As long as you're not planning on inserting some prohibition into secular law, you're free to think what you wish. What religion thinks about ordaining LGBT people as priests isn't of any great relevance to me as an atheist. If religion starts throwing it's weight around to make life difficult for LGBT people in day-to-day life, then I'll be upset.

Evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life. Various theories of the origin of life include abiogenesis (the theory that organic chemistry on Earth arose from inorganic chemistry) and panspermia (the theory that organic chemistry arose somewhere not-on-Earth and made it's way here, probably on a comet impact). There are experiments which support the theory of abiogenesis.

Whether or not god exists is a whole other thingy. No scientific experiment can prove or disprove the existence of god. There are a whole load of logical problems with the existence of god, and scientific reasoning suggests that given the lack of evidence for god we can safely assume that there is no god.

No problem Inde, as I said, I'm just trying to clarify some of the ground.

The words 'safely assume' are interesting. Since no scientific experiment can prove or disprove God, how then does it logically equate into 'safely assuming' the negation? 

The point I'm trying to make is that belief/unbelief in God is certainly a valid choice for every individual, but that neither the acceptance or rejection of God are 'more scientific'. The idea that science has somehow disproven God is one without basis... in the end, both are the results of personal subjective choice based upon the best available evidence. 

We can safely assume that god doesn't exist in much the same way that we can safely assume there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter. There's no reason to think there is, and extrapolating from all previously observed phenomena if we're wrong it makes no difference anyway.

Science does not and never has claimed to have disproven the existence of god. Excitable fundamentalists claim that science claims to have disproven god, presumably seeking a scapegoat to distract from their own untenable philosophical position. Science does not allow for that form of disproof. Science operates in exactly the same way whether god exists or not. The question of gods existence is beyond the scope of science.

However, many of the same reasoning techniques can be applied to the question. The rules of induction and abduction are particularly important. Belief is not a choice, it is a conclusion. I cannot choose to believe a statement after I have deduced that it is false, and I cannot choose whether any given statement will be deduced to be true or false.

You are asserting the existence of something. The burden of proof is on you. By scientific standards you must offer a selection of evidence supporting your hypothesis, and there must be no valid evidence or arguments opposing it. Ideally your hypothesis should allow you to make testable predictions for experiments which anyone can, at least in principle, perform. Care to try?

It's called the "Burden of Proof," and it's the foundation of empirical observation and scientific reasoning.  For knowledge to be reliable, we must assume claims to be false until proven true.  

You need to understand something very important at this point, and that is the reason why scientific experiments cannot prove or disprove God.  It's not because a real, existing God is beyond the ability of science to address.  It's because the God hypothesis has never been articulated coherently enough to give scientists anything to look for.

In other words, scientists searching for "God" have exactly the same kind of task as if we had asked them to search for "Invisible Green Looking Myself."  Those words don't form a coherent concept.  The only thing a scientist can do is say, "Gee... I have no idea what you want me to look for.  Come back when there's something to test."

All of the definitions of god that have been proposed thusfar (excluding pantheist deities) are incoherent.  They don't describe anything that makes any sense.  Scientists can't prove or disprove them because there's literally nothing to prove or disprove.

Now... with that out of the way, you also need to understand that any god which could theoretically exist would necessarily be a scientific hypothesis.

READ THIS

Then,

READ THIS

And... if it was? Would it be wrong then?

Who gets to decide who's going to have sex with whom? The Ass Police?

(Assuming, of course, that we are speaking about consenting adults who understand what they are doing.)

LMAO @ "Ass Police."

Yes, they frisk first, ask questions later, and carry VERY large nightsticks.

Actually, some of the *cough* activities are illegal in some states, along with dildos and vibrators and a lot of other ridiculous things that are no one else's beeswax but the user and his/her partner(s).

I've come to reject any explanation of "choice" so completely that honestly, it's difficult to answer your hypothetical question. But I can think of no reason "choosing" to have relations with whomever you want could be a problem, except on religious grounds.

 I've got a ten second mental exercise that should divest us from the silly little notion that "choice" is a pretty nonsense concept.  Here's what you do:  If you honestly believe that anyone can choose to believe what they want, choose to believe that you have no hands.  I don't mean act like you believe, or want to believe, or imagine what it would be like, or anything like that.  I mean [i]genuinely, deeply, and with complete intellectual and emotional conviction believe that you have no hands.

Can't do it, right?

Of course not!  Because any "choice" is simply opting for what you believe is true, and we can't help but do that.  The information available to us determines what we believe.  Not some magical "free will" that allows us to believe anything at all.

The difference is though, that a large number of very diverse people did not claim to have seen, walked with, talked to and been spoken to by a orbiting teapot. Biblical accounts have Jesus appearing to and speaking to hundreds of people after his resurrection, not to mention the thousands he lived in front of during his life.

We may question the reliability of the gospel accounts (as well we should with anything so radical), but what is apparent is that this group of followers;

1) believed so strongly that they went on till violent death espousing that Jesus was God. Their life-long devotion was neither accompanied by great wealth or power, but rather with persecution and hardship, so the idea that there was material benefit for them is implausible.

2) this is especially troubling given that these were Jews, and the whole idea for a Jew of a man claiming to be God would be blasphemy

3) yet not only did this initial band follow him, but many other Jews did so as well... what exactly happened? 'Mass Hysteria' might be a possibility, but then we have the problem that the claims of these early followers of Christ could easily then have been disproven by those who were contemporaries given that the events they portray were public, yet they were not. So again, the question is, why not?

4) there is much more of course, but the most compelling fact is that all of this happened AFTER Jesus was hung from a tree, which would normally be the end of any God claims... yet was not

Simply put, the Teapot has not spoken to us, and so logical arguments saying there is no teapot should be met with cries of, "Of course there is no teapot!"

But Jesus did live, and he did claim to be God, and after his crucifixion his followers did not fade away, but rather grew in strength... based upon what they claimed to be clear indicators of his God status. To 'safely assume' non-existence of God here would require a much higher burden of proof than mere supposition. There is 'evidence' that needs to be dealt with. 

HI Hamby,

The problem I see with the first statement is that it is an assumption. It is a working assumption for the purposes of scientific inquiry, but it does not say that something 'does not' exist... merely that we currently have no reliable evidence. Thus to say that God 'does not exist' would be incorrect. To say that we have no 'scientific proof' for God would be more accurate.

On the last two points... are 'you' a hypothesis? What hypothesis is a living organism? One would think that an omnipresent, omnipotent life form would by nature be difficult to encapsulate in some neat finite hypothesis. In the end, science is unable to address the existence of God because it was never intended for such a purpose.

Perhaps one of the reasons that arguments for God have been 'untestable' for science (please also let me know what some of these have been. It seems like it would make an interesting story.) has been because God himself is beyond finite human understanding? I think there is also gross misunderstanding about what Christianity itself claims, and this has largely been aided by 'Christians' themselves, many of whom do not really think about or understand what it is they profess. 

Bottom line point: science has not and cannot either prove or disprove God, ergo the claims that science has 'disproven' God are unfounded. 

Thank you so much for this insightful paragraph. As someone else pointed out, the bible only even mentions homosexuality seven times, although I think some of those mentions are misinterpreted, taken out of context, or just flat out erroneous. Meanwhile, Adultery is sited as a mortal sin many HUNDREDS of times. I don't have actual statistics, and the ones I've seen have been conflicting, but safe to say, a far larger percentage of straight Americans have admitted to having engaged in extra-marital activities than any of the numbers practicing homosexuality. If the Bible Beaters really want to go on a crusade, I suggest they--I dunno--READ the book they're beating their fists on for guidance as to what is a worthy (i.e. God-sanctioned) crusade. The bible leaves very little question that homosexuality is not it.

This is just Bigotry, plain and simple. The bible only gives a half-assed excuse for people to act like the assholes they already are, with or without it.

Yet not one historian from that time period says anything regarding jesus, the only accounts are the bible, which is no more truthful then the hindu books speaking about their deities talking and walking among humans, which puts the hindu gods/deities in the same league as jesus, as well as any other deity/god from any other religion in which their holy text speak of walking and talking to humans.

So have others of different religions, including Buddhists, Hindus and various other religious followers from different sects/religions around the world.

Jews still consider it blasphemy, so what jesus never really claims he is god, the church decided on his divinity about 400 years after the fact.

David Koresh made similar claims of divinity and his followers died for him as well and they came from various walks of life, so what, being charismatic and being able to convince people you are speaking the truth is nothing new to humanity, it happens throughout history.

Hmmm various other mortals/gods/deites have died and been resurrected, from Ancient Greece Achilles, Asclepius, Artisteas of Proconnesus, from Zen Buddhism is the story of Puhua and Gesar the savior of Tibet.

Supposedly lived, no one knows for sure and outside of the bible there is no evidence that he did, jesus is no more real than the hindu deities. What evidence are you speaking of that needs to be dealt with? Hundreds of people seeing him? Where are those accounts? In the bible? how about outside of the bible?

Hamby can deal with the rest of it.

Hi Jormungander,

Absolutely, which was my point. To single out GLTB individuals as 'special' sinners is entirely unbiblical. I would say this especially in the face of modern Christianity's failure to address their own sexual sins.

How does a person condemn another for homosexuality, and then engage in sex outside of marriage? Many Christians do exactly that, and we should be condemning that entirely the same as we should deal with homosexuality... speaking the truth with love, so that it builds up the person spoken to, and brings glory to God. All sin is  equally sinful.

I wouldn't say that we are disobedient at least part of the time though. I would say that in our words, thoughts and deeds we wage a constant war to do what we know is right vs what looks attractive but which we know to be wrong.

Hi Smarty,

If I've said anything that is not in accordance with the bible, please do correct or question me, because I would then be in error

It isn't sex that is wrong, and you're right that the bible does not prohibit sex from priests/pastors. The distinction between priests/pastors and 'laity' is actually completely un-biblical, as we are all to be 'priests' (be set apart for service, able to petition, offer our lives as a spiritual act of worship, come into the presence of God, and to generally 'speak' to Him).

Marquis' question cuts to the heart of it. God does not tell us that any sex outside of heterosexual married relationship is beneficial, not because he is trying to limit us or restrict our pleasure, but because he created us and knows what is to our deepest and truest good.

Allow me to explain;

1) biblically, in marriage both a man and a woman become one flesh, and in this very special union we are to mutually submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21)

2) in talking about prostitution, we are told that we become 'one with her in body' (1Cor 6:16)

In essence, in sex we 'join' ourselves. When I am with my wife, we are in a situation that is grossly unfair for her. In my life before I followed Christ, I slept with many women. When I am with her sexually, those other people are in my mind and my body still remembers the 'union' we had. I am not able to fully and completely give myself to my wife... in the way that she deserves and in the way that I promised at marriage.

She came from a Christian family and was a virgin when we married. What she can freely offer and give to me is so much more than what I can offer in return. This inequality is one of the tensions in our marriage, because we are not equally yolked in this regard.

My sex outside of marriage gave me temporary pleasure, but in the end it really was a selfish pleasure. It did not expand me, but made me 'less' for the woman I love the most.

In essence, God's commandments are not out of spite, but because he loves us, and truly desires us to live life to the fullest. All of scripture is based upon our love for God, because he first loved us.

Oh. "ENTIRELY the same?" Are you sure about that? Because the bible says something else. But maybe god told you differently on your special bigot hotline.

I don't need a magical book to tell me what's right or wrong and neither do you. I know that loving another person is a good thing, and murdering other human beings is wrong, even if people site a magical book to justify behaving otherwise--which they have countless times.

This is true no matter the gender of your partner.

"Mutually submit" is a morbid and frightening joke coming from the bible.

If this and only this is your reason for not paying someone to compromise their moral well-being to your pleasures, rather than some normal human sense of decency, then you're a freaking psycho with problems.

Wow.

Wow.

I don't even know where to begin with this. If you're not fully sexually attracted to your wife, maybe you shouldn't have married her. 

Oh, and being a virgin is such a prize? Why? The guys I've met over the years who wanted virgins were some of the most selfish, inexperienced, sexually insecure bastards. On top of it all, taking a woman's virginity is painful for her, which suggests you think sex should be painful and unpleasurable for her. It's just sick, Sadistic, and rampantly misogynistic. God forbid you should be with a woman who knows what she wants sexually and has something to compare to your lame-ass performance. Learn how to please a woman, ask her what she wants and listen to her, and then maybe you won't be so concerned about whether she's a virgin or not. The fact that you don't feel "equal" is actually you realizing that she's a slave to you and your religious ideals of how "pure" she should be.

And in sum: you've had extramarital sex and you have the NERVE to pass judgement on me??? Well, as the bible says, in entering heaven, you'll encounter the same judgement you passed on me. So I guess that's some justice.