keep the spotlight on them and not on you where it rightly belongs.