@Alex: homosexual animals? there is nothing in God's creation like homosexual animals. You cannot bring animals into this conversation, the difference between they and us, is that we can reason. We make choises, we can discern between good and bad. Therefore, we have a bigger responsability. I didn't decided to be straight, I was created straitgh, and all of us, according to eclesiasts. The answer to all of your questions is contained in a single word, sin
52 (edited by AlexN94 2017-02-16 06:42:26)
Here's a documentary about something that's apparently not in God's creation then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdcvRe7ox8
So I guess these animals must have chosen that too, unless God made them that way, which he must have done since you claim animals can't reason and Thus can't choose either.
Also, have this,:
https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/n … asons-why/
53 (edited by brad 2017-02-16 06:03:37)
Let me start this by saying i'm a spiritualist. I don't follow any religion and doubt I ever will.
Saying that. I love the azan, the eastern meditation/religious music, a bhudest song called the medicine mantra and many more.
To those who say you will not accept gay people and so on, who are you to judge them? Surely if god is loving and so on he slash she slash it, will accept people no matter what? I find it very interesting how people can get so heated and upset over a simple thing such as who a person feels complete with.
You do know there were gays, lesbians and I'd go as far as saying probably even trance men and women way before the internet, right?
As for changing your friend, I doubt college did that. I think they felt this way before and couldn't express it. If you really feel they are horrible for excepting who they are then it would be best to break the friendship.
@Andy93 perhaps you will listen to the Pope? See the below video. I am also surprised that as a blind person knowing what it feels like to be treated differently how you could do the same to same sex individuals. It is time for Catholics to change and open up and be accepting. Who are we to judge?
I leave judgment to God; my place in this world, as far as I'm concerned, is distinguishing the difference between fact and fiction.
@jeff: I would not listen to the pope, I don't care about what the pope says but what God says in his word the bible, instead. I think I never said here I was a roman catholic, because I'm not.
@Alex N: again, we cannot put animals here, this is all about men, not animals. Its men who tries to justify his/her sin, by even saying that some animals are homosexuals, witch is of course not true. No matter witch scientist said it, as hurstseth said before, its all a bunch of lies.
@nocturnus: While its true that we leave judgement to God, as christians we are called not to condemn people, but to judge their conduct. So, I judge that he/she who practices wichccraft is doing an abomination, because I was also involved in such practices.
Deliver your beliefs more lovingly and people might actually take you seriously. Rebuke other Christians if you like for not being able to live consistently, but I find it odd that you expect nonChristians to conform to your standards.
At andy, so, just that i get this straight, you are denying that there are homo sexual animals, even though it has been confirmed by scientists and reports of two males animals mating have been confirmed.
I have nevewr met someone so close minded as religious people. Deny everything proovable and just go after a logic of some dude called god, seriusly? I now know why humanity is going to the sharks.
Oh shit, I saied something offending over god, do I get punished now?
To be continued.
Wichccraft? Come everyone! Hogwarts awaits us. Headmistress McGonagall only judges on magic skill and sticking to the school rules. Squibbert!
At jef, hopefully we dont mess up at magical potions xDl.
@simba hahahaha I hope not.
@Andy93: I suppose you don't believe in gravity either then, right? I mean, I don't recall the Bible talking much about that.
For the record, I had a dog who acted as homosexual as a dog could possibly act. That crazy was practically incestuous to the point he was trying to get it on with his dad, who didn't like it one bit. So are there homosexual animals? Methinks so. Do they tie morality into it? that's a debate for another time.
64 (edited by daigonite 2017-02-17 00:26:22)
I despise how poorly LGBTQ+ handles the whole trans and homosexuality thing. I'm gay AND trans too, so you know they screwed up big time.
I'm definitely a minority in the community when it comes to these opinions so I wouldn't recommend going up to someone's face about it... but a few things first.
Animals are homosexual all the time. It's a reality, sorry to burst anyone's bubble. Animals generally function on hormones, ourselves included, and those hormones can easily get a little screwy. Homosexuality probably is a form of population control through genetics. Believe it or not, especially in social animals, it's good to have a few non-breeding individuals to help support society instead of children. Makes sense why an animal that takes 20 years to develop would have a couple queers.
I should point out though that nobody is BORN homosexual. The truth is everyone is born asexual because we are babies and don't understand our sexuality yet! It's likely that our genetics determines whether or not we will be homosexual or heterosexual but it's not a permanent state of being - rather, the biological mechanisms that favor one over the other determine whether or not an animal or human acts homosexually. In all honesty I think that homosexuality should just be integrated already, nobody cares who you're screwing behind closed doors anymore. Is it really anyone's business who you're getting off to as long as it can consent?
Back on topic: Gender is a whole can of worms. The neo-gender movement is an abomination. Next time you hear about someone talk about a gender that isn't male or female, listen to how they describe it in extremely vague terms that is almost meaningless. You know what that is? That's them showing off their immense insecurity.
Gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition. There are many medical researchers who are investigating it. However, there are a few serious problems with it:
1. The disorder has become very political. Of course, transgender people have always been kind of a taboo for conservative types, but more problematic is that people are getting too liberal with labeling people as transgender. It's a medical condition. As in, you have to be medically diagnosed. If anything the disorder should be treated as a disability because that's what it is in a lot of cases.
2. Treatment is too liberal. I have a particularly jarring experience where I was able to get a letter of recommendation for hormones after 1 visit. Theoretically I could have been on hormones less than a month after I decided to book the appointment. I think my case is unusual, but I feel that doctors are oftentimes willing to either simply just wait the time period required or ignore the time period, partially or completely, as a form of support for the transgender person. What frustrates me about this is that HRT is not only irreversible but is not as safe as people peddle it to be. There is also the problem with suicides post-HRT, likely caused by people who made a choice that they regret.
I personally don't mind going on HRT but this was because I knew at that point what I wanted exactly, and it had nothing to do with vague problems like "not feeling happy in my body", but rather very direct things like wanting a beard and wanting to sound like a guy, and most frustratingly, wanting to have sex like a man. Like what frustrates me about these people is that they can't even tell you jack shit about their actual problems but they expect you to buy into it, and then there's me who basically knows what they want but they can't physically get it.
The nonbinary thing is also worrying to me. It seems that people peddling that again have forgotten the medical nature of gender dysphoria. I was peddled this when I went to the therapist and I notice that my normal therapist doesn't buy into it either. Basically nonbinary is supposedly a gender that is not male or female (more oppression points tbh). I was peddled this since I explained I didn't really want to be overly masculine outwardly and I really didn't care that much about being called a girl, it was more of a physical thing. Later I realized the reason why had more to do with the kind of person I am than my gender identity.
Ultimately, the problem is that people want to go on HRT since they think it will fix their gender problems. Most times it doesn't get rid of them. My friends tell me the argument that it "might help them" but I feel like they're ignorant to the risk assessment of the issue. "Might help" is not enough reason to push someone on life changing medication if they aren't in a medical emergency. I still think it should be an option but only after a serious assessment.
I also genuinely feel that all these shenanigans are concealing other mental health issues that have little to do with gender. Hormones are known to destabilize people with conditions like BPD and yet people want HRT delivery to be even MORE liberal...
Please do not buckle down for these people, they are irresponsible and are not treating the disorder as a medical condition but rather as a political identity. I don't agree with your beliefs necessarily but these people are stepping the line much more than you have.
P.S. Generally, working on morals is a very flawed way to live, since in unusual circumstances morality will not be able to compensate for the circumstances. They do make things easier I guess though.
Every single time I hear someone try to identify as something they're not born, IE males who call themselves or show themselves off as females etc, I ask myself what it is they see when they look in the mirror. Even if you want to debate this from a relativistic point of view, please tell me you would not let a skinny person convince you they're fat?
66 (edited by daigonite 2017-02-17 01:26:24)
No, but you wouldn't think it's unreasonable to think that a fat person wants to be thin? Ultimately a lot of it is a body image issue. The thing is, to actually "fix" the problem is quite different. "Fixing" a fat person means helping them lose weight and become the person they want to become (to some extent). The difference is though that losing weight is very beneficial for a fat person to the point that there is pretty much no reason NOT to.
The whole idea behind acting like that is that it helps the person feel better. Not like, "feelings" but help keep your mind off of things. If you're a fat person you're likely thinking about how you wouldn't like to be fat, after all. That wastes a lot of time, causes a lot of depression and anxiety. imho this is one of the things that gender cults has forgotten about since it's clear they're more interested in affirming their identity than actually feeling better. To be honest though I think this is the wrong approach.
Like yeah sherlock of course I know I don't have the man toolbox but if I adopt the role of a guy then I feel better. Personally for me I've never really "acted" either gender, I was always just myself. Thing was that self was clearly masculine, to the point where a lot of time people thought I was one of those long haired metal dudes. But I do like the way that testosterone physically feels, and I like being more masculine, so yeah. It was clearer to me after my life settled from a crisis ending in late 2016 why I felt that way but it's kind of personal. But I think the problem here is that a lot of these people couldn't tell you even the basics. And someone like that needs to introspect more. More cognitive therapy.
The problem with the acting thing is that they feel uncomfortable with acting strictly masculine, then they experiment with being strictly feminine and that doesn't fit either. Then, they find out that there is a whole group of nonbinary genders which they can apply to themselves while they are trying to understand what role they want to fulfill. What I realized was that my role was very clear, but obviously the opposite sex, which is why I decided to transition. These people though, they're not figuring themselves out first. They're basically just saying two very strict stereotypes on how to be a person doesn't fit and then they succumb to "I'm a special unique snowflake" disease, which is really just another way of saying they're extremely insecure.
I don't really understand the social side of it. Honestly it makes me look like the biggest dick but I honestly think most of the social side of it is insecurity of specific parts of your interests or identity instead of pure gender identity issues. This doesn't mean they couldn't be trans, it just means they aren't always together. These people are extremely insecure and expect you to compensate for it.
If anything I think instead of acting the opposite gender, they should really just release themselves a bit and just do what they want. You wanna be a man who wears a dress? Experiment with it and see how you actually feel about it. Maybe you just want to be a man who wears a dress. Sure, that's weird, but at least now you aren't undergoing unnecessary treatment.
If you can't accept being LGBTQ, then by all means don't be LGBTQ. No one's putting a gun to your head. But if you wouldn't accept a member of that community bashing your mythical man in the sky (why is it God is always a man, anyway? How very sexist of Christianity.), then you don't get to take them down for being a member of that community. Bashing a member of that community, or for that matter a member of any other community, is not you being a good Christian. What it is is you being an asshole. And honestly, were I the original poster's friend, I'd be dropping him like a bad habbit. With friends like mister Christianity over there, who needs enemies?
It's interesting that people are still talking about god and all this religion stuff.
Some people are not accepting gay or trans people because of god. They think this is wrong to be gay or trans. But the thing is: God accepts everyone. And if he didn't accepted everyone, is it then your issue, or all the gay and trans peoples issues? So why even keep bitching about that you won't accept people because of god, because this is not right and because of bla bla bla...
Being gay or trans is not a choice like some people think. Is it a choice that most of us are blind? No. Why do you then think this is a choice that gay people are gay? This is simply how they are.
If you absolutely can't accept gay people, why not just let them be and don't care about them? They are having a great life, not like you, who are constantly trying to tell people what they are doing wrong, instead of concentrating about your own life. Why waist your time on trying to change people who already are happy with their life? Why nost just accept people as they are, or just leave them alone if you can't accept them?
Choice or not, gay people are gay. And yes, it's true! God loves us all the same! All of us! if Christians and nonchristians are going to go back to basics then that is a truth we must all, every single one of us accept. Period!
But that isn't the end of the story. if that's where you want to stop reading and do no further investigation that is entirely up to you and I can't and won't hold it against you because of this little thing even Christians have to accept called free will. It is not our place to impose our will upon anyone! There are people who truly feel God does not exist, and there are people who don't want him to exist. both groups are still loved by God. There are people who believe in different gods! those people are all still loved by God! Who is God? That, is a matter he wishes you to explore and discover on your own, but which he has outlined for you through various evidences that have not gone away and will not go away regardless what you may think of them. whatever your stance on the issue, God loves you, and so do I.
I don't understand what any of this gay or trans stuff has to do with god... lol
I don't really believe in god but that's more just because I have no reason to. I wasn't exposed to him early in my life and honestly as an adult it doesn't really make much sense to me. I don't really have a problem with people who are religious as long as they aren't trying to dictate how to live my life, so...
So, OK, let me address one thing:
"taking God out of the classroom"
It is a public school, not a church. You do not teach about God there. You do not do church-type stuff there. You do not do Mosque-type stuff there. You do not do Shinto-type stuff there. You teach reading, writing, mathematics, problem-solving, and useful skills. No, the public education system does not fit those requirements I just listed. The public education system is terrible, regardless of how religion is or isn't incorporated into it. School is funded by everyone's taxes, and should therefore cater to no specific belief system. Which, to be clear, means that public schools should not teach Social Justice dogma, either.
Yes, there are Atheist jerks and the left has gone wild. If your reaction is "we need more prayer in schools", you're reacting just as ridiculously. Tirany is Tirany, whether it come from Left or Right, Bible Koran or Jezibel.
And, you know? #NotAllX. Selection bias is a thing. You notice the jerks because they loudly identify themselves.
But, about Leviticus...
... It's not where the antigay stuff is. I mean, yeah, there's laws about man-on-man sex being punishable by death. And rape being punishable by shotgun marriages and/or death. And lots and lots of things being punishable by death, stoning, whipping, and exile. And rules about not eating shellfish or pork.
But most Christians don't keep a third part of the laws in Leviticus. This is not hypocritical, if they are among the sects who believe that Leviticus was rendered obsolete in the New Testament, or that it requires a Levite priesthood to administer it.
No, it's Paul who declares homosexuality to be bad. And that women should keep silent in church, and that the man is the head of the household, and that he knows jack about Pharassaic writing on the law. (Bold claim, considering how well documented Pharassaic writings were while Paul was writing. But to be fair, his audience didn't have access to said writings, and it very much seems like he expected Jesus to return during his lifetime.)
If we take Paul as canon--and most Christians do--that also handles a lot of the purity laws. For some reason, people take Peter's dream in Acts literally, even though Peter himself explicitly does not. But that's OK; it leads to the decision not to impose all of the strict physical laws on gentiles, which is why the "Do you eat pork or shellfish?" gotcha only works on people who believe this does not release them from Levitic law.
(Paul doesn't have much to say about homosexuality, IIRC, other than that the churches should not be accepting of it. He's more detailed about gender roles. Why God would impose strict gender roles, I have no idea.)
Paul's letters being Scripture is kinda weird, isn't it? Presumably it's because he more or less single-handedly packaged Christianity in a way the gentiles could stomach, and leaving him out would take away the Hellenistic flavor that converted the Greeks. If you take out Paul, you still have to come to grips with the Genocide of the Amalekites and such, but no one said we were taking out Paul because he cared enough about hairstyles to put it in something that was canonized 300 years later. The Slaughter of the Amalekites is much worse than gender-coding clothing! It was a direct order from God to randomly kill an entire ethnicity! And while I like the "Agag had just set up his entire kingdom in a mass suicide/sacrifice to Moloch via slow-acting poison/plague, and so nuking them from orbit was the best response but God decided to use the opportunity to test Paul instead" idea, it doesn't have a scriptural basis. ("You're ancestor 10 generations ago thought my ancestor was a good target when they were in the desert, so I'm killing your children" is the closest the Bible has to a justification. And there's no sneaky way to kick 1Samuel out of canon. It is very clearly canonical based on all the references to it and Kings, and 1 and 2 Samuel were originally part of Kings.)
(Daigonite, that was the best explanation I've seen yet on this subject! Would that the topic hadn't turned into a political football game, nationally speaking.)
To the original subject!
College might be changing your friend. I'm not so easily sold on the "they were probably always like that and kept it hidden" thing that keeps coming up. Sure, it's possible. But, to bring it back to Paul, it's not as though he was secretly Christian while he was supporting their persecution, then escaped to Damascus where he could get a foot into the community and be himself.
People can change. Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad, most of the time it simply is. If you want to do something about it, that's up to you. Is it because of college? Probably. Colleges are Social Justice Cathedrals, and that's certainly a possible explanation. But it could just be seeing a different side of the world and the people in it. People's belief systems have been known to do a religious/political 180 after exposure to unfamiliar parts of reality. Not, I might add, solely in the leftward direction.
But these sorts of changes are usually pretty dramatic. People who become Christians in their 20s, for instance, are usually way more zealous and take it way more seriously than most people who were raised on it, as a general trend. Likewise, most of the jerk Atheists you've run into are probably people who were raised Christian and went Atheist in high school or college.
(... but if we're going to talk theology can we address WTF Paul made a big deal about hairstyles and dress code? That's weird. The sexist hierarchy stuff bugs me, but I can sorta see why he'd put it in there. But hair and pants?)
Taking God out of the classroom... Must be done. You go to school to gain an education, vital social skills etc. Outside of that, it's up to you what path you wish to take in regards to religion. Now, the school I went to, from the day we arrived there at the tender ages of 4 and 5 years old, rammed christianity down our throats. The lords prayer had to be said every day, grace said before lunch, church was went to, hims were sang and so on. If you did not go along with this, you were called a disruptive element, isolated from the class and punnished. No matter what kind of light you paint this in, it could never be considered a good thing. Did our edication cover other religions? Yes, It did in extremely brief detail. There was always an extremely heavy bias towards the christian side of things. This is why god and by extent religion in general should be left out of the classroom. We shouldn't be manipulating children like that.
I can't add much more to what has been said in the last two posts, but I will say that this whole argument about how things weren't as bad 8 years ago is flawed. As I tried to say in one of my previous posts, there has always been extremism in one form or another. Just because it presents itself in different garb every few years doesn't mean it's not the exact same ugly beast it's always been. So can we please quit talking about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket just because of this or that political/social justice/racial issue? It's ridiculous. True, different issues will affect some people more strongly than others, but that doesn't make them any worse than something else that the previous generation found offensive. It's just human nature to recoil against differences, since differences are seen as a threat. Surely, as blind people, we know that attitude all too well. So I don't understand all this shock and horror about gays, or what the schools are doing about it or religion. If you want to get riled up about what schools are doing, maybe you should try pouring some of that venom onto the real issues that need attention, such as the overemphasis on standardized testing, the way that the educational system is moving towards an approach where critical thinking is all but stamped out, and just plain ridiculous things that make no sense, such as the mother who got arrested for packing an Oreo in her kid's lunch. And, to be fair, these weren't always issues that filled me with rage. I may care more than the average person, since I have a niece who will soon be school age, and I worry on a daily basis for her well-being, but that's not really the point. The point is, we've got far bigger problems in this society than whether or not Christianity is "allowed" in schools. Notice how I put allowed in quotes there, because anyone is still free to practice whatever religion they choose. And, yes, religious persecution is a thing, and kids shouldn't be accused of making bombs just because they have a Muslim sounding name and happen to take an interest in chemistry, either. But as long as people are content to make a stink about the issues that, quite frankly, don't affect the future of our society as a whole, rather than calling attention to the things that really need changing, arguments just like this one will crop up over and over and over again throughout the years. The names will change, and so will the supposedly disgusting outward appearances that need to be stomped out, but as long as this kind of attitude persists, our hearts, our souls, and especially the power of our minds, will remain stagnant.
@turtlepower17, Exodus, CAE_Jones, daigonite, SLJ and others who wonder why God is central to this discussion:
A nation that was founded on Christian ideals is going to be biased toward Christianity. America was once such a nation; it modeled its constitution and its pledge of allegiance to reflect upon these things. It was understood that even those who did not entirely accept the concept, idea or even the existence of God were respectful of those who did. without getting too political, acting like I actually know all the answers or continuing to cram my worldview down your throat, Franklin was asked after the revolution what it was precisely the people had become. They had no monarch; they had no overall consensus of governing body. His response? "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women; while it lives there, no constitution, no law and no corts are needed to sustain it. Should it die there, no constitution, no law, and no corts would be able to save it. I submit to you that the spirit of liberty has died in the American heart and is now substituted by the spirit of legalism, the same kind of legalism we supposedly want to avoid that interestingly enough is said to come from the bible. We strike bills down on their lack of unconstitutionality, wage war on power through social media and protests while ignoring that power is still winning, and forget that success is determined by character, not calculation and competing self interests. Leadership no longer has character, business is unethical and science, as far as I can tell through my studdying it has no human value.
If you are now or are considering being a parent, think about what you want your children to have... I want my children to have the best I can give them. As they grow older, I hope I can give them more freedom; I hope I can trust them to conduct themselves with responsibility, as members of society who can be counted on, respected, liked and even sought after for advice and help. That freedom requires something called virtue.
And where does virtue come from? Once again, without turning to the bible as we Christians might normally do, let us turn instead to Aristotle, who suggests that virtue is habitual and that the good life is a life of mindless routine. To simplify, the only way one becomes virtuous is by being instructed by his parents or legal guardians to do so. While this is in essence more than likely going to lead to a bunch of children with good behavioral habbits, Aristotle takes it further; he suggests that to truly become virtuous one must not simply model those habits but stop to think about what is and is not moral, ethical and pure.
Suppose I ask you to take some time to think about the greatest, nicest, most wonderful person you know. Are they well respected? Are they liked? Are they contagious? Are they captivating? No no no; I'm not talking about celebrities... I'm talking about the nicest, most wonderful and greatest person you know... Personally! Your mom? Your dad? Your brother or sister? An aunt or uncle? A spouse? A friend from highschool? Perhaps you haven't talked to them in years but you still think about them? maybe you even envy them to some extent and wish you could be like them?
Can you think of anyone? if you can, ask yourself what it is that makes them such a person. While you might possibly list material things, more than likely what you will come to is tied in some respect to their upbringing. Who were they raised by? Catholics? Mormans? Buddhists? The Baha’i writings say that universal benefits derive from the grace of the Divine religions, for they lead their true followers to sincerity of intent, to high purpose, to purity and spotless honor, to surpassing kindness and compassion, to the keeping of their covenants when they have covenanted, to concern for the rights of others, to liberality, to justice in every aspect of life, to humanity and philanthropy, to valor and to unflagging efforts in the service of mankind. It is religion, to sum up, which produces all human virtues, and it is these virtues which are the bright candles of civilization. this is such a strong belief that, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook who once called himself an atheist, now believes religiosity is important.
As a Christian it is not my religion that concerns me, but my relationship with God. I do not do what I do out of demand but out of delight. it isn't a ruleset; it's a combination of reason, rationality and faith, the last of which, can only be freely practiced and expressed when one is free to practice and express it. My goal is not to condescend, to judge, to condemn, to impeed or to be an obstacle to anyone in any way. As a Christian who trys to be loving and compassionate, however, a strong believer in life's value and the worht of humankind, both things I did not truly possess before, I do try, perhaps a little harder than most, even in times of self crises, to lend both a voice and a helping hand. I was once asked, with all I know now, if I could spend 30 seconds in heaven to meet God and 30 seconds in hell to save others, which I would do. If I am to take the apostle Paul as an example, not only would I spend 30 seconds in hell for others, but give up my own salvation so that others might be saved because every life, young or old, ritch or poor, in sickness or in good health, male or female, black or white, straight or gay, all of them equally, are worth saving.
Freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which follows freedom, which follows virtue, which follows faith, and the golden triangle continues. Why is God at the center of this discussion? Because without believing in something that does not inspire and instill virtue in the hearts of men and women, there is no true freedom, no real liberation, no possible way that we can survive to believe in anything.
And this is where I'll stop posting on this topic; I highly suspect that if my position is not already seen as offensive and elitist, it soon will be. It's not what I want, but I freely accept that what I want and what I get are two different things. Once again, as I posted in 47, I don't expect you to believe me or side with me; I'm just another voice in a multitude of millions, one that God does not need to prove his existence. I once heard it said that you can't hide three things in life: the moon, the sun, and the truth. if what I'm saying is false, you'll one day find out.
75 (edited by daigonite 2017-02-18 00:29:47)
except the United States isn't a christian nation by definition... it may have been founded by christians but that doesn't make it Christian. the first amendment clearly points out that church and state are to be separated. That's the opposite of a christian nation. Man I hate it when people drink that kool-aide. To deny the constitution essentially means you don't want to have an America the way the founding fathers envisioned. You don't support returning America to its grassroots at all.
If you want a government only backed in liberty, what you have is no central government. When people dictate themselves, they cannot defend themselves against other governments and will be assimilated by them, thus again they are functioning with some government, probably one that is even worse than before. Main reason why extreme libertarianism is not good.
Oddly though despite being someone who wants more liberties you want to close down on the liberties of those who are gay or transgender... I don't understand this hypocrisy, elaborate?
I can have virtues and morals without having to believe in God. In fact, basic evolutionary processes can easily explain where morals and virtues came from - the advantage of being in a harmonious, social society is much greater than just competing individually so it makes perfect sense why behaviours encouraging things such as charity and nonviolence would spring up. Its advantageous to not be stealing, killing or harming each other. Generally, systems evolve towards cooperation anyways.
Who cares what Mark Zuckerburg (or anyone else for that matter) believes? He can't prove to me objectively that I should believe in a god and therefore I have no reason to. Mark Zuckerburg is a huge asshole too, so that really just gives me more reason why not to be religious (even though that's a fallacy in of its own).
As a philosopher I have no interest in what [x] spiritualist said; I'm more interested in understanding my world in a model that I can understand. After all, even if they were spoken divine words, it's entirely possible that they are repeating their own interpretation that forgets the details. If god is honest, then I should be able to come up with the conclusion that he exists and that I should worship him on my own accord; however most arguments to support god, including your own, are riddled with intellectually dishonest tactics. Why does god have to be so dishonest to gain converts?
The premise of objectivity means that I should be able to determine for myself what the truth is without having someone simply tell me so. I believe in science because I can repeat science and use it to make useful results. I can use science to engineer my life to be better. Why should I believe in a fickle god who refuses to answer most requests when I can do it better half the time anyways? Hell, most people on this forum are blind, don't you think a benevolent god would have some sympathy and at least make the lives of the blind easier? Why should it be my responsibility, or any other blind tech developer's responsibility, when that lazy piece of shit god is sitting on his throne watching you suffer?
wait, are you one of those weirdos who believe that atheists shouldn't be in congress?...
I think the most frustrating thing about extreme religiousness is that it closes oneself off to philosophy. Don't think, god tells you how to live... considering that you quote Aristotle who's work is over 2000 years old it seems clear you have no interest in modern philosophy.
I don't believe you have bad intentions, so don't take this as a personal attack, but this is the side that non-theists are coming from.