Atheism and pedophilia

This is the analogy. People who live in France love their country and cannot imagine living anywhere else. God believers cannot imagine someone not 'living' in God. People in France think you must not want to live there the same way God believers think you must oppose God.

Just because I do not live in France, or have God belief, does not mean my beliefs are based on that absence.

False equivalence fallacy.

People that believe in God simply believe in God. They understand that there are people that do not believe in God. They encourage a belief in God. That is all.

People that live in France do not have to believe in living in France. They simply live in France. People that do not live in France do not have to believe anything about France at all. They are forced by logic to declare that France exists (they are talking about it, forming a proof of Identity). They may not be as familiar with France as someone living there. That is not a belief. That is simply a state of being.

Lack of belief in a god or gods is itself a belief.
 
No, you don't. You are making an irrational argument. You are denying your own argument, then blaming zymurgy for being inane and sophomoric (an insult fallacy).

A lack of belief in a god or gods is in and of itself a belief. There is no such thing as an utter 'lack of belief'. That is an incomplete argument (a fallacy), forming a void argument (another fallacy).

why bother with the dumbest guy in the room?

1/10 of what you say will stick
 
It is when the only reason to disagree with homosexuality is an irrational fear.
I have already provided you with a reason that had nothing to do with one having a phobia of homosexuals. I have already highlighted why you are engaging in such correspondence with me. It is all about shaming people who don't "belong to your team" instead of engaging in rational discussion with them.

That's why when pressed, people who claim they simply disagree with homosexuality never have a good reason.
I have already provided one.

It's always a feels over reals argument like "it's gross" or "it's makes my god sad."
The reason that I provided (purposely) involved neither.

Bullshit. If that was true, there would also be an opposition to infertile couples having sex, married couples having protected sex, and so on.
You missed my words 'in principle', predictably. I've been through this conversation with people countless times; I knew full well that you'd make that particular appeal to me, which is why I purposely said 'in principle'.

I don't really care to help homophobes.
I can tell.

I rather publicly shame them
I can tell. Publicly shaming them does nothing to help them overcome their phobia, however. Your choice to shame them is unfruitful and unproductive.

so that other people, who are unsure about homosexuality being ok, can see how ridiculous homophobia is.
You continue to conflate two completely separate issues (on purpose, in my observation). Homophobia is not the same as disagreeing with homosexuality, and disagreeing with homosexuality is not the same as homophobia.

And this has been working. At one point same-sex relations were illegal. Look how far they've come today.
Shaming homophobes has not been working. It has only made their homophobia worse.

Shaming people such as myself who disagree with your views on homosexuality has not been working either. You have not in the slightest bit convinced me of anything, as you have not been speaking rationally.

Present any argument you want and I'll debunk it.
No you won't. As I said in my prior response to you, you are not here to "debunk" anything. You are here to hurl buzzwords/insults at me and to attempt to shame me for not "being on your team".

But I won't pretend that you're being rational or moral.
Your issues, not mine.

I won't pretend you just have an acceptable different opinion.
Of course you won't. You hate those who aren't "on your team". You've made that quite clear already. You have chosen to throw all rationality about this topic out the door.

Something I don't like about Liberals is they're way too tolerant of ideas that are objectionably terrible.
Agreed. They are WAY too tolerant of Socialism/Communism, funding the "fight" against "Climate Change", racism and racist policies (such as affirmative action), price controls that always lead to shortages (such as minimum wage policies), killing unborn children as a matter of convenience, and Burn Loot Murder (and similar violence/vandalism and organizations that promote such violence/vandalism).

Not only is this not true, but homosexuality used to be illegal in a bunch of American states. And even in the states where it was legal, cops would regularly raid gay bars and beat up people.
What was legally stopping a homosexual man from marrying a woman, and vice versa?

I actually have done this with mildly reasonable people.
I don't believe you.

If someone is homophobic but doesn't want to limit LGBT rights, then sure, I usually help them to understand their fears are unfounded.
I don't believe you. Also, what LGBT rights are currently limited? What they are asking for are not equal rights, but special rights above and beyond the rights of others.

But if it's someone who wants to take away LGBT rights, I find that they're too far gone, and I rather just publicly shame them since that works better. We're never going to fix people like Pence.
Special rights are not equal rights. Shaming homophobes does not help them overcome their phobia.

So basically, gay people are alright as long as they just shut up and accept their role as second class citizens.
Why must gay people continuously shove their "gayness" into the faces of everyone else? I don't shove my "heterosexualness" into the faces of others. But then again, I'm not trying to gain special rights over others...

The "LGBTQLMNOP+" meme is really just a way to whitewash homophobia. It's saying homophobia in law or culture is fine, just ignore it.
:palm:
 
Last edited:
if you lack a belief in religion - you have a belief that some other explanation does exist
No, it does not. One can lack a belief in any religion and lack a belief that "some other explanation" exists.

so yeah - a lack of belief in religion means you believe something else
Nope. One can believe something else but it is not implied by any lack of a belief.

iI think this is a little deep for you though - offense meant
You need a refresher in Logic 101. Get to it.
 
I quoted what he said -
... and then you responded to something he didn't write. I'm sorry you struggle to keep up

To believe "there is no God" is to likewise hold a religious belief.

This is what gfm7175 wrote and he is correct and your comment was incorrect. It really is that straightforward. When you literally quote someone you really do have no excuse for not getting it right.

i Yes - that is a belief - and it even requires faith but it does not require religion
It is a theistic belief and is not a lack of any theistic belief. Ergo, it is a religious belief. gfm7175 is correct and you are in error.

I, for example, am an atheist, i.e. I lack any theism. I am characterized only by the beliefs that I do not have, not by any beliefs that I have because I have none. I do not believe that there are no gods because that would give me a theistic belief and I would cease to be an atheist. Do you see how that works? I neither have any theism nor do I "reject" any theism because I simply have no theism, i.e. atheist.

Any more sophomorics you want to throw my way?
 
... and then you responded to something he didn't write. I'm sorry you struggle to keep up

To believe "there is no God" is to likewise hold a religious belief.

This is what gfm7175 wrote and he is correct and your comment was incorrect. It really is that straightforward. When you literally quote someone you really do have no excuse for not getting it right.


It is a theistic belief and is not a lack of any theistic belief. Ergo, it is a religious belief. gfm7175 is correct and you are in error.

I, for example, am an atheist, i.e. I lack any theism. I am characterized only by the beliefs that I do not have, not by any beliefs that I have because I have none. I do not believe that there are no gods because that would give me a theistic belief and I would cease to be an atheist. Do you see how that works? I neither have any theism nor do I "reject" any theism because I simply have no theism, i.e. atheist.

Any more sophomorics you want to throw my way?

you have mastered the skill of beating your chest and declaring victory.

warning - after high school -debate becomes more

good day shit stain
 
warning - after high school -debate becomes more
Rather than speculate, shouldn't you wait and see what awaits you after highschool? Those few years will pass before you know it.

When you begin your undergrad, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
 
Back
Top