I am not trolling. It is the next level LGBT will take it to. First it’s homosexuals, next is pedophiles, soon it will be incest, and maybe even bestiality might be justified. The LGBT agenda at its core just wants to promote degenaracy and break the family structure.
Because there is no limits set in place. There is no morality or ethics to base off of so what is there to stop this from progressing to that level. If you claim that they do have a set of morals and ethics, what are they based off of? Arbitrary individual assessment? Whatever the majority says? What would that measuring stick be? And is that measuring stick objective?
what is there to stop this from progressing to that level.
The fact that they are unrelated and not in any way a logical progression. What makes you even think thete is a “next step”? What’s the plan, the end goal for The Gays?
2, 4, 6, 8
What’s next? Is it J?
you claim that they do have a set of morals and ethics, what are they based off of? Arbitrary individual assessment? Whatever the majority says? What would that measuring stick be? And is that measuring stick objective?
The fact that they are unrelated and not in any way a logical progression. What makes you even think thete is a “next step”? What’s the plan, the end goal for The Gays?
The end goal here is to fulfill as many of your desires as possible and label it under sexual freedom and liberation. It’s to continue to chase your desires and say there is nothing wrong about it while at the same time breaking apart the family unit.
Human conscience.
Care to explain? I’m not sure what your belief system but many atheists will believe in conscience while not believing in God which is so ironic. Conscience is something you can’t see or measure under a microscope. We don’t even know what it is and where it came from but we will say that it exists because we can see the effects of it while at the same time disbelieve in God’s existence, the One who created all of existence in the first place.
It also entraps them because to say you don’t believe in conscience is like saying you don’t exist.
Like the baseline human aversion to harming others
Any evidence for that? In Islan we call that the fitra. The natural disposition that God placed in our souls. Every baby born, is born upon the fitra, the innate human nature . However this can be changed or corrupted due to people’s environments and people begin to accept immoral acts. Case in pont about homosexuality. It is goes against the fitra.
Your reasoning is circular. I can say anything and you’ll call it evidence for God. It’s absurd.
How is my reasoning circular? Can you explain how the universe/creation/existence started? There must be an initial force or power to place these things in motion. The universe wasn’t created in vacuum. If you think that, then I think the only one absurd is you because you are saying something can come from nothing.
The conscience is an evolutionary adaptation for the social species, giving the individual an aversion to harming others. No god needed.
What is the evidence for that? These are just theories you are posing but none of them can be proven scientifically. Like I said, you can’t measure the conscience under a microscope. You can’t even interact with it. Heck, scientists and philosophers can’t even agree on what the defintion is and what it entails.
Countless decades of research into human behaviour.
In Islan we call that the fitra
Yes, many religions claim to be able to explain these things.
The natural disposition that God placed in our souls.
Any evidence God placed it there?
However this can be changed or corrupted due to people’s environments and people begin to accept immoral acts. Case in pont about homosexuality. It is goes against the fitra.
How is it a corruption? Who is harmed?
How is my reasoning circular? Can you explain how the universe/creation/existence started?
What makes you think it “started”? It has always existed. You are only assuming it started, since you already believe your God created it, and therefore that must mean it started. And for anything you can no longer deny, then oh dear, must be evidence for god, like the conscience.
There must be an initial force or power to place these things in motion.
What makes you say that?
The universe wasn’t created in vacuum.
The vast majority of the universe is literally vacuum. And it wasn’t “created” - it has always existed.
If you think that, then I think the only one absurd is you because you are saying something can come from nothing.
It didn’t come from anywhere it all. Again, it has always been. Also, if you believe it was created, it is you who believes it came from nothing, and therefore you believing the absurd.
What is the evidence for that? These are just theories you are posing but none of them can be proven scientifically.
I’m assuming you haven’t even attempted to confirm your assumption that this hasn’t ever been studied.
you can’t measure the conscience under a microscope.
You can’t measure gravity under a microscope, either, or love. Yet we know these exist. I could turn this back on you - you can’t measure God under a microscope.
You can’t even interact with it.
Oh, you most certainly can. Suggest to a person that you’d like to go kill a puppy. You will find yourself face to face with the effects of their conscience.
Heck, scientists and philosophers can’t even agree on what the defintion is and what it entails.
The lack of a coherent definition does not entail its non-existence. I encourage you to attempt to define a chair, or a castle, in a satisfactory way that doesn’t exclude obvious chairs or castles, or include obvious non-chairs or castles. You’ll find this quite difficult, I assure you. And yet, this will not shake your belief in the existence of chairs or castles, will it?
I’m also left wondering where you’re going with this, since you leave no conclusion after suggesting that the conscience is a slippery concept. Are you, then, going to suggest that the conscience doesn’t exist, after earlier suggesting that the conscience is a gift from God himself? Why, it’s hard to even pin down what your argument is, since you change it moment to moment, based on what supports your continued simping for your Sky Fairy who hates gays.
I refuse to accept that you believe supporting paedophiles is a position LGBTQ people hold in any capacity
You can only be pretending to believe that
It is so absurd
I am not trolling. It is the next level LGBT will take it to. First it’s homosexuals, next is pedophiles, soon it will be incest, and maybe even bestiality might be justified. The LGBT agenda at its core just wants to promote degenaracy and break the family structure.
Is it really the next step? Based on what?
Because there is no limits set in place. There is no morality or ethics to base off of so what is there to stop this from progressing to that level. If you claim that they do have a set of morals and ethics, what are they based off of? Arbitrary individual assessment? Whatever the majority says? What would that measuring stick be? And is that measuring stick objective?
Yes, there are.
The fact that they are unrelated and not in any way a logical progression. What makes you even think thete is a “next step”? What’s the plan, the end goal for The Gays?
2, 4, 6, 8
What’s next? Is it J?
Human conscience.
Like?
The end goal here is to fulfill as many of your desires as possible and label it under sexual freedom and liberation. It’s to continue to chase your desires and say there is nothing wrong about it while at the same time breaking apart the family unit.
Care to explain? I’m not sure what your belief system but many atheists will believe in conscience while not believing in God which is so ironic. Conscience is something you can’t see or measure under a microscope. We don’t even know what it is and where it came from but we will say that it exists because we can see the effects of it while at the same time disbelieve in God’s existence, the One who created all of existence in the first place.
It also entraps them because to say you don’t believe in conscience is like saying you don’t exist.
Like the baseline human aversion to harming others
Your reasoning is circular. I can say anything and you’ll call it evidence for God. It’s absurd.
The conscience is an evolutionary adaptation for the social species, giving the individual an aversion to harming others. No god needed.
Any evidence for that? In Islan we call that the fitra. The natural disposition that God placed in our souls. Every baby born, is born upon the fitra, the innate human nature . However this can be changed or corrupted due to people’s environments and people begin to accept immoral acts. Case in pont about homosexuality. It is goes against the fitra.
How is my reasoning circular? Can you explain how the universe/creation/existence started? There must be an initial force or power to place these things in motion. The universe wasn’t created in vacuum. If you think that, then I think the only one absurd is you because you are saying something can come from nothing.
What is the evidence for that? These are just theories you are posing but none of them can be proven scientifically. Like I said, you can’t measure the conscience under a microscope. You can’t even interact with it. Heck, scientists and philosophers can’t even agree on what the defintion is and what it entails.
Countless decades of research into human behaviour.
Yes, many religions claim to be able to explain these things.
Any evidence God placed it there?
How is it a corruption? Who is harmed?
What makes you think it “started”? It has always existed. You are only assuming it started, since you already believe your God created it, and therefore that must mean it started. And for anything you can no longer deny, then oh dear, must be evidence for god, like the conscience.
What makes you say that?
The vast majority of the universe is literally vacuum. And it wasn’t “created” - it has always existed.
It didn’t come from anywhere it all. Again, it has always been. Also, if you believe it was created, it is you who believes it came from nothing, and therefore you believing the absurd.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137391865_12
https://www.proquest.com/openview/947f27d2441b58d6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1017
http://www.czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/ar/article/view/11208
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lzsPBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA27&dq=evolutionary+basis+for+conscience&ots=n2aHpix__E&sig=s-WfbYYj2D__-Da47xpxrenhL4s#v=onepage&q=evolutionary basis for conscience&f=false
I’m assuming you haven’t even attempted to confirm your assumption that this hasn’t ever been studied.
You can’t measure gravity under a microscope, either, or love. Yet we know these exist. I could turn this back on you - you can’t measure God under a microscope.
Oh, you most certainly can. Suggest to a person that you’d like to go kill a puppy. You will find yourself face to face with the effects of their conscience.
The lack of a coherent definition does not entail its non-existence. I encourage you to attempt to define a chair, or a castle, in a satisfactory way that doesn’t exclude obvious chairs or castles, or include obvious non-chairs or castles. You’ll find this quite difficult, I assure you. And yet, this will not shake your belief in the existence of chairs or castles, will it?
I’m also left wondering where you’re going with this, since you leave no conclusion after suggesting that the conscience is a slippery concept. Are you, then, going to suggest that the conscience doesn’t exist, after earlier suggesting that the conscience is a gift from God himself? Why, it’s hard to even pin down what your argument is, since you change it moment to moment, based on what supports your continued simping for your Sky Fairy who hates gays.