Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

[Paprika]

As opposed to the massive amount of harm that’s been done historically by the church.

Which pales to the massive harm done by progressivism, communism etc as above.

There’s no “plain existence of God” as evidenced by the enormous number and great variety of religions that claim to know him...not to mention the massive divisions within the great religions themselves; Catholic vs Protestant, Sunnis vs Shier, Hindu's and its competing sects etc.

They all recognise that something greater than themselves exist.

Totalitarian Communism and Fascism were short-lived phenomena compared to the totalitarianism of the great religions dating back to Moses…that great perpetrator of crimes against humanity.

I agree that progressivism has been too short lived to every outweigh all the good done by the JudeoChristian religion - but time aside progressivism has been in most aspects most destructive.

If you want examples of the benefits of progressive social reform you need look no further than the nations topping the UN Human Development Index…as a general rule they are the least religious ones:

Nah, it's the once religious and wealthy countries who can afford to succumb to temptation and head for full-on progressivism without collapsing quickly.

I’ve seen nothing that would convince me otherwise, as one would expect having been raised by non-religious parents in a secular country where religion has little impact.

Right, we agree you're terribly ignorant.

Unconvincing and poorly attested! There’s no good reason to believe in post mortem existence.

Well, that's your desperate hope, isn't it? If there is you might just be called on to account for all your sins.

[firstfloor]

We do not seem to have made any progress at all in recorded history. The world today is at least as messed up as it was at any time in the past. How do you imagine this"golden age" might come about?

Maybe the world is just a little less messed up now that Sepp Blatter is to resign the FIFA presidency. The golden age will come about as we learn from our many and various errors. Our task requires an accurate memory, for one thing.

[jordanriver]

What's the deal with referring to God as Bible-God?

Expediency.
I got tired of atheists/agnostics who say "which god" when they know who we're talking about.

[Cerebrum123]

What's the deal with referring to God as Bible-God?

I think he started doing that when he encountered klaus54. I don't remember him doing it before then. I could be wrong though.

[JonathanL]

my goodness, you quote me , and then ask me for the answer you just quoted me giving.

...I know Bible-God blinds people but this is ridiculous

What's the deal with referring to God as Bible-God?

[jordanriver]

Correct!

And why would you give credence to scripture when there's no good evidence of its veracity?

my goodness, you quote me , and then ask me for the answer you just quoted me giving.

...I know Bible-God blinds people but this is ridiculous

[Tassman]

The massive amount of good that has been done by the church.

As opposed to the massive amount of harm that’s been done historically by the church.

Correction: the denial of God's plain existence...

There’s no “plain existence of God” as evidenced by the enormous number and great variety of religions that claim to know him...not to mention the massive divisions within the great religions themselves; Catholic vs Protestant, Sunnis vs Shier, Hindu's and its competing sects etc.

has led to a long and destructive history while trying to create utopia: eg progressivism and communism as above.

Totalitarian Communism and Fascism were short-lived phenomena compared to the totalitarianism of the great religions dating back to Moses…that great perpetrator of crimes against humanity.

If you want examples of the benefits of progressive social reform you need look no further than the nations topping the UN Human Development Index…as a general rule they are the least religious ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y-adjusted_HDI

Keep telling yourself that; maybe you'll come to believe it eventually.

I’ve seen nothing that would convince me otherwise, as one would expect having been raised by non-religious parents in a secular country where religion has little impact.

The resurrection from the dead.

Unconvincing and poorly attested! There’s no good reason to believe in post mortem existence.

He ain't gonna believe that.
and why should he?

Remember that Jesus told Peter that the only reason Peter believed is because God the Father allowed it (not flesh and blood) in Matthew 16:17.

And like the parable in Luke 16, neither will he be persuaded though one rose from the dead.

Correct!

And why would you give credence to scripture when there's no good evidence of its veracity?

Why do you assume that the point is to convince him?

[Paprika]

He ain't gonna believe that.

Why do you assume that the point is to convince him?

[jordanriver]

The resurrection from the dead.

He ain't gonna believe that.
and why should he?

Remember that Jesus told Peter that the only reason Peter believed is because God the Father allowed it (not flesh and blood) in Matthew 16:17.

And like the parable in Luke 16, neither will he be persuaded though one rose from the dead.

[Paprika]

…and you know this how, exactly?

The massive amount of good that has been done by the church.

Your childish belief in fairy stories would be “adorable” if it weren't for the long and destructive history of those who have implacably held to such childish beliefs...to this very day.

Correction: the denial of God's plain existence has led to a long and destructive history while trying to create utopia: eg progressivism and communism as above.

There’s literally nothing to be in “denial” about.

Keep telling yourself that; maybe you'll come to believe it eventually.

The evidence for this bald assertion regarding your savage deity is………….?

The resurrection from the dead.

[jordanriver]

…and you know this how, exactly?

I don't know how it works.

[Tassman]

Only Bible-God proves Bible-God.
...and on an individual basis.
....and not to everybody. (HIS prerogative)

…and you know this how, exactly?

[jordanriver]

…and you know this how, exactly?




The evidence for this bald assertion regarding your savage deity is………….?

Only Bible-God proves Bible-God.
...and on an individual basis.
....and not to everybody. (HIS prerogative)

[Tassman]

How foolish. Only in the light of the past and the future Eden, with Him who is the source of all good can we actually achieve anything significant good that shall last. Otherwise, not only is your striving meaningless, as the Teacher had long observed, it is often very destructive if not positively hellish, given the workings of your father.

…and you know this how, exactly?

Your childish belief in fairy stories would be “adorable” if it weren't for the long and destructive history of those who have implacably held to such childish beliefs...to this very day.

The childish denial is almost adorable.

There’s literally nothing to be in “denial” about.

It matters not; one day we'll all see that the real Aslan is hardly tame.

The evidence for this bald assertion regarding your savage deity is………….?

[lilpixieofterror]

Never cared much for his literature.

He isn't my favorite, but if you ever had to deal with reading anything by Nathaniel Hawthorne you'll wish for any other author.

It's just apart of nature, Crystal. You want to know your genes and where you came from, just like people want to know the origins of the cosmos, even though it really doesn't effect their lives. Should we force people that have children to stay together or get married since it might upset the child latter in life? Should we outlaw adoption since people might grow to wonder about their biological parents? Obviously you don't hold to that position, so don't know why you have difficulty on applying this to same-sex couples.

I want to figure out the best possible environment for children to grow up in and it appears that environment doesn't go well with the narrative people want to sell us today, so is it any wonder people want to bury this and try to sell us something that doesn't line up to reality? Anyway, where did I say anything about using force? That is a strawman to avoid the reality of what we see. Adoption exist to deal with the harsh realities of the world and not necessarily because it is the best possible way to raise children.

We've been discussing it and I understand completely the questions at hand.

So why the strawman? This has nothing to do with force and has everything to do with figuring out what the best possible environment is for the raising of children. If it hurts people's feelings, tough luck. What is the best possible environment for the care and raising of children? That is what I want answered and I don't care if the answer steps on people's toes or not.

I feel good with what I've produced so far. Further, I fail to see exactly where you've proven an ideal situation as being necessary.

Because to recognize something isn't as good as it can be; you need to know how it could be better. You seem to recognize that the situation we got going on now isn't the best. Why isn't it? What would make it better and why?

So why then, are you trying to make it seem as if a single variable is the biggest factor here? And if it's all down to decency then I fail to see where same-sex couples can't meet the standard for it, and that it was what you haven't shown.

Can you show anywhere that I have specifically said a thing about a single variable? I've seen lots of strawman that try to claim I said that, but no where where I said that. Funny thing is, I introduced it and you found a way to reject it by turning to Glaad's smear campaign against a man. Can you show me where Glaad or any of their supporters did a thing to actually refute the claim Dr Lopez made or did they construct a giant ad hominem instead of dealing with his claims? It is rather revealing to me that instead of dealing with his claims and research, they resorted to a smear campaign (you know, kind of like how many YEC's like to smear Charles Darwin). Sounds almost as if they want to just shut people up and not even bother to have a discussion to see if their claims match up to reality. Hummm... I wonder why...

There's a reason I linked to the study. I wanted to show you that my earlier statements on statistics be fairly useless in social sciences was not without merit. Now you just have to apply this to your won studies and we'll be on the same page. So hopefully that ends that contest.

Can you show where what I said was wrong? How to know what numbers I have chosen and where my sources come from? Your say so? Like I said, I specifically picked a person who didn't have an axe to grind, for my position, for a reason. To avoid the snowballing examples, now what specifically is wrong with what Dr Lopez said and why? I gave reasons to explain why your article, has some critical issues. Pick a small sample group, pick something you want to hit on, and I bet you can make any group come out smelling like a rose. It isn't hard, so why should I believe your studies over mine? Because you agree with your own?

I'm pretty well read on this topic as well and while I'm no expert, I'm knowledgeable enough to know that more than few studies have found no significant differences in child development. In fact, most child psychologists see no issue with same-sex adoption, or the idea of children growing-up in such households.

Of course they haven't because that isn't the narrative they want exposed and anybody who says otherwise, is mindlessly attacked. The narrative must be maintained, regardless of the cost. Problem with your 'studies' is the same problems as the one you gave in your link; small study sizes, limited data, snowballing, cherry picking, etc. When you know what you are doing and know how to get the answers you want to hear; you can make the narrative whatever you want it to be. You just need to know what questions to ask and who to ask.

Now, I don't know what you define as doing well but whether we like it or not it's a subjective outlook. All I can say is, I've seen the way these people have developed as humans, and would let them watch my dog.

And that still doesn't tell me what is met when somebody says, 'doing well'. What do you mean by, 'doing well' and do you measure that?

This is all getting rather subjective for me and I feel good about what I've brought to the table. We have different outlooks, that's just the way things are. I doubt I'm going to sway you my way, or me yours, but I'm happy to have gotten a civil conversation. I don't need to have the last word so I'll let you have it. I'll read your final post to me so go ahead reply if you wish.

Later.

NP. I can be quite civil when I'm not accused of all sorts of things.