It is a privacy issue. Having a period or ejaculating releases eggs and sperm, respectively, which eventually die if they aren't fertilized. Isn't that killing viable unborn babies?

Gay marriage is covered by the 14th Amendment, while nativity scenes are in violation of the 1st Amendment. Basic principles of the constitution.

I'm now agnostic, but was raised in a very Christian and conservative family. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was Christianity that taught me life was easy, as we'd all go to heaven.

So again, it's impossible for God to create free will without evil existing?

What do you believe the principles of Darwinism are?...........

So.. this being said.. why doesn't he stop it?

The people in the video claim that God permits evil to make way for a greater good. But why?

If he's God, he's very well able to create that greater good without the need for evil, so then why does he use evil to create that greater good?

Unless of course, God needs to allow evil things to happen for the greater good, in which case he's limited in his power.

No?

Choosing something unnatural does not equal a mental disorder.

Contacts are unnatural. People choose to wear them. That's not a mental disorder however.

Furthermore, what makes you think it's unnatural? Milo did claim that it was, but he doesn't back it up.

We've seen many examples of homosexuality in other species. ref

"The truth does not require a logical argument."

....what? I don't understand. Of course truth requires a logical argument.

"All sex outside of marriage (the lifetime legal bond of a man and woman as one flesh) is wrong. If you want a logical argument and conclusion supporting this fact, just play around until you get AIDS.

Homosexuality is wrong. If you think there is nothing wrong with it, you deserve the STD's that go along with it and everybody who hears you say there is nothing wrong with it and agrees with you also deserves those diseases including everybody you know and love.

How do you feel now? Do you feel like arguing against the truth?"

Saint, I'm honestly not understanding. I get that homosexuality is wrong, and adultery is wrong, and so on, but I don't understand why.

Also, I have a question while we're at logic. What do you think about logical fallacies?

Here's a website I like to use often, which references the fallacies. Do you agree with the website?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Thank you for clarifying- I was not able to find a link in the articles for the verses in the Quran. Could you please specify which ones in response?

Thank you in advance.

Please explain how that statement implies that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

"So quit shoving your religion down my throat, seeing you are not an authority"

You're misrepresenting the argument.

The argument is that being an atheist is not sufficient enough criteria for being an authority.

The argument is not that being and atheist is automatic disqualification for being an authority.

Sylynn said the former, you said the latter.

Just because he is an atheist does not mean he is an authority. However, just because he is an atheist does not mean he is NOT an authority.

See the difference?

If Milo believes that being gay is bad, and also believes that he could choose to not be gay, then why does he chose to be gay?

Where in the video does he argue that being gay is a choice? He says that it's mostly nurture, not nature, which implies that it's not a choice, as it's decided by your environment.

Both of your claims are completely unfounded.

Not only does he fail to provide evidence for this, he also says that it's some mix of nature and nurture, which implies that there is some aspect to being gay that you are born with.

"The same science says alcoholics pedophiles, murderers, and rapists' brains are wired differently. Thus, by your logic, everyone you challenge on any issue can say "hey, my brain is wired different, thus you can't challenge me." I'm a conservative because? My brain is wired differently."

Saying a brain is wired differently does not mean it's okay to do something. While it is correct that you can't challenge a person on the basis that their brain is wired differently, you CAN challenge them if their actions are doing harm- as in the case of a pedophile and a rapist.

For a gay person, we're simply saying that it's not really a choice to be gay. In this case, there's not much to challenge in terms of the act, as it does no harm- gay consensual private sex doesn't harm anyone.

"Is it any coincidence that this is the 'gayest generation' in history? Nope. Liberals are encouraging it and giving it attention, thus it keeps growing as a means to get pity and attention, and acceptance when you can't get it elsewhere."

It's not a coincidence at all. I don't doubt that some people will claim to be gay to get attention, but that's just a natural side effect of over-glorifying homosexuality, which does unfortunately happen. However, you can't attribute the growing gay population to just this. It's important to keep in mind that as being gay becomes more accepted, less gay people are staying in the closet, as they no longer have to fear being rejected by society, or in extreme cases, being harmed.

I have not seen yet a be-all end-all definition for mental disorder, so it's hard to define it. However, there are some things we can establish.

1. Homosexuality does not cause subjective discomfort, as discomfort caused by it is a result of social impositions (ie, feeling broken)

2. It does not prevent day-to-day functioning

3. It does not cause a person to be dangerous to themselves or to others.

Based on these criteria, I find it hard to see why it should be defined as a mental disorder.

I can't find the part where Milo says that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Milo does bring up a good point about the "gay gene" in response to claims of it being a sinful lifestyle, but I don't wholly agree with his refutation.

He argues against the "born this way" belief, which I do party agree with, but then says that he also believes that it's a combination of nature and nurture.

This means that nature, genetics in this case, does actually play a part in homosexuality, so a gay gene could very much exist.

Furthermore, even if it is mostly nurture, this only enforces the idea that it's not something that's chosen, so the point still stands- those who believe it is a sinful lifestyle have nothing to go upon: assuming sin is chosen willingly, then the homosexual lifestyle cannot be sinful, as it was imposed, through nature or nurture, and not chosen willfully.

Overall, Milo makes a good point for a while but doesn't really properly follow through with the final point.

Nope, not that environment. In phenotypes, "environment" could include trees and vegitation to some extent I suppose, but it's more specifically referencing the conditions you grew up around. Your 'environment,' or the 'nurture' aspect of expression, are qualities like race, birth country, parents, education, socioeconomic status, and so on, that can influence who you are.

Even things like temperature can affect expression, see the coats of arctic foxes.

"So you want God to kill you now to show He can stop a person from doing evil things in the world? The baby is innocent and will be in Heaven, you are evil and will be in Hell if God ends your time now."

If God could kill me and show me proof that he exists, I would like to have a long talk with him and present him many questions.

Furthermore, if the baby is innocent and will be in heaven, then why do we consider killing babies morally wrong? Aren't we doing them a favor by sending them to heaven?

"A day will come when God forever purges creation of evil, and as you stand now, you are part of the evil which will be purged and left in Hell. Is that what you want God to do now, to end all evil? When you talk that way, you are asking to be left in Hell forever."

Why do you insist that I am evil? I am on a search to see if a Christian God really exists, and I have found no such adequate proof. I have also found no proof of a Muslim, Jewish, or multiple other religions' gods existing, as I have also not seen enough proof.

"Do you know what you will say when you are burning in Hell? "God is evil or He would get me out of here". God made the way for you to be saved from Hell, He took on human form and died in your place, paid your price, rose from the dead offering forgiveness but you are saying He is not good enough for you. What else can He do but die for you? Are you going to try to kill Him forever? He already died for you, isn't that enough? Will you never stop trying to kill Him?"

I understand that you think that I am evil and trying to deny God, but you must look at it from my perspectives. I have multiple religions coming at me, telling me that every other religion is a false religion, and I will be punished unless I adhere to their religion. I'm only looking for answers- telling me I am evil for simply disagreeing with you does not convince me that your religion is the one true religion. From my perspective, you just blend in with all the other religions.

What is it about your religion specifically that should make me want to join it?

Hasn't this been going on for a while now? Looks like the criteria is just being expanded from things like pornography and gore to include hate speech.

Sure. Some might call you a hypocrite, other may say "do as I say, not as I do."

Either way, you still can.

The act of sodomy may be, but being gay and having gay desires isnt.

Certain aspects of sodomy, such as bestiality, may be wrong, but homosexuality isnt. If you're going to claim that all aspects of sodomy are wrong, add a logical argument and conclusion to support your claim.

The same place infertile people come from.

Not every trait that you're born with is genetic. Even if it was genetic, recessive genes could easily explain homosexuality, but it doesn't. Like many things, being gay is likely a combination of your genes and the environment.

True, but I think the difference is between belief of a subjective versus an objective morality.

Of course. The main point of civil disobedience (seen commonly during the civil rights movement), was to nonviolently disobey just laws as a form of protest.

Actually, that's more of a reductionist view, which ignores emergent properties and has been highly refuted. Furthermore, "beautiful" is a construct and relative to the person.

Evolution naturally produces features that are going to be beneficial to the organism, that's a given. You're still ignoring the fact that if it were by a "Great Architect", then we would be a perfect organism. Take cancer, for example, where the own cells of the body grow out of control and can be fatal. That doesn't sound like perfect design to me.

Yes, homology could indicate evolution or intelligent design.

The fact that we see homology while also seeing imperfect design indicates that animals must have had to adapt to their environment with what they already had (from their common ancestors). Another good example of this would be human spines. Any engineer would have designed a spine to be in the center for walking, but ours are in our backs. One explanation is that our ancestors, which walked horizontally on four limbs, hand their organs hang down, which would have been useful with spines now above the organs for support. When this model was transferred to an upright organism, however, the spine did not adapt because the change would have been too drastic.

It's not the extreme vetting, but the banning of all people from there, even those with green cards and visas. Also, if it was just for "terror prone" nations, why leave out Saudi Arabia?

"I'm actually anti gun but would go pro and would gladly shoot you :)"

I disagree with FromWithin too, but I seriously doubt murder is a good way to deal with disagreement. If you're trying to convince him, which I hope you are considering this is a debate site, a death threat is not the way to go about it.

"For people who can read and comprehend the english language, we know we are not wrong about people who are vulgar judgemental fools constantly insulting Christians merely for their faith.

Here is a little advice for you. When any person acts like a fool bigot constantly railing against Christianity, you know one thing for sure.

He is an insecure bigot who can't deal with life. He lives in constant fear someone is judging him for his choices in life."

I don't deny that someone acts a person merely for their faith is a bigot.

"He is not secure with who he is because if he were, he would have no need attacking someone's faith. I mean COME ON! How insecure is that?"

However, I don't agree that someone who actively goes out to attack someone else's beliefs would be insecure about their own, as long as they can take what they can dish out.

"Christians are not trying to make moral laws. They are not spending each day judging John Doe for some sin he may have committed. They are simply trying to live their lives without having insecure activist groups demonizing them for their beliefs."

You may not be judging John Doe for his sins, but I definitely know some Christians who would. It's one thing to believe LGBT people are sinners and keep it to yourself, it's another to try and enact laws to prevent gay marriage or to restrict education about other sexual orientations.

Some people from both sides like to demonize each other, that's bound to happen.

"Are you starting to get it? In these insecure people's minds, any person expressing their faith and trying to live moral lives, are the enemies. They are the ones making bigots feel bad about themselves."

Again, while most Christians express their faith and live moral lives, some do it in a way that infringes on other's rights (see gay marriage above).

"This is why the VAST majority of bigotted debates are created to put down Christians and hardly ever sayng a word against Islam. You see, the Islamic religion is no threat to their insecurities because of all the terrorism that stems from it. Christianity in their mind is constantly reminding them of their selfish irresponsibility."

I do agree with the notion that people like to slam Christianity but not Islam, but I would say that's because they've received a lot more personal negativity from Christianity. For me, I dislike both and I think the general principles of both are immoral.

"There can be no other reason for this dysfunctional fixation from the Left with the Christian faith. If you are honest with what we see from the vast majority of Christian Churhes, you would know their main focus is helping the helpless in this world."

I don't doubt that their intention is helping the helpless. I don't have a problem with charity. The problem I have are the other acts that come with it, such as, not to be redundant, the disapproval of homosexuality.

You still haven't provided any argument over whether free will is an illusion or not.

"The exercise of free will is the process of choosing between alternatives."

But what controls the choosing? Even if we rationalize, we rationalize based on past experiences, knowledge, possibly genetics, and so on. We can't control these, yet these factors control our rationalization. If these factors control our "choices", then how are there alternatives?

"The more aware a person is of the various reasons and alternatives, the more free their will can be said to be. The more unique and even brilliant their solutions will be."

Why does increased awareness lead to increased "free will"? Sure, their choice will be more informed, but that does not mean that it has been chosen freely. These various reasons influence rationality.

"They are aware of their causes. They have often consciously chosen them."

Awareness of causes =/= a choice has been made. Rationalization could lead to the illusion of choice, because there are alternatives, but ultimately one choice would have been made given the situation.

"If you believe you are nothing but an apparition caused by chemical fizzes and you are not real, then of course you have to believe you really have no free will."

I'm sure there's someone out there that believes that people are nothing more than chemical (and electrical!) signals, yet they also believe in free will. You never know.

"Atheism and evolution stand on nonsense."

Source?

Anyways, I'm a person who thinks that we are more than chemicals, but I also don't believe in free will.

Uh... you guys all realize that jolie isn't being serious, right?

"Mzkenie, anyone with half a brain knows he is a vulgar fool who constantly insults people.

The answer is simple. Ban the fool as do I. There will never be an intelligent response from him so why give him a platform to spew his laughable Leftwing rhetoric."

You went straight from insulting him to saying he constantly insults people, and then advocated for silencing him because "there will never be an intelligent response." If you refuse to listen to the other side, then you might be wrong.

Curse words are a social norm. They don't actually hold any negative intrinsic value. Just because someone wants to "resort" to curse words doesn't mean you've "exposed" them or anything, you've just shown that they use the word "fuck" in their argument.

It does imply a more intense meaning, but doesn't add or subtract from an argument.

I think we need more moderation for obvious troll posts and spam like these posts. It's getting annoying that these "debates" exist yet everyone is banned from participating.

Kinda ironic that the ban feature exists and is abused, but the debate feature can be used without limit.

Honestly, I'm thoroughly convinced you're a troll at this point, considering that you refuse to listen to anyone. What's your point in making these posts? To bring people to your side? Or is there another reason? I'm not lying when I say I want to know why.

Of course? Why shouldn't we? Critical thinking is an extremely important part of progress, and if there is a God with omnipotence, he especially should be held to questioning.

Do you think he takes naps when 21,000 people die of hunger everyday?

I'm not sure what the controversy is here. I thought that it was well agreed on that people, intention or not, will likely favor one group over another based on their experiences. "Unconscious sexism" is pretty much another name for this. No matter how hard you try, you're still going to be prejudiced one way or another.

No, this ignores emergent properties. A reductionist point of view may observe life as a large chain of chemical reactions, but looking at the bigger picture provides something much more, such as conciousness.

Can we ban people who use these logical fallacies until they learn what one is and why they shouldn't use them? I thought logical fallacies were taught in high school. We need more critical thinking.

Loaded question is the fallacy, of course.

Naturalistic fallacy without a doubt.

The Theory of Evolution does not promote giving into animalistic impulses in the same way the theory of gravity does not promote jumping off a building.

It doesn't take the theory of evolution to claim that killing others and other immoral acts can benefit oneself and are natural, but that doesn't mean they're right.

Again, naturalistic fallacy: just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.

Saying "God is not evil because I said God isn't evil" holds no actual basis. If someone chose to allow infant fetal death syndrome to exist and had the power to take it away, I would consider them evil.

God gives death. God gives suffering and pain. God gives instant fetal death syndrome.

You act as if we do not deserve to live a pleasant life because we don't obey a God who imposes instant fetal death syndrome upon this world. Do we not have natural rights to life, liberty, and property?

I'm not seeing how atheism somehow means that you should go along with your evolutionary interest.

From what I understand, atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, not the disbelief of morality.

Furthermore, just because you don't think there's some higher objective standard of truth doesn't necessarily mean that instead you want to give into animal impulses.

I don't see why not. Atheists may believe that rape is a evolutionary adaptation, which it very possibly might be, but that doesn't mean that they think it's okay. This is a bit of a naturalistic fallacy- just because something is "natural" or "evolutionary advantageous" does not mean it's okay.

In short, yes, because supporting evolution is not supporting rape.

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I don't think you can comprehend what an "all good" life would be like.

I'll assume that you think that without any bad, the good wouldn't be good, but that's paradoxical. Any life described as "all good" would be that- without boredom, tiredness, hunger, or any other dislike or discomfort.

I do think a problem with teaching ID while refusing to teach evolution in a private school is that it doesn't really give children, who may not have a choice of attending, an alternative if they wish to seek one.

Even then, the market should show preference over time I suppose.

I understand that marriage licenses may have had racist roots, but now it's an integral part of our society and I don't see a reason to suddenly get rid of them.

"...WILL BE BANNED THE MOMENT I SENSE THEIR HOSTILITY."

Yeah, this isn't really a debate anymore. This is just you asking a question and then complaining when you get answers.

Edit: Before you ban me and repeat your "atheist" spam rant thing, let me remind you that I'm not an atheist, so don't go on the whole "this is about atheists, not for atheists."

I most definitely think that he deserves my engagement, as well as the opportunity to participate in this website. At the same time, I also expect that he deserves the engagement of other people even if he disagrees with them, which he refuses.

In short, he deserves to participate, but he can only participate in a way where he also lets other people participate. I think the irony of you being banned is a good example.

I don't believe that there is an overreaching of evidence required to show speciation. Mutations and other forms of genetic diversity can cause differences to accumulate relatively quickly. If allele frequencies can change over time, then why can't new species emerge?

Also, could you go into more depth about the circumstantial evidence?

This is a prime example of a loaded question as well as denial. I would like to introduce you to the idea of obscurantism, the blocking of facts. This debate isn't exactly obscurantism, but denial, as you claim that atheists are disruptive, which I interpret to mean that they challenge your views, and the fact that you want to ban them before you even reading the response is denial. You don't deserve to be participating in this debate website if you decide to reinforce your arguments with censorship of the opposite opinion. That's not debate, that's Orwellian.

Humans aren't the only reasoning animal. As long as your have a brain, and make decisions based on environment, that's reasoning.

Nothing can be truly proved, but it can be proved within a reasonable doubt- there's always going to a slim possibility that "x" is wrong, but that's not relevant to the case.

As for Pascal's wager, you're assuming that if there is a God, that he must be malevolent in that he provides eternal suffering for those who don't believe in him and eternal paradise for those who do.

Source?......................................................................

Adaptation, however, is not equivalent to Evolution. Evolution is an unsubstantiated theory that proposes that all life mutated into its current form from a common ancestor over astronomical periods of time, while adaptation is an observable phenomenon.

Evolution proposes that there is a change in allele frequencies over time, I believe you're referring to abiogenesis.

This misunderstanding tends to be the source of these arguments. One side refers to evolution, specially, adaptation within evolution, and the other understand adaptation and then interprets evolution as abiogenesis.

"People who think they are too good to burn in Hell forever"

To be fair, I don't think anyone is bad enough to deserve eternal punishment. Punishment should be centered around reform, not vengeance.

"People who think they are too good to burn in Hell forever"

To be fair, I don't think anyone is bad enough to deserve eternal punishment. Punishment should be centered around reform, not vengeance.

There's a variety of reasons legal marriage is better. Unlimited marital tax deduction is an important benefit so that you can transfer untaxable assets between spouses. If I recall correctly, this is what US v. Windsor focused on.

Could you provide me a source for no restriction abortions?

"Do you see the words you use, and Democrats use, to explain the inexplanable?

You say.... "but I'm not going to stop someone from practicing Islam peacefully if they want."

NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP THEM FROM PRACTICING THEIR REIGION!!!!!

Why must people on the Left always use deceptive words to try and explain their weak stance against islamic Terrorism."

While I never said that someone is trying to stop them from practicing their religion, I can guarantee that there are a handful of people who would wish to.

"They CONSTANTY use words like Republcians want to BAN ALL MUSLIMS from coming into this nation. LIE!

GET REAL! Speak honestly about the actual debate and what Republicans are truly saying about keeping the terrorists out of ths nation."

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

A campaign press release from Trump's website.

"This is completely ignorant of the justification for the existence of such things in our world, found in Genesis. According to the Bible, the existence of misery is solely the fault of human action."

Exactly- and that injustice is what Fry is referring to. If original sin was due to Adam and Eve, why is it just to punish humanity as a whole? Why punish children with bone cancer because Adam and Eve disobeyed God?

"This statement is in ignorance of yet another justification found in the Bible: 2 Corinthians: 7. In this verse, sin is described as a thorn in one's side, to keep them from being conceited. Is that purpose "utterly evil"? I say not. Therefore, it follows that God's actions are, at the very least, not "utterly" evil."

To keep man from being conceited is one thing, but to cause roughly 5,000 children under five to die every day because of Adam and Eve isn't "keeping man in check", that is utterly evil.

"If a "stupid" entity could create our Universe, which is of nigh-infinite complexity yet regular, I'd be very interested indeed to hear Fry's idea of "intelligent". I dare say the design of his body is far more intelligent than he is."

I somewhat agree.

"While both injustice and pain are present in our world, and readily so, this statement clearly demonstrates Fry's ignorance of the justice and joy of this world, which only presents itself less clearly because it's easier to take for granted."

Fry does actually briefly reference the pleasure in the world, however, his point about pain and injustice still stand.

"Maniac: a person exhibiting extreme symptoms of wild behavior, especially when violent and dangerous." If our Universe were created by a maniac, as Fry claims, wouldn't its nature and governing laws be "wild", "violent", and "dangerous"? Why, then, are such things an exception to the normally regular, patterned workings of the Universe? Judging by the laws of physics and the matter and energy they bind, I can only come to the conclusion that, if this Universe is indeed the product of a Creator (another discussion, for another debate), then that Creator must be regular and patterned, or, more generally, intelligent. This existence of ours isn't random, violent, thrown-together, or anything else that would indicate its creation by a maniac.

In short, assuming the entire point of this argument is to claim that God does not exist, this is a poor route to take to further that goal.

This argument is stating, generally speaking, that "because I don't like the things God does, and don't understand why He didn't do them differently, He must not exist!". A poor example of logic indeed.

It's hard to say whether our universe is pattered and regular or not, or random. On one hand, we see complexity and order on Earth, while we also see the dangerous nature of life and natural disasters and disorder otherwhere. The argument isn't necessarily saying that God doesn't exist, but arguing against the idea that God is benevolent.

You should also consider that maybe Christians aren't going to try and listen to what you have to say if you insist on referring to them as idiots. Sometimes it is difficult to get anywhere with people, but you may be part of the problem by insulting them.

I'm not one to say that intelligence correlates to religion, but I don't think it's a bad thing to "destroy religious faith", especially if that person's religious faith is being destructive to themselves. Personally, I don't feel the need to attack anyone's religious faith if it's not harming me, but the problem arises is when someone tries to convert me or tries to govern their relationship with me based on their religion- that's when I'll tell them why I disagree with their religion.

The response is perfect, but you're not going to get anywhere if you refer to people as "Christian idiots". If you're calling them idiots, then you're just trying to insult them and be correct.

There's a difference between debating and arguing. In debating, you want to be proved wrong, and then you can change your views if you are. In arguing, you just don't care about what the topic is, you just want to be proved right. And in this case, by insulting Christians, you are making no attempt to try and actually teach them.

While I definitely don't support Islam as a "religion of peace" or whatnot, I'm still going to defend those who want to practice it freely. As long as they are worshipping peacefully, I don't care. Islamic terrorists are a problem- but they're fundamentalists and generally don't represent the whole. I don't like Islam as a religion and I don't want to defend it, but I'm not going to stop someone from practicing it peacefully if they want.

"6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again." Deuteronomy 13:6-11

Just a quick reminder of why people like to demonize Christianity.

Someone could be a liberal while also being a Republican. It's a rare case, but it happens. They could also be a liberal and be in a third party.

I haven't seen anyone attacking you for claiming that drug users and alcoholics shouldn't be held responsible for their actions if that's what you're referring to. You're often attacked for your intolerance of gay people or whatnot.

Also, judging people for their beliefs isn't necessarily a bad thing. And in the "progressive world", it would be okay to judge you in the same way everyone else could be judged, but not because you don't support political correctness indoctrination, or whatever you mean by that.

Who are these people claiming that requiring voter ID is racist and unfair?

Depends. There's a difference between being yourself and expressing that in public and getting wrapped up in an identity to the point where being gay is all you know how to do, and start to attack others for not being gay.

If you're creating a debate to discuss your own views, yet are fearful of other people proving you wrong, then maybe you shouldn't be on a debate site. You're complaining about close minded people while simultaneously shutting out all opposing opinions- that's being close minded.

I don't know why you would want to think that God has the right to execute you. He even sent his own son to die on the cross just because he wanted to. Why should I listen to God when he's clearly not benevolent?

To be fair, people didn't just attack him due to political correctness. It was also due to his assholery, ex, making fun of a disabled reporter and claiming he liked to "grab women by the pussy". Part of it was political correctness, but part of it was also due to pure dislike of his attitude.

"Minors - I don't think that abortion should be a right. Abortion is most common starting from 15 years old. As you would know in the US and many other countries sex isn't legal to you are 18, give or take a couple years due to different countries laws. Why should we give people a right to something that legally shouldn't happen. Unless there is a 100% legal way to impregnate a minor then sorry I'm wrong."

I'm not sure what you're saying. Just because it's illegal for a girl to be impregnated doesn't mean she is responsible for being impregnated- rape is a problem- in which case abortion would be necessary.

"I see consent pop up every on social media, news etc. Consent is everywhere and it's true, consent is everything. But, if you were able to consent to having sex then it is in your hands to make sure proper precautions are in place. And look, I know there are other situations where in-time precautions aren't the problem such as wanting to have a baby then you break up, you decide you want a baby then you don't but that is part of consent. Do you have a secure enough relationship to have a baby? Are you 100% sure that you will still want a baby 1 month in the future. These are all precautions that are really, really important and needed to be debated about. Not wanting a baby after you've decided you did is 100% the two people involved's fault. Therefore it shouldn't be a right."

True, but people don't always consent to being a single parent. They consented to two people raising a baby, and it's not their fault if they break up. Why does the father get the right to suddenly drop responsibility even though he consented, yet the mother still has the responsibility?

Furthermore, I also think abortion should obviously be a right in cases where the health of the mother/child is endangered.

While I don't nessecarily support all abortion rights, I would like to add that the argument for abortion is that it falls under a right to privacy.

It's still inconclusive as to whether people are born gay. Either way, comparing to Ebola is also saying that people can suddenly become gay, which is also inconclusive. We've basically seen that it's a combination of both nature and nurture. If we leave it to this, either way, it's still not a choice to be gay.

I don't understand all the protests about #NotMyPresident.

America elected him. If you don't like him, sure, but you can't just deny him as your future president. He's going to be your next president either way, so all there is to do now is hope that he does make America great again.

Elections are over. There's no point in hoping he'll fail, as that just means bad things for our counry.

If he was, how is that relevant? We were talking about the meaning of the word abiogenesis.

Of what times are you referencing when you say that we respected each other's rights more than everywhere else in the world?

It was only last year ago that same-sex marriage couples were allowed to marry in all states, so we're making progress.

Of course, there's still hate crimes- some people are still very judgemental towards religious people, and others towards minorities.

While America isn't perfect, we've made a lot of progress recently in terms of equality.

"When we had to, we fought for rights and corrected wrongs. We fought, won fairly, and we actually fought FOR fairness."

Again, I ask what time period you are referencing.

Uh, no?

Genesis means the origin or formation or something. Not God or Creation

Abiogenesis is not "anti-genesis". It's a-bio-genesis. Anti-biological-orignation.

In other words, an origin that is not biological.

You're grasping at straws, it it not "Anti-God" or "Anti-Creator".

She didn't get the majority vote- she got 48%. That's not a majority. She did get the popular vote, the most votes. Two different things.

Alright, sorry for the absence, I'm back.

So, first things first, the "I'd rather go to hell" thing was a stretch, I don't think I could ever chose eternal damnation to prove a point. I'm not that noble. Anyways-

God created the universe and everything in it. He created mankind, and gave them free will to obey him and have eternal life, or to refuse him and have eternal suffering?

But why?

God created this system of sins and no sins, but why does he need people to serve him? Why does he reward those who support him with eternal life and those who oppose him with eternal suffering?

It's never made sense to me. What's God's point? If all he is doing is telling people that they need to accept him or else he will punish them, doesn't that make him controlling? Furthermore, if God is omnipotent, why do we need to thank him for giving us eternal life when it costs him nothing?

I would again like you to address the free-will omniscience paradox, or to refute my argument against it.

As for trying to save me, I appreciate it, but I cannot accept something which I have no proof for. I also hope that do not think I am doing this out of hate for a God, but instead, because I seek the truth.

I understand the point, but what argument are you making? That being homosexual is harmful to a person?

Ah yes, they're suffering from diseases, but that's not our problem.

Correct. Now, assuming that you're using this against gay rights, you'd also have to first have the premise that-

a) Homosexuality or other LGBT "illnesses" are contagious, and,

b) Homosexuality is harmful enough to make an effort to get rid of.

Then you could conclude this as a good argument to try and prevent homosexuality, or else it's just a false equivocation.

Hillary didn't get the majority vote, but she did win the most votes, therefore meaning she won the popular vote. Even if people were voting anti-trump and anti-hillary, she still got the most votes, so she got the popular vote.

It is indeed speculation, there's no concrete idea of how life formed, but these things do point us in the right direction.

It is very much evidence of life emerging though, something called deductive reasoning exists. We've seen how biological molecules can form, so it would only take a well timed reaction with some complex molecules to form life.

"A crucial transition in the origin of life was the emergence of an informational polymer capable of self-replication and its compartmentalization within protocellular structures. We show that the physicochemical properties of ice, a simple medium widespread on a temperate early Earth, could have mediated this transition prior to the advent of membraneous protocells."

This sums it up. Could have is important, but just because we're unsure doesn't mean it is impossible. It just means that this is the most likely explanation. Either way, it's much more likely for abiogenesis to occur as opposed to creation 10,000 years ago.

Alright, so most of abiogenesis is hypothesis obviously, as it's difficult not only to find single-celled fossils, but also because the layers of stone that far back have pretty much been turned into lava.

Evolution somewhat implies abiogenesis, but it doesn't have to.

Anyways, the best hypothesis is that RNA world, the hypothetical reproducing and genetic information molecule, which can also catalyze reactions, would live inside a protocell, protecting it. With that, it could metabolize organic molecules such as glucose likely through glycoloysis, and then you've got energy. With information and reproduction, then you've got natural selection and you're all set.

That's just a hypothesis of course, it may be right, maybe not.

Sadly Trump is not much of a Christian himself as a boastful lover of money.

We don't have the right to not suffer for eternity? Bad deeds must be met with punishment, but no crime deserves eternal suffering.

I know I'm going to die one die. While I haven't accepted it yet, as I still have much I'd like to do, I'm very well aware that any day might be the die everything ends. If there is an afterlife, I'll find out. And if there is a God, I'll find out. But if that God is a fire and brimstone style God, who wants to let "his creation" eternally suffer because they chose not to serve him, then I'd rather go to hell anyways.

What's the point of serving God? Don't we all deserve Life, Liberty, and Property? Yet we must die and give everything we have to God? If God is a just God, then why don't we see the consequences for greed when one man takes another's food?

It doesn't seem to make sense. Why would an all-powerful and all-knowing God need people to serve him? And again, I can bring up the free-will omniscience paradox.

In summary, why do we need to serve God? Why should we?

I've never claimed that a fish could adapt to land and change into an amphibian, reptile, or mammal, and neither does evolution.

Who says vents do not leak LUCA? They're a good spot for complex molecules, so a self-replicating RNA world could be a LUCA.

Is a hunger for knowledge I bad thing? I seek information, the age of the Earth being part of that.

How does it do anything to excuse my immoralities?

How old the Earth is does nothing to hold me irresponsible. No matter how old it is, it doesn't affect whether or not I'm irresponsible. I appreciate your concern, but I assure you I am not lying when I say it's the most plausible answer.

So far, I have seen no definite proof of a God. While the universe's origin does without a doubt indicate one, I've never seen that God request me to follow them, nor have they warned me of a fiery death. All I've seen is people like you who do wish to save me. Don't get me wrong- I am thankful for your actions, but to me I'm being warned of a nonexistent danger.

Furthermore, what about the time when I previously did believe in God? I committed to God and decided to give my life to Jesus, but over time, I realized that it was not a path I wanted to continue to take. Since I still was saved technically, won't I be going to heaven?

If God is something, where did God come from?

Also, please provide these mounds of evidence- I'm interested now.

Because I believe it to be the most plausible explanation for how old Earth is.