8373 #transphobia forum.nationstates.net
(Talking about transgender people)
There's no contradiction. Most religious people don't see people possessed with devils as evil themselves, but victims of a malady that has taken hold of their mind.
(Talking about transgender people)
There's no contradiction. Most religious people don't see people possessed with devils as evil themselves, but victims of a malady that has taken hold of their mind.
I disagree. Part of the problem is that we need to work against an institutional bias. If we focused on just making everything equal legally, said extralegal bias would remain, so to counter that, the law needs to put its thuimb on the scale a bit.
No. There will always be bias. This is a psychological component of a person. A common example is interracial couples. The human brain immediately perceives this as disgusting, abnormal. A person's beliefs about this topic do not affect the reaction in any way. Real, true, without processing. Same with homosexual couples. No matter what position a person takes, no matter how he supports it, he will subconsciously be disgusted by it. Of course, a person will reject it, or even not understand it.
… (snipped for length)
(snipped for length)
I am for the fact that if people want equality, absolute equality should be given. No "privileges". Otherwise, sooner or later it will turn into the opposite discrimination. Personally, I do not support all these movements, I mean LGBT. However, I understand that the orientation is innate, and therefore it cannot be influenced in any way. I would even compromise: same-sex marriages are allowed, true legal equality is coming, however, any propaganda of non-traditional orientation is prohibited.
Considering that anti-LGBT hate crimes have been on the rise, and conservative states keep trying to take away their rights, I'd say they have good reason to feel under attack, and perhaps oppressed.
And these are just different views on life. In fact, I have little interest in the relationship with LGBT people in other countries.
No, what is sickening from my perspective is being expected to just pretend or go along with the notion (from people I see as rediculous) that men can be women and women can be men, rather than your sex being set at birth/in the womb like was the case for most of entire world history among our species.
I want a chance with my biological "other half" as the Garden of Eden fable describes. Not some artificial creation that is an abomination at worst and a poor imitation at best in my view. I will choose staying virgin forever if the only alternative was being intimate with an MtF that passes as a woman.
How is gay adoption harmful?
The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.
The reason why it's such a heated issue is that it's not just personal.
Yeah. The personal is political. Everything is political. Which means that no one can ever get away from you. Your crap is everywhere. That's why people are sick of you -- and not just political junkies like me but everyone outside your clique.
Trans people being domestically abused, denied treatment, forced through conversion camps, it's societal & institutional.
You (not just transgender but the entire "woke" tribe) are the most ridiculously overprivileged people on this planet. Every movie, every TV show, every book, every record label, every streaming site, every social media platform, every university, every institution universally supports your every whim. The complete pipeline from made up nonsense victim category being invented deep within the depths of Tumblr to it being discussed seriously before the United States Congress as if it were a genuine concern about discrimination against a real marginalized community in need of legislative remedy is getting to being measured in weeks rather than months at this point. There is nothing which could even conceivably be changed which would make you get your way more from the current system than you currently get besides punishing your political enemies more out of purely malicious vindictive spite. You run the world. You own Capitalism. You even get to enshrine your opinions as Science thanks to your controlling that too. It's time to stop pretending you're not in the position you are in fact in.
I should be surprised that we have an individual here vehemently defending certain people's "right" to be an unopposed shitbag. But it's 2022 and I've seen more than enough shit to desensitise me
Well, that may be because you appear to believe sexual orientation/gender identity is akin to race and ethnicity. I don’t. Being a POC isn’t a lifestyle, being LGBT is.
(Conversation context wouldn’t fit in the character limit)
Hmm, I knew had SSA before middle school. I went a Catholic school from 3rd-8th grade, and homosexuality was brought up once in a Catholic sex-Ed lesson, that I actually missed that day. It was in 6th or 7th grade. The series was form the 80s and was called “In God’s image”
Either way, it’s not the Schools place to affirm one’s sexual feelings, attractions or actions. People go to school for an education, not to be indoctrinated into a leftist view of sexuality. The fact that the far-left and the radical LGBT activists want to expose young children to their lifestyle is deeply disturbing. I mean, the LGBT activists have tried their hardest to end the notion that LGBT adults recruit children, which I have personal experience with when I went to a church that was a MCC Church. At that time I was only 14-15 and I was sexually accosted.
The topic of homosexuality and transgenderism shouldn’t be brought up until high school.
This is the last reply I’m giving you. You blasphemous “joke” of the most Holy Trinity was unacceptable. Once again, you will be in my prayers.
I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.
Actually they [white nationalists] do deserve a platform after all this bullshit anti-white propaganda thats been thrown around, and if they are the only ones willing to speak up about it then fuck it.
You do not even know what the fuck white nationalism is, and i can tell you this, its not nazism.
The left is insane with their social liberalist agenda of forcing their beliefs on other people; it's absurd. I was only ranked a libertarian on a quiz when I opposed government same-sex marriage. Evangelicals and I almost want to say Christians should oppose government same-sex marriage because unless the government is going to return marriage to the churches, it is an example of the government actively endorsing homosexuality by changing the definition of marriage. Furthermore, those groups aren't satisfied when agreeing to leave the individual alone they prefer active lobbying forcing their corrupted morality on other people. When Congress or the states won't do something the left will cheat through judicial activism. I would favor something like a domestic partnership or civil union that is something like a business pack where 2 males agree to be responsible for each other that isn't necessarily homosexual.
If i ran for president while I hate porn there's nothing or onley little i can do to oppose it as president. Liberals now wish to indocranate children with homosexuality through books and tv shows.
Transgendersim for children use to be seen as child abuse now its a human right to a demcrate.
My political beliefs are pretty straightforward. I believe in religious nationalism because countries need a transcendent center, otherwise they degrade into chaos and unbridled consumerism, and the Buddhist religion is the true and perfect religion which can unite Asia. I look at new solutions to problems when necessary, but I'm not going to throw away everything valuable in the name of neophilia
Much has been said about rational reasons on the desire for monarchy: order, stability, hierarchy, etc. Some even simply find the aestheticism of the monarchy to be endearing, or they desire the tourist revenue from this. However, while God has gifted us with reason, we are not machines, for God has also gifted us with emotion, which serves to drive reason towards goals to be accomplished. For without our emotions, we have no desires and therefore nothing to direct our reason towards. CS Lewis writes that men have a desire for monarchy, and if not sated with a monarch, it will latch itself to wasteful men. I contend that this desire for a monarch is not rational or political, but rather is erotic. What I mean by this is less that it is sexual (though there certainly is an aspect of the sexual) than that it is based on a romantic love. It is not a platonic, or passive love, but is a desirous, possessive, and therefore erotic love that we bear for a monarch. Rather than being shameful or excessive, in this context, erotic love is rendered its most noble, it is the most Christlike expression of love. When Christ loves us, he does so erotically, so the Fathers say, in that he desires to obtain us for salvation. Likewise, when we love God, we desire to possess him, to acquire his grace and love. Likewise, when we love a monarch, it is out of a desire for his rule. This erotic desire for a rightful, lawful king exists even in those who explicitly despise the institution of monarchy. Speak to the most ardent anarchist of Nestor Makhno, and watch his or her eyes glaze over with tears and their voice begin to tremble with admiration, and you will see plainly their desire for him. The people will seek a lawful king even in the absence of a monarchy, and if there are no lawful kings to be found, they will find unlawful, or base monarchs to appease them, and this is what CS Lewis speaks of.
Just as Christ woos or seduces us towards virtue and salvation through his own virtue, a lawful (i.e. virtuous) King seduces our desire for such as himself, for the institution of the monarchy is a miniaturized icon of the marriage of Christ and the Church, of bridegroom and bride. It is, then, an icon of a marriage, for the monarch is not only married to his physical bride, but to his spiritual bride (i.e. the people over which he rules). A lawful king, therefore, is one who rules with an erotic or romantic love towards his "bride", that is, desiring to possess them, and to charm them with his actions, to prove himself worthy of such a fair bride. It is an unlawful king that is neglectful in his love, or who behaves with simple beastly lust, who commits adultery against his bride through pursuing only his own interests at the expense of his bride. Who is flamboyant but without beauty, for beauty is found not only in aesthetics, but in nobility of character. A monarchist is not merely one who believes a monarchy is just, but one who desires a monarch, even if it is a monarch of their heart's desire, and not a living man. Like all people who choose their bridegroom, there is the danger of a poorly made match, of being wedded to an unvirtuous monarch. In such a case, the monarch is unlawful in that his desire for his bride is not genuine, and as such the people maintain their right for a divorce, and to crown a rightful, lawful king. This is not lawlessness, but rather the law of nature, for when adultery is committed, it is a crime not only against the bride, but against God and the covenant, and is a crime which cries out to all humanity to correct by divorce, for erotic immorality was one of the great crimes against which the Law and the Prophets speak against, and which Christ and the Apostles condemn. However, erotic love fulfilled with continence, loyalty, and marriage, is virtuous and a great calling from God. And it is this which is the basis of monarchy. Rather than social contract, it is spiritual contract, for man and wife are anointed by God to follow their love.
Creationism in Public Schools
The US Supreme Court has not allowed creation science to be taught in public schools since 1968, when it invalidated an Arkansas law that didn't allow evolution to be taught in schools (Epperson v. Arkansas). The Supreme Court continued to encourage evolution instead of creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, in which it held teaching of creation science along with evolution to be unconstitutional. However, many scientists believe that there is more scientific evidence for creation.
Christian groups have attempted to bring creation science back into public schools since it was banned. South Carolina's House Bill 3826, while unsuccessful, proposed teaching creation science in schools. However, none of these attempts have been successful.
What do you think, NSG? Should public schools be allowed to teach creation science? Should they teach evolution and creation science? Or is creation science unconstitutional?
I think creation and evolution should both be taught equally so students in public schools can choose for themselves what they believe. Although it would be unconstitutional if only the Christian perspective is taught, other religions could also be taught.
Should we euthanize orphans?
I was watching CNN the other day and they were doing a segment on animal euthanasia in Japan. They are so flooded over there that they decided that if animals aren’t adopted they should be put in a metal box and gassed. I was thinking, here in the US we have a broken welfare system and dozens of kids in care who nobody wants to adopt, most will probably turn into criminals and end up in prison or death row. Maybe it would be better if we euthanized the orphans nobody wants, we’ll be saving them from a horrible life and society from juvenile delinquents and future crimes. With the money we save with euthanasia, we could spend it on those families that do adopt making sure they are financially supported and that the adopted kids have access to good schools, sports and psychological care maybe even college.
To be honest I am not in favour. Why euthanise an orphan when he has a bright future in front of him? I know his parents died, but he still has a future. Everyone does. Unless you are at the last stages, then yes, because you have completed the most important parts of life. But, an orphan? Who's probably young? Come on. There's something better than euthanasia.
Well, most orphans get bounced around from home to home so they’re constantly being psychologically traumatized. Orphanages are hell holes. Unadopted orphans are like an anchor weighing down the welfare system, if we can cut them loose we can save money to spend supporting successful adoptions. Many uncared for orphans will end up in prison. Instead, why not save everyone trouble and euthanize a small number to benefit the rest? It’s nice to believe that everyone has a bright future but that’s not true. Let’s support the ones that are likely to succeed and rather than torturing those that won’t by throwing them from home to home or dumping them in orphanages that are more like prisons than homes, we should have the option of euthanizing them humanely.
[Submitter's note: Thread got euthanised within a day]
On The Distribution of Spouses
I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.
Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.
I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.
This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).
Agree or Disagree?
(Submitter's note: He also uses the Croatian flag...)
Should There Be A Right To Fornicate?
I dont think so. Little good has come from it, all the worlds ills can be traced back to this action. Obviously this is deeply ingrained, but it's about time we as a people moved on from it.
First, your WikiPedia arcticle means absolutely nothing. Remember when like Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and then wait, suddenly they are a major ally of ours in the pacific. How did that's happen? Maybe because relationships and countries change.
Secondly, are you out of your mind? Please explain to me how Western Civilizarion and America was not based on Judeo Christian values. Obviously most of the founders were diest, but that does not mean that they were not majorly influenced by Judeo Christian values because it isn't obvious that they were. Here's a brief list of some of the values, please explain to me how the Consitution was not based off of these principles:
Dignity of Human Life
Traditional Family Values
Right to a God-Centered Education
A National Work Ethic
The Abrahamic Covenant: If people or a nation follows the Bible, they will be blessed by God
Freedoms coming from God and not government
(full exchange posted here quoted is the other poster)
Marriage makes someone your family. All the griping about how gays need marriage without even knowing what is, smdh
I mean your spouse is close family, even closer than your parents. That's what marriage means, that's the whole basis of the "hospital visits" people said were so important
Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part
I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction
I imagine places such as the Middle East and the more rural parts of South America will one day be known as the "last bastions of religion". In other words, it's purpose has been served, and more and more people are waking up to reality.
It’s Porpoise has hardly been served. Belive me, People cannot survive a Meaningless life like what Atheism Offers. Because in an Atheist Society, Your tiny, miniscule, Worthless. No one would care if you were to Kill yourself. Such a Sad Existence has no place in Life.
(a few months old but the way it goes from zero to fundie to creepy has me wanting to submit it)
Homosexual activities can lead to drug use, depression, stds and stis as worse as aids, the dissolvement of the normal family, degeneracy, and the death of races. You see homosexuality is fine to a certain extent bisexuals are fine however full on gays have a few screws loose. Another thing is their supposed "oppression" the only reason why they think this is most likely due to their sensitivity which reaches levels of crying and depression because someone criticizes their lifestyle and even disregarding fact and research to move their agenda. Another thing is that despite multiple claims they are not natural seeing as how it is all psychological or caused by experiences as a child which influence a lot of different fetishes for and example my sister would leave her stocking lying around and now I find stockings kinda hot.
Traditionalist Elites mobilise against technology
Discuss. Is this the new world order trying to take away children's liberties after all Macron is a globalist according to infowars right? Conspiracy but remember never stop questioning!
Do the elite have a plan to destroy the modern world and take us back to the stone age? The modern world encourages individualism
I do not hate freedom. But I hate selfish sociopaths who who use "freedom" as a shield to hide behind while caring not in the slightest for anyone else's freedom or the other needs of society.
And projection it is. I care for others, look at any the averages, right wingers donate more than liberals. And you say not caring for anyone else’s freedom? On what they are free unlike In a socialist system where they can’t voluntarily transact. It’s not charitable to reach into some one else’s wallet man, dig into your own. Obviously you lack the basic knowledge of the situation or you would be on my side.
a socialist system where they can’t voluntarily transact.
Which I do not advocate (in character or in reality), nor does any but a few fringe lunatics with zero relevance in real life.
Obviously you lack the basic knowledge of the situation or you would be on my side.
cough fascist Blackshirt thugs aka antifa cough not to mention corbyn having a literal communist and attending communist meetings... well to be fair europe is unimportant anyways
I'm not a bigot, I can tolerate Muslims dissenting from me, no problem. Muslims agreeing with me, however, would force me into an existential crisis
Because I would lose all faith in my own narrow-mindedness. And if I'm not narrow-minded, what does that make me? A freethinker. And freethinkers reject revelation, which would mean I'm living a lie.
This is a consequence of the pill. Western men wanted to have sex with no consequences, and now our tribe(s) are dying a slow death because those get into the water and cause men to stop being able of making as many babies as before. :(
They also have the consequence of making girls getting into puberty earlier and making men more feminine as well, in a time when bad people from distant lands who like really young girls are marching on our streets and we need exactly the opposite - men who can act like protectors and not some self-absorbed "ze's". >:( It's Western Rome 2.0. :(
Who is among the New World Order ?
I've been wondering who is among the New World Order ? I figure they must be rich guys and probably Satanist. Satanist because there loyalty towards Satan get the best of everything. But anyway, 2who do you think they are ?
Most people make fun of conspiracy theories. I don't. I mean, when you figure the Illuminati and other secret organizations, they have real pull in this world. So, what conspiracy theory do you believe but others think is absurd ?
I wish I knew so I could join them. Being in a secret society would be fun, I think.
(In a discussion on Gernan Neonazi Otfried Best wanting to replace arabic numberals with "normal" ones)
Shows once more how fascism is still strong in capitalist Germany. The government is more interested in smearing the legacy of the antifascist GDR than lerning from the terrors of fascism. Capitalism gives birth to fascism, as seen by the neofascist racist party of AfD being 3rd in polls.
I hope The Left, DKP and MLPD gain majority in elections.
(In a discussion on Gernan Neonazi Otfried Best wanting to replace arabic numberals with "normal" ones)
I also support banning Arabic numerals
... First, Arabic numerals are better suited for math and already used worldwide. Second, it isn't even Arabic. Third, proper Latin numerals can't exactly describe numbers bigger than one million. Or the number zero. Fourth, do you seriously want to do 45,278,629 multiplied by 964 with Latin numerals?
There's practicality and common sense involved in this equation.
I understand your point, but in my opinion, Arabic does not belong to Europe and America, and about the fourth point: No, i only want the current 123-numbers used in the western world, thus in Europe and America
So, yeah. Good luck being backwater economies. You're gonna desperately need to cling to it.
Oh, by the way. "In your opinion" is not a good indicator of objectivity.
I see liberal tears
And how are you going to count them?
I don't count it, i just know that liberals don't like conservatives, and every time they hear a conservative speaking they burst their tears out :p
I didn't, I simply made fun of you.
That's for me the same, because that's what Liberals do
I could rebuke your thought-out arguments, but you have none.
That's your opinion, i see here only liberal tears because a conservative is speaking
And that's your opinion.
I'm speaking the truth, Liberals just can't get into arguments, Conservatives can get into arguments. If a Conservative confronts a Liberal with the truth, they'll cry like babies
First, I'm not crying, second, it's just your opinion.
Okay, you're not crying, good job, but you now don't want a argument anymore with a conservative
That's your opinion, because I want this argument to last as long as it can.
I'm having a lot of fun doing it.
I'm also having fun to argument with a liberal, because liberals don't want to know the truth and are brainwashed
Indeed. I put my brain into my Electrolux for every night, for 90°C and maximum RPM, and it's squeky-clean now.
What did you just say?
Would Slavery Exist in the Ideal Minarchical Society?
Minarchism is a form of Libertarianism, with the philosophy that the ideal government would exist to provide only a few necessary services to the people. It often limits the State to three institutions, that could not be handled properly by the free market, the military, the police, and the courts. The actions that these three institutions would provide would be to protect citizens from aggression, and protect their property laws and natural rights. Now, I go back and forth between whether or not slavery would exist in this ideal Minarchical society, as the government would ideally protect citizens' natural rights to life, liberty and, property, and therefore, society would not allow slavery. Yet, this line of thinking becomes problematic, because who/what would decide who is a citizen and who is not? I go back and forth in my mind and was wondering what you guys think? Ultimately, I believe slavery would exist as there is no definite way to define who or what would be a citizen in this society, yet my mind is open and my opinion is subject to change on this topic.
The War On Whites
Can we please talk about this? Every single day we are being demonized something we didn't even do. Every day we are told that we are violent "Nazis" for wanting to preserve our race. Meanwhile some black dude can scream "Black power" and he'll have a crowd join him. The same goes for any other race except whites. Not every single white person is a racist, quite the opposite. Can we stop saying only whites can be racist? It's complete bullshit and they don't realize that it could be considered racist saying that. Meanwhile we have movements like Black Lives Matter that has created anti-white violence and have become the black Shutzstaffel. It's like saying all black people are violent thugs. Yes, we do have a history of expanding empires to foreign lands and sometimes treated the natives like crap, but we aren't alone. Africans and Native Americans had been doing that for centuries before branched out. I mean the Japanese invaded the Chinese, murder and raped its people, but nobody bats an eyelid. We've done nothing wrong, so cut it out.
I think the difference is a matter of degree. You say you're very pro 2nd Amendment, and yet you're willing to tolerate a candidate that pushes for an 'assault weapon' ban.
"We need to get the military style assault weapons off of our streets" is right next to "We need to exterminate the Jews" in my handbook of 'Absolutely unacceptable beliefs
Everything is wrong with miscegenation. It destroys the physical appearance of a race
[So there we were, the Black race and the White race, and from one moment to another, wouldn't you know, BOOM!
Our physical appearance got destroyed by miscegenation. Horrible. Just horrible.]
Yes. Horrible. I don't care how pretty she is.
Ancestral genome has been completely destroyed. And she is the personification of that destruction. She is called a hybrid.
[Creationism v. evolution debate.]
Preventing children from being drug users because they don't see themselves as accountable to God is better than crappy freedom.
[How does not having faith in God automatically translates to being a druggie? What the hell?]
Not automatically. Only if the children actually are taking it seriously.
[On Colombia legalizing same-sex marriage]
Meh, South America was swallowed by the pink tide 30 years ago, so something as offensive to tradition and morality as this is not surprising, no more so than finding worms writhing on pavement after a rainstorm.
My own stance will never change on the matter, however, no matter how many nations stoop to accommodating sexual deviancy like this.
[In a thread about Colombia legalizing same sex marriage.]
Latin America was meant to be very Catholic as well, what a shame.
[Kautharr used homophobia.
But nothing happened.]
I don't care if you call me a homophobe or any other regressive leftist buzzword, I'm proud to be a homophobe and idrc if you call me one.
Sounds like someone is a bit mad. How about you shut the fuck up about how entitled you are, and Christians have never been a protected group in the US. And for the record, no one gives a shit about sodomite marriage, it's degeneracy and is such a small issue only soccer moms, lesbians and leftists care about.
Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the modern atheist is whining that Christianity is overly controlling and crying about individual rights, while at the same time insisting that God, if He were truly good, should directly take over the world and establish a totalitarian theocracy so as to eliminate evil. The modern atheist is a spoiled brat, demanding freedom to do whatever he wants, while also throwing a tantrum because his parent does not fix all his problems for him.
And you have the audacity to accuse UMN of focusing on his "first world problems", when atheism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon found among the rich, the privileged, the pampered. Those starving children and their parents are far more likely to believe in God than you ever will be. They understand that a world without God is a world without justice. They understand that it is precisely the existence of God that makes their suffering mean something, that guarantees their lives are not in vain. But you, from the comfort of your first world lives, talk about suffering and death as one talks about war after having played Starcraft. You don't know the first thing about suffering and death.
A lot of the suffering in this world can be fixed, but there is a lot more than we can do nothing about. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world for whom, even in the best of circumstances - even if we abolished capitalism, war, and world hunger - life would still be filled with suffering. Some of them have an incurable chronic medical condition, some of them have childhood trauma that they will never overcome, some of them have seen loved ones die and will never be able to smile again. Atheism has nothing to say to these people, and nothing to give them but despair and darkness. "Life sucks and then you die."
That is why atheism is the religion of the rich and privileged. Because only the rich and privileged can endure to look at this rotten world and say "yup, this is all there is, and I'm fine with that."
God deserves the glory because He created us, and the air we breath and food we eat that maintains our lives. He deserves our praise. Humans who are selfish do not deserve the glory because all of their achievements were accomplished with something that they would not have without God.
[God deserves the glory because he made us for his own amusement and punishes us for acting in a manner that he has specifically created us to. But hey, he made us, so... that makes him good? What kind of morality is that? Does an abusive mother deserve eternal praise because she birthed and fed her kids?]
What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature). And I would say that a mother does not deserve eternal praise because ultimately it was God who created those children.
Correct. This is what I am saying.
And yeah, Plato may be rolling in his grave... but Plato lived over 2300 years ago. If it were actually possible to get an objective good without God, then why haven't secular philosophers reached any sort of consensus on what is objectively good after 2300 years of discussing it?
Because, without God, objective good does not exist. You haven't found it after 2300 years because there is nothing to find.
[Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.]
Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol
And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now
Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:
Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from
Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.
The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.