Why do we respect religious beliefs?

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

:rolleyes: :mad: :cool:

...what are you doing?

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

...what are you doing?

De Niro claims me and Captain Capslock have something in common.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

De Niro claims me and Captain Capslock have something in common.

...quite a lot in common...

Scofflaw

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's not my definition, it's from the OED. Either Dawkins is familiar with the popular usage of "child abuse" and he is deliberately doing it to be sensationalist in which case I have no respect for him as an intellectual or he is not familiar with what "child abuse" means in popular usage, in which case I also have no respect for him as as intellectual.

Why would you have no respect for him for using the correct medical definition of child abuse over the layman's ignorant usage of the term?

As I said, would you lose respect for an intellectual if he pointed out that lust after Britney Spears in school uniform is not actually pedophilia and it is not using the word correctly despite the fact that pretty much everyone now does use it to mean any sexual desire towards a minor? Or would you think it is now on academia to change how they use the term because lay people are now using it differently to how it was originally defined?

Again it is ironic that you call for a more intellectual debate but you are give out about an academic, a scientist, using a term in the correct medical sense rather than the way The Sun Newspaper might use it.

:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you accept the probability that Dawkins may in fact be trying to be sensationalist?

Anything is possible TR, but based on what I have read from Dawkins I can think of no reason to think he was trying to be sensationalist. And you have yet to present any reason yourself other than it being your opinion.

Tim Robbins wrote:

More worrying than all this is something you said in a previous post.

Why is that worrying?

Given the option between sexual abuse which at least ends and I can hopefully get on with my life (even if it is a damaged life) and eternal suffering forever, I'll take the sexual abuse please.

Its like asking would you like to be tortured for a day or go blind forever.

Each person will have a different answer, but I would rather the torture that I can hopefully recover from than never ever seeing again for the rest of my life. Others might disagree, but that is up to them.

aidan24326

Tim, can't agree with you at all. You're like a dog with a bone on this issue of Dawkins being 'sensationalist'. I don't believe he was at all. Religious indoctrination of young children is a form of abuse whenever that indoctrination promotes fear, hatred, intolerance and downright ignorance. How could it not be?

Unfortunately the term 'child abuse' tends to evoke images of young children being raped and the like, and certainly the type of abuse Dawkins is/was referring to isn't as obviously or as immediately harmful but that doesn't mean to say it isn't a form of abuse in it's own right. No child should have this stuff imposed on them.

The choice of words was very deliberate not to be sensational but to hammer the point home that religious brainwashing of children and the negative attitudes and emotions that can come with it is (potentially) a form of long-term abuse.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote:

Tim, can't agree with you at all. You're like a dog with a bone on this issue of Dawkins being 'sensationalist'. I don't believe he was at all. Religious indoctrination of young children is a form of abuse whenever that indoctrination promotes fear, hatred, intolerance and downright ignorance. How could it not be?

Unfortunately the term 'child abuse' tends to evoke images of young children being raped and the like, and certainly the type of abuse Dawkins is/was referring to isn't as obviously or as immediately harmful but that doesn't mean to say it isn't a form of abuse in it's own right. No child should have this stuff imposed on them.

The choice of words was very deliberate not to be sensational but to hammer the point home that religious brainwashing of children and the negative attitudes and emotions that can come with it is (potentially) a form of long-term abuse.

I love the way all of you can see the hidden meaning in what Dawkins is really talking about and what he's real intention was. It remind me when you pick an unfavourable verse from the Bible and the Christians tell you the esoteric meaning.
Look "child abuse" is the terminlogy we are discussing. As defined in the OED, that terminology is incorrect. It is as simple as that.

The question is why is he using incorrect terminology:

1. because he knows better than the OED?
2. because he is trying to be sensationalist?
3. because he had made a mess of point?

Dades

That's the last time I watch Brainiac: Science Abuse.

Those filthy buggers must be having sexual relations with science.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

As defined in the OED, that terminology is incorrect.

Luckily for the rest of us I guess then that speaking the English language isn't defined by the 2005 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=define%3Achild+abuse&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Funny how many of those definitions (including one from a US family court) includes emotional or mental abuse in the definition of child abuse.

Obviously they not paying attention to their OED instructions on how to speak :rolleyes:

God I cannot believe we are even having this discussion ... let it go TR

philologos

Guys can we progress the conversation past Richard Dawkins just for a second. The world doesn't revolve around him. I'm perfectly okay to accept that people have a right to hold a religion, but that is as far as I'd go. Is it the same for atheists or what? Thats what we're here to discuss isn't it?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Guys can we progress the conversation past Richard Dawkins just for a second. The world doesn't revolve around him.

Seemingly the world revolves around the Oxford English Dictionary.

Jakkass wrote:

I'm perfectly okay to accept that people have a right to hold a religion, but that is as far as I'd go.

I think that is as far as most of us go

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

I love the way all of you can see the hidden meaning in what Dawkins is really talking about and what his real intention was.

And I love the way you can see a hidden meaning in what Dawkins is really talking about and what his real intention is. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

By the way, I am no lover of Dawkins, he is nothing more than food for thought for me. He has very interesting ideas, some of which I agree with, some I don't. As pointed out, he get flustered during debate, like we all do, and may use terminology that can, and does apparently, caused raise eyebrows. Such is life.

On a more important issue to me, you are making the friendly Karma Police very unhappy.
Here it is strait, since you like strait.
1. No more strings of idiotic icons. I will tolerate one to emphasis the intent of each statement. I will give you a one week ban starting today for each future occurrence of "Icon Abuse." Please don't test me on this, it will happen.
2. I have check the Boards IE register and we have no De Niro registered for any account and no subscription paid in that name. Therefore, stop referring to this individual who does not exist here.

Just to remind you, we are not here to discuss the terminology of "child abuse," we are going round in circles. IMO, stupid ones at that. That topic belongs in Humanities, feel free to take it there.

As Jackass said,

I'm perfectly okay to accept that people have a right to hold a religion, but that is as far as I'd go. Is it the same for atheists or what? Thats what we're here to discuss isn't it?

Yes, that is what we are here to discuss.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Seemingly the world revolves around the Oxford English Dictionary.



I think that is as far as most of us go

I believe that people have a right to hold any religion and that parents have right to indoctrinate their children, bring their children to mass, sunday school whatever it is. Or parents have a right to bring their children up as atheists should they wish.

I think giving a major bias to a belief system or lack of belief system is conservative but not a form of abuse.
If that is a form of abuse well then the parents are also abusing themselves.
I think abuse has a sinister element to it: it is usually selfish, sadistic and does not have best interests at heart.
I think when parents bring their kids with a religion, they have their (the children) best interests at heart, there is certainly no intent of any form of abuse and there is usually very little negative consequences of to the child.
All my friends were indoctrinated, most of them left the Church and very few suffered any side effects that one would usually associated with any form of abuse, physical, mental, sexual etc.

If the atheists on this forum were not indoctrinated, they wouldn't know that much about Religion (note how little we know about Islam) and they wouldn't have stumbled upon something they seemed to enjoy doing (arguing about not being a Christian).
This begs the question do they resent the fact they spend most time here or are they just ungrateful for their own Religious indoctrination

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

And I love the way you can see a hidden meaning in what Dawkins is really talking about and what his real intention is. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

By the way, I am no lover of Dawkins, he is nothing more than food for thought for me. He has very interesting ideas, some of which I agree with, some I don't. As pointed out, he get flustered during debate, like we all do, and may use terminology that can, and does apparently, caused raise eyebrows. Such is life.

On a more important issue to me, you are making the friendly Karma Police very unhappy.
Here it is strait, since you like strait.
1. No more strings of idiotic icons. I will tolerate one to emphasis the intent of each statement. I will give you a one week ban starting today for each future occurrence of "Icon Abuse." Please don't test me on this, it will happen.
2. I have check the Boards IE register and we have no De Niro registered for any account and no subscription paid in that name. Therefore, stop referring to this individual who does not exist here.

Just to remind you, we are not here to discuss the terminology of "child abuse," we are going round in circles. IMO, stupid ones at that. That topic belongs in Humanities, feel free to take it there.

As Jackass said,



Yes, that is what we are here to discuss.

I think you should look at why I am using the icons.

Two comments directed at me in this debate:

1.
"At this stage, I probably have as little respect for your powers of debate as I have for those of Captain Capslock."

2.

"Trust me, Tim, I insult you and Captain Capslock, because I think very little of you both. Neither of you have changed my mind because neither of you can put a logical argument together despite (and because of) your overwhelming self-belief, which, in turn, is why I think little of you. There's only a couple of other posters here to whom that applies."

A violation of this rule in the charter:
"1. No personal insults. Attack the post not the poster. If you can't keep your head, take it elsewhere."

As for the De Niro comment that was in reference to, one of the many patronizing remarks for a specific poster, he said:

"Again, you seem not to have noticed that this is not your Maths class. You'll get respect when you show respect, and when you earn respect."

If the charter was enforced, neither of what you are now complaining about would have happened. They were both reactionary to insults directed at me. You bend the rules for one poster and not for me.

A flipping joke. Just because I am prepared to argue exactly what I don't like about Dawkins. It's interesting to hear you, The Atheist and Scofflaw all admit that you don't like him (or parts of him) and don't really elaborate in any detail why. I elaborate why, I get a load insults, a poor counter arguments and some sympathy from a Christian. I end up with a warning from the A&A forum. Ridiculous. I'll ban myself.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

You bend the rules for one poster and not for me

Do you really believe that! I have gone out of my way to support you, but after 13 pages of this I have had enough. You are guilty in one form or another of all the accusations you are flinging around.

Ridiculous. I'll ban myself.

You can't, I can, and will, if you don't play by the rules.

JC 2K3

I wasn't really monitoring this topic, so I have one question:

How in the name of an absent supernatural being did a topic with the simple and generally universally accepted answer of "I respect their right to believe but not the actual belief" end up getting to 13 pages?

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

I wasn't really monitoring this topic, so I have one question:

How in the name of an absent supernatural being did a topic with the simple and generally universally accepted answer of "I respect their right to believe but not the actual belief" end up getting to 13 pages?

Erm, well, see the posts immediately above yours. Pages 2-13 are pretty much taken up with the question of whether Dawkins was, or was not, sensationalist in his use of the term 'child abuse' to describe the religious indoctrination of children.

Most of that is unfortunately just bad-tempered wrangling, of which I'm completely guilty (and for which I apologise to everyone). Some people are just destined not to get along, it seems...

mea culpa,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Zillah wrote:

...what are you doing?

Oh, right

PDN

I really believe this thread has the potential to be the Atheism & Agnosticism board's answer to the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy Thread.

Asiaprod

PDN wrote:

I really believe this thread has the potential to be the Atheism & Agnosticism board's answer to the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy Thread.

No way, I will not let that happen:eek: . Do you realize I have had to read every page of that damn thread. That thread is insane:D

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

No way, I will not let that happen:eek: . Do you realize I have had to read every page of that damn thread. That thread is insane:D

Complete madness. I gave up as soon as it became clear you could chip away for years without seeing light.
I realise of course that arguing in there is therapeutic for some people.

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

Should these self-same people try to impose their choice of structure on society, you would not be intolerant to demand justification for said imposition.

If you look, for example, at the Intelligent Design farce in the US, you'll see that this is exactly what has happened. People are allowed freely subscribe to this belief, but the moment they go beyond spouting rhetoric and actually trying to make changes to the education system they are dragged into court and asked to justify their demands by proving their case.

this is the only bit of your arguement that I have a problem with. What happens when.. people in america, based on their religious beliefs, elect a politician who agrees with said belief and wants to promote it.

That politician appoints a judge who also agrees with said belief.

The judge already believes it's right and so may not demand a standard of proof and then you will have the scenario of ID being taught in American schools as the optional equivilant of evolutionary theory.

It might seem like a long line of if's and but's but I still feel that it could easily happen. I mean isn't that one of the "things" the republican party want and have done and are trying to do? Appoint supreme court judges with "conservative" values. Albeit roe vs wade is probably their main target right now but how far behind is evolutionary theory?

It might religious institutions rather than religious people that are the problem but those institutions get their power from religious people. And individuals do vote based on their personal beliefs. They vote for politicians who will "protect the sanctity of marriage." How long before the vote to "protect the truth of the bible," if they aren't already doing so?

These irrational beliefs are a danger. Is it a co-incidence that 60% of republicans that reject evolutionary theory through their ignorance and 60% of Fox news viewers were wrong about 3 basic facts of the iraq war? Those who believe through ignorance are not likely to want to question what they are told or find out reality for themselves and unfortunately in a democracy those individuals have power.

I'm not saying I have a solution... but...

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

Do you really believe that! I have gone out of my way to support you, but after 13 pages of this I have had enough. You are guilty in one form or another of all the accusations you are flinging around.


You can't, I can, and will, if you don't play by the rules.

No I believe you have not been impartial in this debate and you have been unfair to me.
Which is unusual because you are usually an excellant moderator.

That said, I didn't see you warn anyone else in this debate and my offenses were less than those committed against me.
You have hurt my feelings. I am banning myself for a week from A&A.

Edit: Fixed typos

philologos

Acid_Violet wrote:

Unfortunately people CAN NOT change their sexual orientation. They can repress it, which is not a good thing as a sexually repressed society tends to be more superstitious and violent, studies have found. Much research has been carried out and it is highly speculated that homosexuality occurs due to high testosterone to oestrogen levels in women and vice versa for men; it can't be helped. It's part of the human condition, not some random fetish! I hope I don't seem antagonistic but this is something I get really worked up about. But did you ever stop to think why homosexuality is a sin other than it says so in the Bible? I know the age old argument, that it's unnatural and not the way god made it, but god didn't intend for people to have disabilities, are they sinning by having autism or having been born paralysed? But according to the bible (and forgive me for not being able to quote the passage) god made everyone and designed everyone exactly. If you believe in a god, then clearly god did make it that way!

Aha, any reports for this? How people can't change their sexual orientation? I'd be interested in reading reports that say that changing your sexual orientation makes you superstitious and violent? Also the Bible doesn't require them to change their sexual orientation, all the Bible requires of gay people to do is abstain from sexual intercourse with another man. I don't think that gays are born that way, and to be honest with you I actually find it a bit rediculous. Where do bisexuals come in then?

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:

No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that

also on the subject of marriage:

Genesis 2:24 wrote:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife, and they become one

Acid_Violet wrote:

Sorry, my argument was more based on catholic belief but the transubstantiation was merely an example of many. Another one may be the belief of praying curing cancer. It's a belief built on nothing other than super-stition! Again, studies have been done proving that praying for people (who are having operations as opposed to cancer, but I don't think it makes much of a difference) actually causes people to take longer to recover. Not so much 'ask and you shall receive'.

Just a thought, considering I'm thinking you're using the same argument as Richard did in The Prayer Experiment. But something Richard didn't take into account, is that by testing God, you are doubting your trust in Him.

Deuteronomy 6:16 wrote:

Do not put your the Lord your God to the test as you did as Massah. Be sure that you obey the laws he has given you. Do what the Lord says is right and good, and all will go well with you.

Also you fail to take into account that death is not neccessarily seen as a bad thing in Christianity. Since the deceased is taking up new life with God Himself in heaven. To be honest with you it's something people should look forward to. Although, i'm not denying that it is sad.

Acid_Violet wrote:

I already said in my post that I know it's not as simple as crackers and booze will give you eternal life. I'm sorry but even the belief that you mentioned, that one has to believe in God to gain eternal life, to love him more than you love yourself etc. etc., it's still far-fetched. It reminds me of how I denied that santa wasn't real up till I was nine or ten. It actually reminds me a bit of santa and how you have to believe in him and be good all year round or else you'll get coal.......

That's your choice I'm not forcing you to do anything. Although I would say don't knock it before you've tried it. Faith didn't magically come to me either you know.

Acid_Violet wrote:

Ok, it's not clear what's right and wrong and to say it is false. I shall look for examples when I get a spare moment.
I understand how Satan influences people to do wrong, in a metaphorical sense at the very least. I've already pointed out how the concrete nature of evil manifests itself in a person.
I've already pointed out how evil varies in different shapes and forms and in the real world things aren't as simple as black and white. Some man stealing because his family are starving; right or wrong? Killing someone in a fit of rage because the person raped your child; right or wrong? Stoning a woman to death for having sex out of wedlock; right or wrong? I'm sure christianity would have some problems discerning which is right and which is wrong in these examples, let alone countless others. (I don't expect you to answer these, they're just examples of how telling right from wrong is not quite so simple.) Anyway, my previous argument about the nature of evil said pretty much all that's needed to be said about it.

I would see it as such.

Right let me deal with these firstly stoning to death. Jesus is very clear on his position. God is the ultimate judge.

John 8:5-7 wrote:

"In our Law Moses commanded that such a woman be put to death. Now, what do you say?". They said this to trap Jesus, so that they could accuse him. But he bent over and wrote on the ground with his finger. As they stood there asking him questions, he straightened himself up and said to them, "Whichever one of you has committed no sin, may throw the first stone at her".

I'll admit that you are right in the regard of the poor stealing. However it is written in Proverbs.

Proverbs 6:30-31 wrote:

People don't despise a thief if he steals food when he is hungry; yet if he is caught he must pay back seven times more - he must give up all he has.

Solomon is comparing those who have committed adultery losing all they have to someone who steals bread losing all they have. Yes it is still a sin to steal. However throughout the Bible it is noted that it is a sin to oppress the poor. There are over 300 verses in the Bible which encourage social justice for the poor. Really society is at fault if people have to steal food unfortunately.

http://www.zompist.com/meetthepoor.html
^^ This link has a lot of them.

As for killing it isn't acceptable under any circumstances. Apart from the obvious commandment Jesus said the following:

Matthew 26:52 wrote:

"Put your sword back in it's place", Jesus said to him. "All who take the sword will die by the sword".

Acid_Violet wrote:

So because you feel the 'spirit of god' within you you base most, if not all, of your moral opinions on a few thousand year old book and refuse to take into account any other descriptions or explainations of how we have life as we know it and if some story was passed down through the generations it must be true? Pretty much the same way one may feel touched by the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

You really do listen to that man too much if you are starting to use his title for God...
but anyway. The moral opinions of Christianity, are truly beneficial to society, so yes I would base a lot of my moral opinions on the Bible. Well I'd take them into account, doesn't mean I'd hold them as highly as the word of God. Also that isn't my reasoning on how it is true. What I base my faith on is how I've felt through God's word and through praying etc. I've experienced God for myself, I don't need to trust that someone else has got it right. I trust God? You probably think thats wierd but I really don't care to be brutally honest.

Acid_Violet wrote:

Me too. It may interest you to know that in South America and Africa catholic priests marry too.

I'd be curious to know why or how the Vatican could let them away with that?

Acid_Violet wrote:

Where's the fun in that? :P Well so much for repenting.... So in 2007 a non-virgin divorced prostitute clearly isn't clean and can't marry a priest, right? Tis a bit dated to think that a woman who isn't a virgin or who is divorced is unclean (no point going into prostitute!)

Bear in mind that was in the Hebrew Scriptures not in the New Testament. God encourages mercy and forgiveness to all. So I assume that position has changed since the coming of Christ. Not entirely sure however. I imagine because of the sons of the priest also becoming priests at that time and if the other wife had sons through prostitution then they would have to be priests too even if they weren't descended from the original priest.

Acid_Violet wrote:

So the earth is still flat? No we have seen that it is round not only by discovery but now from satelite photos from space.

Isaiah 40:22 wrote:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Acid_Violet wrote:

The earth is the centre of the universe? No, we're millions of miles away from the centre of the universe, the universe even is expanding.
The sun revolves around the earth? No, we revolve around the sun, some planets revolve around two suns even.
The earth was created in 6 days (one at the end for a rest)? No, so that the earth may be as it is now it took a long process of chemical and physical change and development, the earth is still changing now!

Just wondering what your point is. A lot of the peoples observations of the universe were not God given. God didn't say a lot of it. However I have a link that shows how the Bible is often v.consistent with science. I'd be interested in you giving a few Bible quotes to back up your position on the earth being the centre of the universe?

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Acid_Violet wrote:

Woman was made out of man's rib? No, evolution is clearly how all creatures were made!

Ah here.... that is symbolic. Actually I used part of that quote earlier on the bit on homosexuals. Look at the context of it please... There are 2 accounts of the creation of human kind also. One as it was, and one to help understand. This is how mainline Christian theologians would see it.

Genesis 1:27 wrote:

So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female, blessed them, and said. "Have many children so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their countrol. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals.

Plural, both at the same time. The quote you are using is to describes mans dependence on woman, and womans dependence on man.

Genesis 2:23-24 wrote:

He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.
Then the man said,
"At last there is one of my own kind -
Bone taken from bone and flesh taken from my flesh.
'Woman' is her name beause she was taken out of man."
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife, and they become one.

Acid_Violet wrote:

You should apply this scepticism to this belief in god, to feeling the spirit upon you, as well as to scientific evidence.

How do you think I got to this point? Do you think I haven't thought about it? Seriously...

Acid_Violet wrote:

I don't respect someone believing in god when they know of a lot of evidence to the contrary. I don't respect a belief in god because of feeling his spirit upon you. That's just as empirical and justified as a suicide bomber feeling the spirit upon him calling him to kill himself and others. It's just as justified and empirical as feeling the Flying Spaghetti Monsters noodly appendage reaching out to you. It's just as empirically based as belief in horoscopes, as how the old people in Ireland used to believe in fairies, as belief in.......you get my drift. It's a feeling, a spiritual feeling, and has just as much empirical value as the ones already listed.

You need to start to form your own opinion instead of relying on Richard's book.
As for you saying, that it is as empirically based as belief in horoscopes. You haven't experienced a deep faith before, so it's very easy for you to compare a thing you haven't experienced with something else isn't it?
Sigh... the suicide bomber routine. All I'll say here, is if you're interested in finding the truth about what kind of faith Islam is go out and get a translation of the Qu'ran. To be honest with you, my faith doesn't motivate me to kill anyone so what's it to you?

Acid_Violet wrote:

If you read my comments about Richard Dawkins, you'll see that I don't want people to outwardly reject their faith because of someone telling them another opinion. I'd expect someone to logically and empirically and without bias weigh up their belief alongside the evidence or argument against their belief.

Do you not think people come to a conclusion about their faith before they have it? Of course it takes thought! Of course! But, why should I constantly question it if I'm sure He exists? Do you want me to do an audit of my faith every day or something? But on another note, why should I weigh up my beliefs to yours if you refuse to respect me and my right to have that belief. It seems a bit odd doesn't it?

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

Just wondering what your point is. A lot of the peoples observations of the universe were not God given. God didn't say a lot of it. However I have a link that shows how the Bible is often v.consistent with science. I'd be interested in you giving a few Bible quotes to back up your position on the earth being the centre of the universe?

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

The thing about sites like that, and I've seen many of them for both the Bible and the Qur'an, is that they vastly overexaggerate how scientifically accurate the Bible is, and a lot of the evidence they give is simply quotes which have some vague connection with the scientific fact they claim it is consistant with.

Now I'm not saying the Bible is scientifically inaccurate, but some of the quotes they give on that site and others simply do not verify the scientific fact they claim they do.

robindch

Jakkass wrote:

all the Bible requires of gay people to do is abstain from sexual intercourse with another man.

There's an interesting page on the many translations which can be made from Leviticus 18:22:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Which is worth reading for a word-by-word dissection of the line.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't think that gays are born that way, and to be honest with you I actually find it a bit rediculous.

Do you know any gay people? If you do, have you tried to find out how they feel about their own sex?

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

Aha, any reports for this? How people can't change their sexual orientation? I don't think that gays are born that way, and to be honest with you I actually find it a bit rediculous. Where do bisexuals come in then?

[other text]

....

Although I would say don't knock it before you've tried it.

I'm gonna assume that you're heterosexual.

Why not apply such advice to your statement regarding sexual orientation? Do you think you could, if you wanted, find yourself sexually aroused by a member of the opposite sex? Or even an arbitrary inanimate object?

philologos

robindch wrote:

Do you know any gay people? If you do, have you tried to find out how they feel about their own sex?

No to both. I just genuinely can't see that they're born that way.

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I'm gonna assume that you're heterosexual.

Why not apply such advice to your statement regarding sexual orientation? Do you think you could, if you wanted, find yourself sexually aroused by a member of the opposite sex? Or even an arbitrary inanimate object?

Yes I am. Opposite sex? I thought we were talking about same sex relationships here? Why not? I wouldn't recommend something that God the creator of all kind has condemned. Somehow I wouldn't think it would be a good idea. Maybe thats just me of course.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

No to both. I just genuinely can't see that they're born that way.

What if they just are, even if you can't see it? There a lot of pre-birth factors to homosexuality.

Jakkass wrote:

Yes I am. Opposite sex? I thought we were talking about same sex relationships here? Why not? I wouldn't recommend something that God the creator of all kind has condemned. Somehow I wouldn't think it would be a good idea. Maybe thats just me of course.

Why is it condemned?

philologos

this really warrants a different topic. I can see this thread being locked if it goes further off the point.

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

Yes I am. Opposite sex? I thought we were talking about same sex relationships here? Why not? I wouldn't recommend something that God the creator of all kind has condemned. Somehow I wouldn't think it would be a good idea. Maybe thats just me of course.

Apologies. My post didn't make an awful lot of sense... I misworded a little fatally...

Also, if the eight or so pages regarding the semantics of one of Dawkins' statements wasn't off topic; then I don't know what is.