frame



Best Recent Content

  • Should Marinara Be Legal?

    BarnardotBarnardot
    @JulesKorngold ;It's MY debate.  The topic is MARINARA.  Comply or rot in hell.

    Its not your debate its a Debate Island debate and its open for all and we are just all porns here. And you still cant spell.

    JulesKorngold

  • Should Israel Wage A Full Assault On Rafah?

    BoganBogan
    @Factfinder

    Arn't you Irish, Mr Factfinder?     Ireland is now the laughing stock of the world.    You wanted your sovereignty from the British, so you surrendered you sovereignty to Europe.    Smart.    Now you have illegal immigrants flooding your country and you can't do a damned thing about it.    You are no longer a country, you are just a European a state.    New Zealand and Ireland are two little mice that roar, even though they just bludge on everybody else for their defense.     Do you even have an air force?   Or, are you like New Zealand, without one?     You are perfect examples of how people who think that they are safe and secure behind other people' defenses like to virtue signal to show how "superior" they are.  All you show is how shallow and dependent you are.         
    Joeseph

  • Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

    just_sayinjust_sayin
    @just_sayin

    Correct, and a person's disbelieve does not alter the evidence either.  One must examine the veracity of the evidence.

    What little there is that is true. But you bank everything on what the bible says which isn't evidence. You can appeal to scholarly articles and books stating what's believed, Christian tradition, references to the claims of followers, and legend all you want; but it can never be evidence. A book of a collection of mythical writings does not qualify. We can't even be sure the Apostle Paul even existed since we only have the bible's claim he did ...

    Biography

    Early life

    The two main sources of information that give access to the earliest segments of Paul's career are the Acts of the Apostles and the autobiographical elements of Paul's letters to the early Christian communities.[41] Paul was likely born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Available_sources

    Which means the bible can't testify to his existence or the creed referenced in "Paul's" writings to the Corinthians. It's just the bible says. Paul, aside from the scriptures isn't mentioned till a century afterwards at the earliest. Using scripture to attest to scripture is never evident of anything but belief. 

    Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:



    This however is speaking more to the authenticity of the religious claims themselves which this thread isn't really about. It's about how Christianity isn't as unique as people seem to think. As I pointed out with the Sumerians it's not that different. Sure details, settings, and stories are differ but they all share a variety common themes, ideals. The Egyptians had a "King of the Resurrection" long before. Christianity itself draws heavily from Judaism to the point it lays claim to the Tora as part of Christianity (Actually the old testament). Judaism has tales of resurrection and prophets calling on god to bring back the dead and then doing so. 1 Kings 17:17-24 is one instance. So your claim about some presumed event concerning a resurrection being unique to Christianity just isn't so.
    Paul is considered to be a historical figure by historians.  In fact, I can't think of a single credible one who denies his existence.  The claim that we have no evidence for Paul is false.  He wrote almost half the New Testament.  His letters to the churches he either established or visited are written evidence of his existence.  Luke, who accompanied him on his missionary journeys, recorded his 3 missionary trips in the book of Acts.  So we have several of Paul's letters and Luke's account in Acts.  

    Clement of Rome, lived from 35 AD to 99 AD.  He met some of the apostles, and knew their apprentices.  So, he would have had access to people who knew Paul.

    To believe that Paul was not a historical figure, you would have to believe a mighty big conspiracy theory.  You'd have to believe that all of Paul's letters were faked.  That Luke faked his account, that all of the churches that Paul started lied about who started them, and coordinated with one another over the hundreds and hundreds of miles between them. You would have to believe that all of the early church father's lied about Paul, or that they were all lied to by people who claimed they had met Paul but had not.  That's just too big of a conspiracy for me.  I just don't have that much faith.

    Instead, it seems much more likely Paul was a real person, and more importantly to me, that he wrote about Jesus and the resurrection as actual historical events.  

    The historical account of Jesus differs greatly from the story of Osiris.  Osiris was either slain or drowned by Seth.  He was cut in 14 pieces, with all but the phallus being buried.  He became the God of the dead.  He remains in the land of the dead and doesn't come back from there.  There was no physical resurrection of Osiris.  That seems like a major difference, since the primary claim of Christianity is that Jesus died and arose from the dead with many witnesses confirming this.  However, nowhere in the myth of Osiris, does he leave the realm of the dead.  As Britanica explains:

    This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth. 

    Let's contrast this with what Paul said about Jesus:

    I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles...
     But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.
    20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 12-20 NLT

    As you can see, Paul views Jesus and his resurrection as a historical event.  

    Factfinder

  • Should Marinara Be Legal?

    BarnardotBarnardot
    @RickeyHoltsclaw ;Policed THC in the Marine Corps

    That’s just propergander put out by those hard liners who want marines to do everything there told to the letter. What about all the marines who use it and function better and if it fu**s up some of them then how do they know that those guys could be even more worse and be more silly and slow without dope.

    Factfinder

  • Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

    ChristianSollersChristianSollers
    Our economy is rapidly changing, fast and slow, but mainly that doesn't even matter. We use cars every day for transportation, to get where we have to go, but the catch is that global warming is caused by the CO2 omissions coming from the gas we burn, ultimately causing heat to rise. When we wonder, "Why is it so hot up in here?" while in a traffic jam, seeing that the air is all blurry, that's the exhaust burning. So yes, it's a fact.

    But wait. It's also a scam. 

    When we say that we a going to stop/slow down global warming how is money going to do anything? Just because you are using polyester for your clothing doesn't mean that you aren't wearing clothes at a mass production factory that wovens clothing using electric sewer machines. Global warming happens by not just gas, but from practically everything. The money that we print, the cars that we manufacture, is just causing the heat to climb higher and higher. If we are using money as the husher, doesn't that mean we are just going to either tax clothing more to make it more desirable, or what? There could be more, but for know that's all we know.


    Factfinder

  • What Invention Is Most Important?

    JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold
    @jack
    How about language?
    ChristianSollersjack

  • Gay at birth?

    just_sayinjust_sayin
    @Joeseph

    The American Academy Of Pediatrics In 2004 Stated:[13]

    The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences


    I'm so proud of you.  Wow, this has to be a first, you provided a line of evidence for your point!!!!!  The problem is that it reflects 2004 data.  Since then there have been National Longitudinal studies for the Dutch, New Zealand, the UK, and the US, as well as the almost 1/2 million people study.  Your quote is the equivalent of someone claiming there is evidence of a flat earth 'in the current literature'.  

    American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as:

    Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions

    So the definition includes these four things: attractions, behavior, and identity, and membership in a community.  The numerous studies I have mentioned on sexual orientation fluidity then show that these four things are not immutable, but change.  

    Now if something is not a choice, then it can not change itself.  Yet, we have evidence that sexual orientation does indeed change.  I noticed you didn't explain how sexual orientation can fluidly change, if there is no choice involved.  What is your evidence of how sexual orientation can change without any choice being involved?  
    Factfinder

  • Gay at birth?

    just_sayinjust_sayin
    @Joeseph

    Right, so all the natural changes that occur throughout puberty until adulthood mean that once one reaches adulthood, they can voluntarily change all of this with enough effort? I guess with enough effort on our part we could change the size of our d!ck right? 
    How did you reach the conclusion that someone can make a part of their body grow at will is the same as sexual orientation fluidity?  If you have evidence that these are like things, can you show it?  I imagine that you were trying to make a joke because you don't have evidence to support your position.  

    Again, the debate is are people born gay.  The research shows that there is no gay gene and that there are no known biological markers that are determinate for gayness.  read here.  

     the report finds that human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual. Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences

    I've proven the thesis that people are not born gay.  The research clearly shows that sexual orientation is fluid, at least through the teen years.  If you have evidence that people are born gay then you should have shared it.  

    On a side note, why is it so few debaters on this site provide evidence to support their claims?  My observation is that someone is much more likely to make a personal attack in this debate, like questioning an opponents sexual orientation, than actually supporting their argument with evidence.  

    Factfinder

  • Gay at birth?

    just_sayinjust_sayin
    @just_sayin

    So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone.  Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable

    The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think?  If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter. 
    Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are.  So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..

    Can people change their patterns and thoughts?  Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort.  Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain.  As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic.  That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.  

    Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people.  For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay.  we now know that there is no gay gene.  The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime.  We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers.  That's what the science says.
    No I meant what I said. In the end you think sexual orientation is a choice. Homosexuality bad so all one has to do is "change their patterns and thoughts" and resist their natural attractions long enough to 'establish new patterns'? Sorry but a succession of choices one has to make to change what they're attracted to is still choices. Not only are they choices but they're designed to ultimately reflect a final choice to change ones attractions. So just admit you think one can change their sexual orientation if they approach it like quitting drinking. Which is boloney. 

    What about people who are married with children who come out and get divorced? The number one reason given I'd say is they couldn't live any longer being dishonest with themselves. They supposed to do the 12 steps?
    I have not made a moral argument for or against homosexuality in this debate.  Maybe your anger towards God has clouded your ability to not lash out at people of faith unreasonably.  The issue of morality is a different issue than are people born gay and is sexual orientation immutable.  I see this debate as an issue of what the research says.  This is about what is (the research), not what ought to be (moral determinations).  On a off topic side note, until you address your anger towards God, you won't get over your depression.   If you are in therapy, I'm sure they have told you this by now.

    Anyway, the people arguing that sexual orientation is fluid are not doing so on the basis of being religious.  In fact, the opposite is much more likely the case.  The researchers are very pro LGBTQ+/  The most prolific and leading researcher on the topic is herself a Lesbian..  I've cited their work multiple times now, but you haven't provided a single source that says that sexual orientation is not fluid.  Either put up or .

    I have not argued that change is easy,  I have only pointed you to the research that says it happens.  And for the record, no, I do not think I can change anyone. I think no one changes who doesn't first want to.   I think if someone wants to change, that change is possible though.  The research support this.  
    LOL a therapist you're not. Can you address what is being said? Science on this issue is inconclusive when it comes to natural attractions and sexual preferences. Just because a small minority of people change their orientation undoubtably after an "immense and prolonged effort" as you suggest, by no means indicates the issue is settled. I don't believe in your god anymore, has nothing to do with anger or this topic. But you do and your god holds homosexuals accountable for acting on their homosexuality so my question isn't one of morality. That's stated in your scriptures. My question is why are you banking on science that isn't conclusive and only accounts for such a small fraction of people? Is it just an effort to say could have a choice during a 'fluid' time? 

    People can't help their personal attractions they become aware of as they grow and mature. 90% of people develop desires for the opposite sex, 10% develop similar desires for the same sex or both. Not in any stage where the natural development of sexual attraction is concerned is the person making a choice before those desires comes into full fruition. I just liked girls, period. I didn't choose that but I'm happy with it. Can you explain what exactly is your take when these researchers of yours talk of 'fluidity'? Can you change your sexual orientation?
    You are the one who has not addressed what was being said.  I provided research that shows that sexual orientation is fluid.  You provided no evidence to support your position that sexual orientation is immutable.  Since, it certainly isn't from the research literature, how did you come to that conclusion?

    Like Joeseph, you admit there are lots of examples of people whose sexual orientation changed, but you dismiss them as is they are aberrant without providing any reason why that is. 

    You suggested that all instances of sexual orientation switching must be immense and prolonged.  But the national youth longitudinal study for sexual orientation showed that some people changed sexual orientation 5 times during the multiyear study.  Seems that the switching was not so immense or prolonged. 

    From 

    RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION: DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH DISPARITIES, STIGMA AND RESILIENCE

    On the National Institutes of Health website:

    Another problem with the milestones approach is it suggests orientation is a fundamental trait unfolding during adolescence, but once adulthood is reached, labels and behaviors are stable and consistent. Without longitudinal data, this may have been a reasonable assumption, and inconsistencies in attractions, behaviors, and self-labels among teens could be attributed to immaturity, experimentation, or strong social pressures to conform during the teen years (Russell & Seif, 2002; Saewyc et al., 2004, 2009). However, longitudinal studies published during the past decade have raised awareness about the fluidity of orientation among some teens during adolescence and into adulthood. Rosario and colleagues (2006a) explored changing orientation labels among older sexual minority teens in New York over 12 months; they found most teens remained consistent, but 30–40% of bisexual teens shifted to a gay or lesbian label during the year, and 7% shifted from gay or lesbian to bisexual; only 2–3% of teens shifted to “straight.” They noted their brief time period and lack of heterosexual teens were distinct limitations to understanding longer-term fluidity or permanence in sexual orientation. Studies by Lisa Diamond (1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2008) documented this fluidity among older adolescent and young adult women over a longer period, charting attractions, labels and behavior. She found relative consistency in their sexual attractions, but up to 67% changed labels and behavior over the course of 10 years, with a small number of young women dropping a lesbian or bisexual label for a heterosexual identity, but far more of them switching between lesbian and bisexual, or shifting to “unlabeled.” A much larger population-based study of sexual orientation stability, over 6 years, was conducted by Savin-Williams & Ream (2007), using the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health. They found adolescents with a non-heterosexual orientation in any dimension were less likely than exclusively heterosexual teens to remain consistent in their attractions and behavior over time. However, Savin-Williams and Ream also noted that as some gay, lesbian and bisexual adolescents shifted to opposite-gender attractions, behavior, or heterosexual self-labels, a larger absolute number of heterosexual teens shifted to same- or both-gender attractions and behaviors, keeping the overall prevalence relatively similar across time.
    So to recap.  I provided research for my claims.  You provided no evidence for yours.  Maybe you could put in the 'immense and prolonged' effort to try and make a fact based argument.  Just sayin

    ZeusAres42Factfinder

  • Gay at birth?

    just_sayinjust_sayin
    @just_sayin

    So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone.  Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable

    The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think?  If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter. 
    Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are.  So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..

    Can people change their patterns and thoughts?  Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort.  Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain.  As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic.  That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.  

    Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people.  For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay.  we now know that there is no gay gene.  The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime.  We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers.  That's what the science says.
    GiantManZeusAres42Factfinder

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch


The American Post