• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

(bold mine)

I don't. After ssm was passed in Massachusetts, far from the collapse of society or revenge killings or whatever, what resulted was one giant yawn-a-thon. In fact you can even see it happening right here on this forum. Some of DP's most ardent past opponents of ssm are now acting supremely bored by the whole thing and just want to talk about anything else.

Exactly, and what amuses me is when they pretend they never opposed it, to save embarrassment or whatever. So much better than just apologizing.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

A century? And liberals have been fighting for your rights for a century? Revise history much?

A century ago is pretty much when homosexuality became more commonly known about and condemned by various loudmouths. I didn't mention liberals at all. The movement began around the late the 1960s, so if you'd rather i revise to "after half a century of exclusively conservatives trying to deprive us of liberty and dignity..." i would be happy to do so.

Other than that, you should know i'm giving him a hard time after he was being a douche, instead of take it personally.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Pay attention.

Ok. Forget it then.

YOu have no proof of God. I already showed why.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Ok. Forget it then.

YOu have no proof of God. I already showed why.

And you have no evidence of people naturally turning out to be alive after being dead several days.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

And you have no evidence of people naturally turning out to be alive after being dead several days.

You have no proof he was dead. Of course people turn up alive in funeral homes (even today) and got dug up in graves after screaming DAYS after being 'declared' dead. Are you not aware of the caskets found with scratch marks inside, of those buried alive trying to escape?

Are you aware of the custom of providing a string to a bell into caskets so that those improperly declared dead could alert people if they awakened? That's how often it happened.

And Jesus was not 'buried.' He was prepared with oils and herbs and wrapped and placed in a crypt, a tomb. He wasnt buried.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Wow. You're stills evading. Does the possibility of God existing really terrify you so deeply that you lose all ability to reason? If there is a refutation, please cite it rather than simply asserting that it exists.

And here you have shown your main problem, you don't even realize that there are many other beliefs out there. You are looking at things as black or white. People who believe in your version of God and atheists.

I believe that there is a very good possibility that there is a higher power, a god. Possibly more than one. I do not believe in the Christian version of God because that god does not make any sense to me. I do not believe any higher power would be that petty to have any issue with same sex relationships or other things condemned in the Bible. Morality of the Bible sounds very much like it came from men, not God. Certainly not any higher power I care to follow/worship.

Now, Jesus, he wasn't that bad of a man, from what I've read. However, I in no way believe he was God or the Son of God. And I don't believe he really believed that he was in the same way that Christians do either. I think he believed that he was enlightened by God to lead people to be better people, but that he was still a man, human, mortal, not God.

I haven't evaded anything. I know that what was provided is not proof of God, and particularly not proof of the Christian God.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

And here you have shown your main problem, you don't even realize that there are many other beliefs out there. You are looking at things as black or white. People who believe in your version of God and atheists.

I believe that there is a very good possibility that there is a higher power, a god. Possibly more than one. I do not believe in the Christian version of God because that god does not make any sense to me. I do not believe any higher power would be that petty to have any issue with same sex relationships or other things condemned in the Bible. Morality of the Bible sounds very much like it came from men, not God. Certainly not any higher power I care to follow/worship.

Now, Jesus, he wasn't that bad of a man, from what I've read. However, I in no way believe he was God or the Son of God. And I don't believe he really believed that he was in the same way that Christians do either. I think he believed that he was enlightened by God to lead people to be better people, but that he was still a man, human, mortal, not God.

I haven't evaded anything. I know that what was provided is not proof of God, and particularly not proof of the Christian God.

You're still evading.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

You're still evading.

Nope. You simply do not want to accept the truth, so you use this evading excuse to avoid it.

But others have already shown how those 5 "Proofs" are wrong. Most of them use circular logic or leave out key points in order to justify what Aquinas wanted, proof of God.

Refuting the Five Ways of Aquinas | Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)

Defense of Reason | Aquinas: Five Ways

He makes assumptions that simply cannot be proven either way. Those assumptions doom the argument that there is proof of God. He attempts scientific reasoning without scientific basis because he is trying to prove his own theory, that there is a God, instead of trying to disprove it. The very premise Aquinas begins with is the major flaw in the argument, and that is that God is the only possible explanation for all the things given.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Nope. You simply do not want to accept the truth, so you use this evading excuse to avoid it.

But others have already shown how those 5 "Proofs" are wrong. Most of them use circular logic or leave out key points in order to justify what Aquinas wanted, proof of God.

Refuting the Five Ways of Aquinas | Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)

Defense of Reason | Aquinas: Five Ways

He makes assumptions that simply cannot be proven either way. Those assumptions doom the argument that there is proof of God. He attempts scientific reasoning without scientific basis because he is trying to prove his own theory, that there is a God, instead of trying to disprove it. The very premise Aquinas begins with is the major flaw in the argument, and that is that God is the only possible explanation for all the things given.

Now that you've actually responded a discussion can proceed.

First I'll refer you here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-ban-same-sex-marriage-37.html#post1063251051

Where I refuted several counter-arguments to the five ways. However there are a few other arguments raised in your current links so I'll address them.

1. The objection of "what moved God" is frivolous since the point is that God isn't in motion (which refers to change). Also, no one disputes that a thing cannot be said to be in motion except with respect to another thing.

2. Again, God is uncaused. The reason why the universe could not exist eternally is because the universe is subject to time. And if an infinite amount of time were required to go from some past point to the present, then the present would not exist, as that would require a countable infinity of whatever unit of time you use (countable infinities do not exist in reality).

3. A necessary being is still required.

4. God is ultimate being, and evil is privation, thus it is not necessary that God be perfectly evil.

5. Again, God is uncreated.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Now that you've actually responded a discussion can proceed.

First I'll refer you here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-ban-same-sex-marriage-37.html#post1063251051

Where I refuted several counter-arguments to the five ways. However there are a few other arguments raised in your current links so I'll address them.

1. The objection of "what moved God" is frivolous since the point is that God isn't in motion (which refers to change). Also, no one disputes that a thing cannot be said to be in motion except with respect to another thing.

2. Again, God is uncaused. The reason why the universe could not exist eternally is because the universe is subject to time. And if an infinite amount of time were required to go from some past point to the present, then the present would not exist, as that would require a countable infinity of whatever unit of time you use (countable infinities do not exist in reality).

3. A necessary being is still required.

4. God is ultimate being, and evil is privation, thus it is not necessary that God be perfectly evil.

5. Again, God is uncreated.

And here is the problem. This discussion was not on Aquinas Five Proofs. But you are trying to take it on a tangent I was trying to avoid because this is where it goes, basically a back and forth of "you are wrong". Just as Aquinas did, you are making assumptions that cannot be scientifically backed up. The main one being that a single God is necessary to make those things happen or for certain things to exist. It is nothing more than an assumption that leads to the major flaw in the arguments made.

Plus, you still cannot prove in any way, even if the initial assumption is correct, that only the Christian God or a single God at all can meet those proofs. Any god or number of gods or a higher power can easily be that initial non-mover, non-evil entity.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

And here is the problem. This discussion was not on Aquinas Five Proofs. But you are trying to take it on a tangent I was trying to avoid because this is where it goes, basically a back and forth of "you are wrong". Just as Aquinas did, you are making assumptions that cannot be scientifically backed up. The main one being that a single God is necessary to make those things happen or for certain things to exist. It is nothing more than an assumption that leads to the major flaw in the arguments made.

Plus, you still cannot prove in any way, even if the initial assumption is correct, that only the Christian God or a single God at all can meet those proofs. Any god or number of gods or a higher power can easily be that initial non-mover, non-evil entity.

First, whether or not Christianity is true is directly relevant to whether or not it should influence politics. You wish to arbitrarily exclude this aspect of the discussion because it contradicts your worldview. Yet that doesn't stop me from making my argument.

Regarding which religion is correct, see the link I gave in #262.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

First, whether or not Christianity is true is directly relevant to whether or not it should influence politics. You wish to arbitrarily exclude this aspect of the discussion because it contradicts your worldview. Yet that doesn't stop me from making my argument.

Regarding which religion is correct, see the link I gave previously.

You cannot prove any religion to be correct at all. You have provided no evidence of this simply because you can't do it.

(I have no idea which link exactly you wish me to see and I'm not going back to check it.)

Since you cannot prove which religion is correct, then it is in no way logical to use any of them to dictate laws to others within a community, state, or country. You have failed completely to make any argument, particularly one actually related to the OP, which is about same sex marriage in Wisconsin, not you trying to prove (and failing) that the Christian God exists.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Ad hominem.

Well let me ask you this. Is there anything we could say or show you that could change your mind? Or is your opinion of what God's word is final.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

You cannot prove any religion to be correct at all. You have provided no evidence of this simply because you can't do it.

(I have no idea which link exactly you wish me to see and I'm not going back to check it.)

Since you cannot prove which religion is correct, then it is in no way logical to use any of them to dictate laws to others within a community, state, or country. You have failed completely to make any argument, particularly one actually related to the OP, which is about same sex marriage in Wisconsin, not you trying to prove (and failing) that the Christian God exists.

The link in post #262.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Well let me ask you this. Is there anything we could say or show you that could change your mind? Or is your opinion of what God's word is final.

About what specifically?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

The link in post #262.

Ten pages back to something already refuted. I'm not playing ring around the rosies with you. You did not prove anything at all in that thread and that was shown to you in that thread. You cannot prove yourself using flawed logic that assumes that you are right just because you think you are right.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

About same sex marriage being immoral.

No, as nothing you say could change the basic realities of, well, reality.

Ten pages back to something already refuted. I'm not playing ring around the rosies with you. You did not prove anything at all in that thread and that was shown to you in that thread. You cannot prove yourself using flawed logic that assumes that you are right just because you think you are right.

Which post in the thread disproved me?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

No, as nothing you say could change the basic realities of, well, reality.

Which post in the thread disproved me?

You didn't believe them so I'm not going to bother. You simply cannot accept that things are not as you think they are just because you believe they are that way.

Now, are you going to return to the actual topic or try to continue this pointless theological debate in a thread that is not about the existence of God?
 
Back
Top Bottom