Should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

[Joy4Uall]

No, Scientific Humanists don't need an invisible friend to tell us right from wrong - we do "what's best for humanity", and that's a great starting point.

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

 

[Joy4Uall]

People in "lost tribes" don't particularly GET to hear Jesus' message, but they burn anyway - clearly your invisible friend in the sky is not fair, is not equitable.

Romans 1:18-25
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

WHICH god? What if they believe in the all-powerful Krishna - that should suffice, right (as long as they are ethical and do good works too), right? Or is Jesus kinda stuck on himself?

It's not about works. .....

But that would be more fair, more equitable, more just...rather than just being about which unproven invisible dead guy a person happens to "believe" in.

Actually, you've been speaking against the Old Testament for 24 pages, and now you suddenly support it? The Old Testament WAS based on works. Gentiles couldn't get into Heaven because it was based on works, so God sent Jesus to make it a choice. You can believe and live with God forever, or don't, and separate yourself forever. God made is significantly easier to make that choice.

Or, in your own words, the Old Testament was not "fair". That's why we have the New Testament.

Works is fairer than just grace/believing. So that would mean the OT was fairer than the NT, to the degree that your assumption is true.

 

[Joy4Uall]

So then of course we should LEGALIZE SLAVERY because god/Jesus accepted slavery (and never spoke out against it - tacit approval), but us "random people" have outlawed slavery, then, right!? Obviously their invisible friend in the sky knows more than we do.

Ding already curb-stomped that argument, and not speaking out against something isn't condoning it. You need to learn the difference.

If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".
Scientific Humanists would have, if they were in that position, of course, so that does put them at a higher level of compassion, a higher level of love, than even Jesus (who did say some good things, we agree.) I'm sure that 5 to 50 years from now someone will come along and improve on Scientific Humanism....so it's good to have a flexible, growing, improving overall belief system.

You clearly didn't read the post, the slaves were people who sold themselves into slavery, and considering its their own life and their own body, nobody did, and nobody should have told them otherwise.

Not only that, but if you haven't noticed, Jesus came to open the gates of heaven to more than just Jews, not to right all perceived wrongs. Even if that were a valid argument, and the slavery wasn't self-inflicted, it wasn't his mission.

This statement is as true as the statement "2+2=4":
If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".

Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if he did that, Pumpkin?

You clearly didn't read what I said. Slavery was voluntary. They did it to pay their debts.

I'd also like to point out that only Christians listened to Jesus. Even if he wanted to prevent people from paying their debts through voluntarily becoming slaves, it wouldn't have abolished slavery.

So, hypothetically, if I could point out slaves that were CAPTURED, non-voluntary, by heroes in the Bible, you'd condemn the Bible for having those enslavers be heroes, correct? Again, I said hypothetically - I'm trying to separate out "what does it actually say" from YOUR MORAL JUDGMENT. What say you?

 

[Joy4Uall]

No, Scientific Humanists don't need an invisible friend to tell us right from wrong - we do "what's best for humanity", and that's a great starting point.

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, .......

I'm sure you can't condemn Allah for saying to cut off people's hands and feet (Q5:33)....can you?

 

[Joy4Uall]

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

.....

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.
...

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

 

[aris2chat]

You can't explain it then, eh?

Absolutely I can explain it.

The fact that they are in a homosexual relationship means that they value sexual gratification over everything else.

Their own sexual gratification is priority one, no matter how perverse or antisocial
their lusts may be.


People like that don't need to be raising children.

A person with that mindset is highly likely to molest children if it "turns them on".

if children turn you on, you're a pedophile. Period. Stop linking homosexuality with pedophilia, there is no link.
Homosexuals are no more to blame for following their sexual urges than you or I. Who cares what happens between two consenting adults?!

Mohammad had sex with little Aisha when she was 9 years-old.....was Mo a pedo?

Richard the first married a 6yr old

In those days it was not uncommon in the east or west

Even today some parts of the world still have girls marry as soon as they have their first period. Some are married young, and live with their in-laws but don't have sex till their first cycle.

In the US kids of 14 can marry with a judges approval

From all account Mohammed and Aisha were vary happy in their marriage

Science shows us that adults having sex with kids causes mental and physical damage to the child - do you think that Allah would know that?

Most pedophiles are "straight" not homosexual.

No reason gays cannot be good parents

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

Pretty sure neither is out of the realm of possibility for an entity that created a universe and all therein.
......

Prove that of the 5000+ gods out there that YOUR PARTICULAR UNIQUE GOD is the one who created it all, and not one of the other 5000 gods.

I find it funny that because you've been countered so many times, you just keep moving goal posts. As a matter of fact, I already told you I don't care if you believe in God or not, I'm only here to counter your attacks on Christianity. Hell, you don't believe in any of the "5000+ gods out there",why would you care 'which' created it all? Hypothetically.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

What you're calling a moral stand is attacking people for not conforming to your way of thinking. The people that are blowing themselves up on 'non-believers' aren't representatives of Muslims in the world.

Not only that, but you clearly haven't read the Quran.

 

[Joy4Uall]

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

Pretty sure neither is out of the realm of possibility for an entity that created a universe and all therein.
......

Prove that of the 5000+ gods out there that YOUR PARTICULAR UNIQUE GOD is the one who created it all, and not one of the other 5000 gods.

I find it funny that because you've been countered so many times, you just keep moving goal posts. As a matter of fact, I already told you I don't care if you believe in God or not, I'm only here to counter your attacks on Christianity. Hell, you don't believe in any of the "5000+ gods out there",why would you care 'which' created it all? Hypothetically.

Tacit admission that YOUR PARTICULAR UNIQUE GOD can not be proven to be the one who created it all, and not one of the other 5000 gods. So keep in mind that those other 5000 gods are likely to be just as real as your particular unique god of the Bible is.
Have a great afternoon.

 

[Joy4Uall]

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

What you're calling a moral stand is attacking people for not conforming to your way of thinking. The people that are blowing themselves up on 'non-believers' aren't representatives of Muslims in the world.

Not only that, but you clearly haven't read the Quran.

I asked you to condemn BEATING women, and you couldn't even do that? Please take a hard look at yourself in the mirror. My "way of thinking", is, uh, that women should not be BEATEN!

 

[Joy4Uall]

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

.......

Not only that, but you clearly haven't read the Quran.

That's not true.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Romans 1:18-25
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

WHICH god? What if they believe in the all-powerful Krishna - that should suffice, right (as long as they are ethical and do good works too), right? Or is Jesus kinda stuck on himself?

It's not about works. .....

But that would be more fair, more equitable, more just...rather than just being about which unproven invisible dead guy a person happens to "believe" in.

Actually, you've been speaking against the Old Testament for 24 pages, and now you suddenly support it? The Old Testament WAS based on works. Gentiles couldn't get into Heaven because it was based on works, so God sent Jesus to make it a choice. You can believe and live with God forever, or don't, and separate yourself forever. God made is significantly easier to make that choice.

Or, in your own words, the Old Testament was not "fair". That's why we have the New Testament.

Works is fairer than just grace/believing. So that would mean the OT was fairer than the NT, to the degree that your assumption is true.

It's literally impossible for humans to be perfect, the standards to stand before God were too high because they were based on works. People are immoral trash, for the most part, which is why we needed the new Testament. Considering the number of people that had been smote, in the flood, and Sodom and Gammorah, the people that were wiped out after Exodus, and the way things are today, it's pretty clear that the New Testament is far "Fairer".

 

[Joy4Uall]

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

. The people that are blowing themselves up on 'non-believers' aren't representatives of Muslims in the world......

The Jihadists are taking the texts more as written, more at face value, they believe those texts say what they mean and mean what they say - they are the most PIOUS Muslims, the ones who believe the texts the MOST. "Moderate" Muslims are not COMPLETE Muslims because they are not actually following Q5:33 which says to crucify as punishment, and are (hopefully) not following Q4:34 because they are not beating their wives. The pious Jihadist is the most complete Muslim, because he follows the texts more than the "moderate" Muslim does - such as cutting off hands and feet per Qur'an 5:33.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ding already curb-stomped that argument, and not speaking out against something isn't condoning it. You need to learn the difference.

If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".
Scientific Humanists would have, if they were in that position, of course, so that does put them at a higher level of compassion, a higher level of love, than even Jesus (who did say some good things, we agree.) I'm sure that 5 to 50 years from now someone will come along and improve on Scientific Humanism....so it's good to have a flexible, growing, improving overall belief system.

You clearly didn't read the post, the slaves were people who sold themselves into slavery, and considering its their own life and their own body, nobody did, and nobody should have told them otherwise.

Not only that, but if you haven't noticed, Jesus came to open the gates of heaven to more than just Jews, not to right all perceived wrongs. Even if that were a valid argument, and the slavery wasn't self-inflicted, it wasn't his mission.

This statement is as true as the statement "2+2=4":
If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".

Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if he did that, Pumpkin?

You clearly didn't read what I said. Slavery was voluntary. They did it to pay their debts.

I'd also like to point out that only Christians listened to Jesus. Even if he wanted to prevent people from paying their debts through voluntarily becoming slaves, it wouldn't have abolished slavery.

So, hypothetically, if I could point out slaves that were CAPTURED, non-voluntary, by heroes in the Bible, you'd condemn the Bible for having those enslavers be heroes, correct? Again, I said hypothetically - I'm trying to separate out "what does it actually say" from YOUR MORAL JUDGMENT. What say you?

You're, again, trying to make 'not condemning' the same as encouraging because you have no ground to stand on. Every person in the Bible, whether they were chosen for God's will, or simply present during any of the passages, had sinned. Simply because you refer to one or more as a "Biblical Hero" doesn't mean you can hold them over the heads of Christians as a model Christian.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, .......

I'm sure you can't condemn Allah for saying to cut off people's hands and feet (Q5:33)....can you?

So, because you couldn't find any atrocities encouraged in the Bible, you're searching the Quran? That's pretty sad.

 

[Joy4Uall]

WHICH god? What if they believe in the all-powerful Krishna - that should suffice, right (as long as they are ethical and do good works too), right? Or is Jesus kinda stuck on himself?

It's not about works. .....

But that would be more fair, more equitable, more just...rather than just being about which unproven invisible dead guy a person happens to "believe" in.

Actually, you've been speaking against the Old Testament for 24 pages, and now you suddenly support it? The Old Testament WAS based on works. Gentiles couldn't get into Heaven because it was based on works, so God sent Jesus to make it a choice. You can believe and live with God forever, or don't, and separate yourself forever. God made is significantly easier to make that choice.

Or, in your own words, the Old Testament was not "fair". That's why we have the New Testament.

Works is fairer than just grace/believing. So that would mean the OT was fairer than the NT, to the degree that your assumption is true.

It's literally impossible for humans to be perfect, the standards to stand before God were too high because they were based on works. People are immoral trash, for the most part, which is why we needed the new Testament. Considering the number of people that had been smote, in the flood, and Sodom and Gammorah, the people that were wiped out after Exodus, and the way things are today, it's pretty clear that the New Testament is far "Fairer".

No, that just means that the god of the OT was more BARBARIC - so Christians should consider not having the OT in their Bible. Unless of course they can't think for themselves.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

.....

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.
...

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

 

[Joy4Uall]

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, .......

I'm sure you can't condemn Allah for saying to cut off people's hands and feet (Q5:33)....can you?

So, because you couldn't find any atrocities encouraged in the Bible, you're searching the Quran? That's pretty sad.

Here are a whopping 1321 instances of cruelty and violence in the Bible - many of them approved by the god and/or heroes of the Bible: Cruelty and Violence

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

.......

Not only that, but you clearly haven't read the Quran.

That's not true.

I'm sure you've read just as much of the Quran as the Bible. That being 0 pages, and some opinion pieces from other militant atheists who also haven't read them.

 

[Joy4Uall]

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

.....

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.
...

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

Can a man live inside a fish for 3 days or is science not actually real?