|
|
| Author |
Message |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
 Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Stinky Pete wrote: | NWS. Your statistics are meaningless and untrue. I have heard this argument against homosexuality time and time again and I am sick of it. It is an excellent example of poor reasoning and mindless bigotry. No, scratch that; you don't appear to be mindless at all. In fact, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the english language and reasoning skills, which makes this idiocy that much more inexcusable.
AIDS is a relatively new development in human history. Homosexuality is not. In fact, one can see that many species engage in **** behavior with members of either **** regularly. I cite Bonobo monkeys (an extreme example, to be sure, but a close relative) and other primates, not to mention scores of so-called "lower" life forms.
Gay people are vile / immoral? I think not. Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Andy Warhol, Michealangelo, Tennessee Williams, Da Vinci, and (potentially, mind you) the person many people call the Son of God himself, Jesus of Nazareth.
In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, why do you, a seemingly reasonable human being make such claims?
I hold that you are ill-informed and/or misguided.
No, I'm not gay, but why should it matter? |
Your argument is flawed. I did not suggest homosexuality is the source of AIDS, but it is the reason it propagates. That's something I noticed you did not contest...as it is simply true. The fact that the argument is old does not make it untrue. I don't mind if you hold me ill-informed and/or misguided, as the ill-informed and/or misguided often do.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Michaelangelo or Leonardo and especially not Jesus Christ were gay. That is propoganda made up bt gay people to make it seem more acceptable. Show me evidence to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Occulis
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 13293
Location: Moral Relativity Central
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Paden wrote: | | Frostkiss wrote: | Not worth to discuss ...
The *real* problem with AIDS is certain countries in Africa, the lack of education and the tools to prevent it ... |
Aye Frosty
My father works with a man from south africa and he says aids is so bad there. |
lol yer dads gay lol how were u born lol loloollolool
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
That article on Jesus was interesting. =)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Stinky Pete
Total Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: |
Your argument is flawed. I did not suggest homosexuality is the source of AIDS, but it is the reason it propagates. That's something I noticed you did not contest...as it is simply true. The fact that the argument is old does not make it untrue. I don't mind if you hold me ill-informed and/or misguided, as the ill-informed and/or misguided often do.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Michaelangelo or Leonardo and especially not Jesus Christ were gay. That is propoganda made up bt gay people to make it seem more acceptable. Show me evidence to prove me wrong. |
I didn't contest it because I didn't realize that was a crux of your argument, and it seems utterly moronic to think that.
I have a couple of friends working in Africa with the health division of the Peace Corps right now, and the endemic problem there is most assuredly not caused by homosexual ****, but by all ****. That's where it came from, anyway. What, are you going to say that black people are evil now, too?
There is indeed as much evidence that Christ was gay as there is that he was heterosexual or asexual. That's my point, really. It is contested like most information about the man, thus making him a more suitable and malleable abstraction.
Even excepting Leonardo or Da Vinci (two figures so obviously obfuscated by time), what of the other people of which I wrote? I guarantee you will be hard-pressed to find many friends who think that they are <i>all</i> evil. Those that you do find are no doubt as ignorant as you are in the ways of being a good human.
Last edited by Stinky Pete on 07/01/03 - 17:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Stinky Pete
Total Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
An <i>ad hominum</i> attack. The worst sort of uneducated fallacy...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Stinky Pete wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
Your argument is flawed. I did not suggest homosexuality is the source of AIDS, but it is the reason it propagates. That's something I noticed you did not contest...as it is simply true. The fact that the argument is old does not make it untrue. I don't mind if you hold me ill-informed and/or misguided, as the ill-informed and/or misguided often do.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Michaelangelo or Leonardo and especially not Jesus Christ were gay. That is propoganda made up bt gay people to make it seem more acceptable. Show me evidence to prove me wrong. |
I didn't contest it because I didn't realize that was a crux of your argument, and it seems utterly moronic to think that.
I have a couple of friends working in Africa with the health division of the Peace Corps right now, and the endemic problem there is most assuredly not caused by homosexual ****, but by all ****. That's where it came from, anyway. What, are you going to say that black people are evil now, too?
There is indeed as much evidence that Christ was gay as there is that he was heterosexual or asexual. That's my point, really. It is contested like most information about the man, thus making him a more suitable and malleable abstraction.
Even excepting Leonardo or Da Vinci (two figures so obviously obfuscated by time), what of the other people of which I wrote? I guarantee you will be hard-pressed to find many friends who think that they are <i>all</i> evil. Those that you do find are no doubt as ignorant as you are in the ways of being a good human. |
So...your evidence that Jesus Christ was gay is that there is no evidence that he isn't gay...o...k.
I know that a significant (40%) number of new worldwide AIDS cases are caused by hetersexual ****. But that's still only 40%. It's also a much larger portion than most previous deaths. E.g., in 1990, the rate of gay AIDS victims numbered much higher than 60%.
You obviously missed half of my posts in that big long thread, though. Catch up, then get back to me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Stinky Pete wrote: | | An <i>ad hominum</i> attack. The worst sort of uneducated fallacy... |
That article was not even worth attacking, and I don't recall attacking the author. I just wanted to point out to everybody his body of work. Surely if you respect the author, you wouldn't mind. However, I am confused as to why you even posted it. Couldn't you get something a little less silly or flamboyant?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
WheresNWS man you missed his point, his point isn't that Jesus is gay, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with Jesus, just forget the whole jesus thing and regard it as an interesting link to read and maybe bookmark if you're into that kind of thing.
on jesus: the point of the article was stated at the end. I'll let you read it and sum it up for us all if you want =).
Also WheresNWS can you plz give me a link of the reported AIDS cases in Africa and worldwide broken down by **** orientation? Since you're pressing the issue? I already stated my solution to the problem~
Although actually, Africa is a shithole. Once they are dead then we can move in and get all the $$$!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh and man, by posting his other works, it was obvious, by looking at the subject matters, and then seeing who posted it (you  ) that you were implying that hes some idiot. I bet you didn't read any of the articles. =P
The article was not about Jesus being gay. Or even that he was gay. Or even that the author thought Jesus was gay.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
IN FACT, i would go so far as to say that you, WheresNWS, could have even written a similar article. I know you aren't married but you mentioned you were at a gay club so it is conceivable that you could have a conversation with a gay person, and it might spark an article like this one!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | Oh and man, by posting his other works, it was obvious, by looking at the subject matters, and then seeing who posted it (you :P) that you were implying that hes some idiot. I bet you didn't read any of the articles. =P
The article was not about Jesus being gay. Or even that he was gay. Or even that the author thought Jesus was gay. |
I'm sorry you got that impression based on his other articles. That was not my intention. However, it's interesting that you came to that conclusion.
I didn't make any such gay Jesus comments about the article (which I did have the misfortune to read). I simply said it was silly and flamboyant. I'm still confused as to why he would post it.
I did ask him to read all my posts in that big-ass thread, though, hoping he would get to the part of homosexuality and the homosexual being seperate.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Stinky Pete
Total Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 17:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
You don't read so well, either. Note I said "potentially".
Regarding your figures, what the f**k? Where the hell are you getting such ludicrous numbers? See CNN (No, that's not the Christian News Network).
I quote:
| Quote: | | The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) estimates that out of the 36.1 million people infected with HIV worldwide, 26 million of them live in Africa. One fourth of the adults in South Africa are believed to be living with HIV, the highest percentage in the world. |
See also: These statistics.
I quote:
| Quote: |
Region | Epidemic Started | Total infectees | Adult prevalence | % Women | main method of transmission
Sub Saharan Africa | Late '70's - Early 80's | 29.4 Million | 8.8% | 58% |Heterosexual ****
North Africa and the Middle east | Late '80's | 550,000 | 0.3% | 55% |Heterosexual, IDU
South and South East Asia | Late '80's | 6.0 Million | 0.6% | 36% |Heterosexual, IDU
East Asia and Pacific | Late '80's | 1.2 Million | 0.1% | 24% | IDU, Hetero, MSM
|
For your information, MSM refers to Male-on-male ****. Among these FOUR HIGHEST REGIONS, only one even MENTIONS gay ****. Your statistics are skewed. Any argument citing only the US statistics is utterly wrong. If the virus happened to initially enter this country into the homosexual community (a long-repressed community just coming into its own acceptance ****), of COURSE the numbers would be higher in that group, but of course they are on the rise in others now, too.
How's that for silly/flamboyant?
The separation between "homosexuality" and "homosexual" is semantic. One refers to a **** orientation as an abstact concept (open to interpretation howsoever the party wishes), and the other refers to an adjective or proper-noun instantiation of this concept. Of course, once you place it in the proper form, all of your subjective judgments about the abstract are placed onto the instantiation no matter how skewed they may be.
You are as misinformed as you are full of hatred and intolerance.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
I done got owned. My numbers are about 4 years old when total deaths from AIDS was at 22 million, but they were accurate for back then. As I said in another post, heterosexual **** had taken over. However, homosexual **** currently accounts for 42% of new infections (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/At-a-Glance.pdf) in the civilized world. Also the numbers on that site illustrate current infections/deaths. I'm referring to the disease over the past 30 years.
And I was referring to this article as silly and flamboyant. Which it is.
http://www.salon.com/feature/1998/04/cov_10feature.html
I admit to being misinformed about the most current numbers, but your other ad hominem attacks are hipocritical.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Stinky Pete
Total Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
Yet there is still no evidence <i>whatsoever</i> that homosexuals <i>or</i> homosexual **** are evil/wrong OR is responsible for AIDS.
Note also my comments about homosexuality being repressed. For years homosexuals were so closeted and persecuted by people such as yourself that they were forced to repress that aspect of themselves and basically take whatever they could get (a situation that leads, of course, to situations and behavior that would be considered promiscuous or outside of "normal" **** behavior). Of course I'm speaking generally and this should not be taken to be universal, but you get the idea.
Regarding the "flaunting" of homosexuality, is it not unreasonable to assume that once society started to accept homosexuality even slightly that there would be a tremendous upsurge and exxageration of a type of behavior that had been punishable be the most extreme ostricism and / or death previously??
By your rational, it would be like a white power bigot saying that blacksploitation was evil.
It was silly and flamboyant at points maybe, but certainly not wrong.
Further, while the article I posted may be considered silly or flamboyant, I was purfectly valid in pointing out that your citation was an ad hominum attack. It was an attempt to lessen the impact validity or relevance of an argument or piece of information by attempting to defame the deliverer of said argument or information (in this case, the writer of the article). That is textbook ad hominum.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Prawn
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 825
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
I love how the pro-homosexual (or whatever the f**k) community can claim Jesus gay. It's like, the most intelligent tactic ever. In fact, it's the same tactic many parents use to trick their children into believing certain rules that said parents haven't the patience to justify.
The fact that Jesus supported the bible, and spoke baddly of sodomy and other **** deviance is pretty much the only case needed. Unless of course you're f*****g stupid enough to think that a man who was walking around claiming to be the son of god was worried enough about being persecuted for his **** preferance to simply "cover it up".
It's this kind of shit that irritates me to no end. Grow up.
Last edited by Prawn on 07/01/03 - 18:21; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Stinky Pete wrote: | Yet there is still no evidence <i>whatsoever</i> that homosexuals <i>or</i> homosexual **** are evil/wrong OR is responsible for AIDS.
Note also my comments about homosexuality being repressed. For years homosexuals were so closeted and persecuted by people such as yourself that they were forced to repress that aspect of themselves and basically take whatever they could get (a situation that leads, of course, to situations and behavior that would be considered promiscuous or outside of "normal" **** behavior). Of course I'm speaking generally and this should not be taken to be universal, but you get the idea.
Regarding the "flaunting" of homosexuality, is it not unreasonable to assume that once society started to accept homosexuality even slightly that there would be a tremendous upsurge and exxageration of a type of behavior that had been punishable be the most extreme ostricism and / or death previously??
By your rational, it would be like a white power bigot saying that blacksploitation was evil.
It was silly and flamboyant at points maybe, but certainly not wrong. |
One thing your numbers left out...It attributed aids infection in Africa only to heterosexual ****. I was wondering how that could be, and here it is!
http://www.mask.org.za/sections/AfricaPerCountry/uganda/uganda.html
And please stop the ad hominem attacks. If you had read the posts in the other thread I had made on homosexuals, you would know that I don't persecute them. And you assumptions of their flamboyancy are extremely presumptuous. Read my dozens of posts in the other thread, because I don't want to have to repeat myself for you.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Stinky Pete wrote: | Yet there is still no evidence <i>whatsoever</i> that homosexuals <i>or</i> homosexual **** are evil/wrong OR is responsible for AIDS.
Note also my comments about homosexuality being repressed. For years homosexuals were so closeted and persecuted by people such as yourself that they were forced to repress that aspect of themselves and basically take whatever they could get (a situation that leads, of course, to situations and behavior that would be considered promiscuous or outside of "normal" **** behavior). Of course I'm speaking generally and this should not be taken to be universal, but you get the idea.
Regarding the "flaunting" of homosexuality, is it not unreasonable to assume that once society started to accept homosexuality even slightly that there would be a tremendous upsurge and exxageration of a type of behavior that had been punishable be the most extreme ostricism and / or death previously??
By your rational, it would be like a white power bigot saying that blacksploitation was evil.
It was silly and flamboyant at points maybe, but certainly not wrong.
Further, while the article I posted may be considered silly or flamboyant, I was purfectly valid in pointing out that your citation was an ad hominum attack. It was an attempt to lessen the impact validity or relevance of an argument or piece of information by attempting to defame the deliverer of said argument or information (in this case, the writer of the article). That is textbook ad hominum. |
This is an ad hominem attack, too: "You are as misinformed as you are full of hatred and intolerance."
However, in my posting of his previous articles I did not make any statement of the author other than posting his other works. That is NOT an ad hominem attack. It would be an appeal to authority (or rather lack thereof), had I actually stated anything about the author. You are interpreting it as an attack, based on the author's own writing. I'm innocent.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Stinky Pete
Total Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
Perhaps, then I was in error for assuming that you persecute. If so, then I accept and own up to my mistake.
How are you to believe this man's claims? I'm sure many towns in intolorant areas of America could say the same things, but there is no telling for sure whether or not it is true.
The claim that there are no homosexuals in a country <i>at all</i> is ludicrous.
Regarding my presumtion: it is not a presumption. It is a response to a common biggoted argument: "they flaunt it too much" or "it seems to be a recent thing, just like AIDS"
And yes, your attack on the author was indeed ad hominem. It would be like criticising an article written by someone who says that you should treat children with care because they'd written several articles prior about how to best cook baby.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Stinky Pete wrote: | Perhaps, then I was in error for assuming that you persecute. If so, then I accept and own up to my mistake.
How are you to believe this man's claims? I'm sure many towns in intolorant areas of America could say the same things, but there is no telling for sure whether or not it is true.
The claim that there are no homosexuals in a country <i>at all</i> is ludicrous.
Regarding my presumtion: it is not a presumption. It is a response to a common biggoted argument: "they flaunt it too much" or "it seems to be a recent thing, just like AIDS" |
Now you're just becoming presumptuous with your ad hominem attacks, which border on inverse bigotry. Of course it's presumptuous. You're generalizing me and my unstated thoughts based on your bigoted view of me.
Edit: And the whole point of there bring no homosexuals at all in a coutry being ludicrous is my point. Your numbers attributed all AIDS in Africa to heterosexual ****. That is not the case.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Stinky Pete
Total Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Now you're just becoming presumptuous with your ad hominem attacks, which border on inverse bigotry. Of course it's presumptuous. You're generalizing me and my unstated thoughts based on your bigoted view of me. |
Yes. I will admit that I was ill informed about your character. Further, it was a mistake in my argumentative process. Shall I prostrate myself more?
In all other ways separate from the attacks on your character, however, I think I have done a good job of presenting a counter-argument.
Edit: Not ALL cases. Just the MAJOR vector. Note that I did indeed include the words "<i>main</i> method" (emph. added).
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Stinky Pete wrote: | | Quote: | | Now you're just becoming presumptuous with your ad hominem attacks, which border on inverse bigotry. Of course it's presumptuous. You're generalizing me and my unstated thoughts based on your bigoted view of me. |
Yes. I will admit that I was ill informed about your character. Further, it was a mistake in my argumentative process. Shall I prostrate myself more?
In all other ways separate from the attacks on your character, however, I think I have done a good job of presenting a counter-argument. |
Also please note the post where I said this one was intended to be humerous.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Stinky Pete
Total Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 18:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
Arg.
Well then perhaps this thread will at least serve as good information for people who might not be so... jocular.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Silvermouse
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 11015
|
|
Posted: 07/01/03 - 20:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Help, I'm bored!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
DrevanMI
Luke Warm
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 338
Location: Michigan
|
|
Posted: 07/02/03 - 22:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
Wow WhereNWS, tell me something I don't know. And now that you mention it. What say you about the str8 ppl that have butt **** eh? I know there are some str8 guys out there looking to make a girl scream in pain with a penis in the butt....
closed minded c**t..
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paden
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 9362
Location: North CAROLINA!
|
|
Posted: 07/02/03 - 22:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
LOLZ OMG and THis ONE tIME at CAMP! KLASNKaNdsd
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 07/02/03 - 23:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | So...your evidence that Jesus Christ was gay is that there is no evidence that he isn't gay...o...k. |
Funny, every time you hear Christians defend their beliefs, they'll present this exact same argument in reverse.
"Do you have proof that God doesn't exist?.... No? Didn't think so."
Usually accompanied by Pascal's Wager logic, at which point your best bet is to quickly walk away and let them get back to their rousing chorus of Kumbaya.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 07/03/03 - 01:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
jesus most likely would not have felt at all presured to hide his homosexuality if he indeed did have it.. because the fact is that at the time many of the roman emperors who ruled at the time were gay.. caesar hadrian (sp?) had a 18 male consort who drowned in a river and he built a city for him... any cover up of that would have been during the churchs **** purges in the middle ages.. and if it was true we will never know cause theres not enough info left from that far before the fall of rome.
AS for AIDS i think we should let it burn itself out.. all the great plagues do eventually.. plus the world population was already way to high so all those dead is actually good.
It also has the added bonus of being **** transmited.. which usually targets people who have multiple partners or b*****d children born to people who have to many anyway and no way to feed them.
AIDs is great, you can easily avoid it if you want to and it kills bad people who deserved to die anyway (both str8 and gay).
And krumble i kinda agree with you on the god thing but on the jesus was gay thing its bs.. we can assume that he wasnt gay because of many reasons..
1: he preached against it (we think)
2: the total and complete change from total acceptance of almost any **** act in the roman empire to the middle ages being repressive is unexplainable unless the bible said it was bad before.. i mean unless you believe that they accepted it and then one day after 4k years of it decided it was a bad thing and started killing people for it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 07/03/03 - 01:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | So...your evidence that Jesus Christ was gay is that there is no evidence that he isn't gay...o...k. |
Funny, every time you hear Christians defend their beliefs, they'll present this exact same argument in reverse.
"Do you have proof that God doesn't exist?.... No? Didn't think so."
Usually accompanied by Pascal's Wager logic, at which point your best bet is to quickly walk away and let them get back to their rousing chorus of Kumbaya. |
What was presented was actually an argument from ignorance, assuming that Jesus Christ was gay, given the fact that it is not proven that he wasn't. Ironic, but your atheist comrad was actually using the argument you attributed to me. You just echoed my pointing it out.
You're also guilty of hastily generalizing my argument based on your ad hominem attack-like belief that theists are illogical. Since I can count 3 logical fallicies in your one statement, I'll grant myself one and appeal to greater authority than you and list a small handful of recognizable people who believe in God to set an example.
-Albert Einstein
-Maxwell Planck
-James Clerk Maxwell
-Issac Newton
-Galileo Galilei
It's obvious what they all have in common. They are the pillars of modern physical sciences. Einstein himself was an atheist until realizing the innate, unseen beauty of the universe created with seeming intention. Pick up a book sometime and learn something. It may cure you of your ignorance.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 07/03/03 - 01:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
naming people like newton and gallieo dont count cause they had enough problems with people wanting to murder them than declaring the fact they didnt believe in god.. the 1500s werent a good time to be both a scientist challenging popular belief in the solar system and then challenging god in the same instance..
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
