Xayma already addressed your points, but as I previously mentioned, many minds quashing flawed reasoning may help to illustrate the arguments in different and hopefully enlightening ways.
Riqtay said:
I'm not talking about the legality of having sex with the same sex or with an animal. I'm talking about the fact that it is morally incorrect.
Why is it morally incorrect?
Riqtay said:
Religion, guides us with absolute laws to be upheld as humans.
1.
Assuming religion is true.
2. You again assume that there is an objective morality.
3. You again fail to address the point that the application of reason and compassion does the job. There is no need for religious morality.
Riqtay said:
Once we start legalising and accepting homosexuality we are going against the logical and wise laws set out by religion.
Ah, good to see you have recanted from your original claim that it was against the laws of nature. As pointed out, it was not because animals engage in such behaviour. Now you have moved to claiming it is "against the logical laws of religion".
This makes the extremely bad assumption that all the beliefs of a particular religion are true.
Riqtay said:
As i said earlier, if homosexuality is acceptable and legalised then we run risk of people engaging more and more in this act. Imagine if everyone becomes homosexual. In a couple of generations the human species would become extinct.
Um no, it's not a choice.
Riqtay said:
Again, what is better? The finite and relative wisdom of humans or the infinite wisdom of God?
This claim has already been addressed
here, but you continue to ignore it. I will repeat what I wrote before:
1. That assumes that God actually exists.
2. Of course there are inconsistencies, but that is because people have different priorities. That is why we have debate and rational discussion -- to determine what is in the best interests of all.
3. You again assume that there is such a thing as morality. I've got news for you: there may be no such thing as objective morality. What we can do, though, is nut out what will produce the greatest happiness for all. This in no way requires a deity.
4. Most 'moral guidelines' as determined by law are fine as they are.
5. They may be more consistent, but that alone is pretty useless. If the rules are wrong then it does not matter how consistent they are.
6. Your argument implies adhering to religious beliefs because of wishful thinking - that is, so that we may have moral guidelines that are fixed rather than relative.
Riqtay said:
I still find it surprising that many people still deny the existence of God, which in my opinion is arrogant.
I and others have been educated in critical thinking. You would do well to take a course in philosophy - learn about deductive reasoning, about logical fallacies. Then you may see some of problems in your own beliefs and focus on how you might correct them, if they need correcting. I do not hold it against you for having your beliefs, but when logic stares you in the face I expect you to either concede points or respond rationally.
Riqtay said:
By removing a godly figure, we are assuming that we are the supreme beings in the universe.
Blatantly incorrect. By denying a supernatural God figure we are doing no such thing. It makes no sense do say that we are "supreme beings" of the universe. There may be other races on distant planets that are superior to us in intellect, compassion and civilisation.
Riqtay said:
Humans have to understand that just like children need guidance from their parents, adults and children alike require guidance from God via religion.
1. Ironically, you are almost on the right track. There have been studies that have shown that psychologically, humans have the need to "look up" to things. When you're a child, you look up to your parents. When you're older, you look up to God. Of course, with rational thinking and rejection of unfounded concepts like God, people turn to looking up to other notable humans, like celebrities, idols, mentors, teachers and heroes.
2. Humans need guidance from religion? How so? You assume that religion is true without ever proving it so. Your argument therefore has no basis.
Riqtay said:
It is also important to understand that religion brings about morals, not humans.
1. That is nonsensical. Religion is created by humans, ergo humans create whatever ethical doctrine emerges from the religion.
2. You again assume there is such a thing as morality.
3. You ignore the fact that humans are extremely capable of forming normative morals themselves through applications of reason - such as "maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number". (See John Stuart Mill's
Utilitarianism or Immanuel Kant's
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals).
Riqtay said:
God is a supreme being who creates everything including the universe.
Unproven. This is completely unfounded.
Riqtay said:
Why can't there be two presidents? Because there can not be two people in power with equal authority, as there would be disagreements etc.
I already addressed this point (see the link above), but you ignored it. I would add however, that the President (or Prime Minister) does not make the laws. Congress or Parliament does (ie. through the people).
Riqtay said:
The statement that there is no God as God requires a creator and the cylcle continues. . . is incorrect in my belief.
Yet your argument is flawed:
1. Everything that exists requires a creator.
2. Stuff exists.
3. Therefore there must be a creator that created everything.
By that argument, since God exists, he must have been created too. Your argument cannot stand if there is no creator of God, because you violate the first premise of your argument. Your response does not address this.
Riqtay said:
Since God is the supreme being, then logic tells us that he is the creator of everything, including himself.
Logic tells you no such thing! If God can come from nothing, then by that very reasoning so can the universe.
Riqtay said:
The belief in Gos does require us to believe in religious dogma, but this dogma is surrounded with pure logic.
No it isn't, for the reasons provided above and elsewhere.
