I’m posting to let everyone know that I’m still here, and to apologize for taking so long to reply. I’ve been busier than I anticipated.
I hope to have some replies for y’all within the week.
Again, apologies.

Three months later and still no word from Arlene. So much for her promises. Why am I not surprised?

That said, I find your means of argument on this site frustrating to say the least. You make one argument, then when called on it, accuse your opponent of misunderstanding and presumption. Seems that either you are unclear in your reasoning or we are all deliberately obtuse here.

It is also not fair to suggest that because your opponent has gotten angry, that his position is invalid; it simply means he has let the heat of discussion get to him and has failed to present his position cohesively. I do apologize for this and hope we can get back on track.

That’s interesting because it is founded upon the presupposition that I believe homosexuality has a detrimental consequence on society.

I must also apologize for presuming you disagreed with me that homosexual acts have no overarching ill effects on community and culture, but I hope you can see why that would be an easy step to take: in response to my assertion that it does not, you accused me of making myself sole arbiter. Of course, I do not. It is my position that detrimental effects on society are self-evident. If you object to my taking anything as self-evident, let me know and we can continue in that vein.

But aside from that, if we agree that sociopathy and murder are detrimental to society, and homosexuality is not, then I fail to see how you can possibly accuse me of applying special pleading towards those who would attempt to “rehabilitate” actively gay people.

You also accused me of “pestering” Arlene, right after I commended her for continuing on this site. If it is pestering to elaborate on why I disagree with her argument, then I’m at a severe handicap! I suppose it is up to her, however, to decide if she is being pestered.

Fourth, I object to your either/or fallacy, which occurs when we present a limited number of options when other viable options clearly exist. It is perfectly reasonable that consciousness is analogous to an interface between the brain and some natural source.

I was not attempting to create a false dichotomy; however, I’m not sure what “viable alternatives” there are to “consciousness comes from the brain”/”consciousness requires something external to the brain”. I admit I did use the term supernatural, but I’ve never even heard it argued that a soul could exist inside the physical universe.

To use a closer analogy, I certainly don’t argue that software is exclusively contained on the transistors on a computer chip. However, when a computer is powered on, the software that is recorded in bits on the hard drive platter and the electricity flowing through the circuits causes those transistors to do what is specified in the software, due to the precise arrangement of electronics. Just as it is electricity and magnetic bits that cause a computer to come to life, it can be argued that the electricity and neurotransmitters, coupled with information encoded in our synapses, cause all the higher functioning of our brains.

In other words, it is simply my assertion that consciousness follows directly from the brain, given the massive complexity of the brain and the lack of necessity of a soul to explain anything a human being does.

I am interested, however, to see what information you might be willing to provide that suggests otherwise.

Of course I could be attracted to another woman. But I choose not to. I choose not to even entertain the idea of being attracted to a woman. . .

I find this statement rather baffling. How would you go about choosing to be attracted to another woman? I have no idea how I would go about choosing to be attracted to someone I wasn’t already attracted to. Could you choose to be sexually attracted to anything at all? Like a canoe? Or the Encyclopedia Brittannica? I know I sould like I’m being silly, but I really don’t understand why you think you could just choose to be attracted to women, when you’re not now.

But yes, my question is – you said “there is science that states the soul exists” – and I was just wondering if you could point me towards what it is you have in mind?

I would advise you to get your hands on a copy of “The Science of the Soul” by Kevin T. Favero. It is based entirely upon mainstream science (think quantum physics and biology.)

I asked you some questions about what you think can be consciously chosen, and what cannot. Apart from your apparent insistence that sexual attraction is an act of will, you have not answered these questions, nor have you offered any explanation as to what distinguishes the things that you think can be chosen from those that you think cannot.

I realize that I haven’t answered a whole lot of questions, and again, I apologize. I would like to answer them, but I’m afraid I will have to wait until I have more time. I’m rather busy for the next few days, but I will post a response as soon as I am able. I am very willing to have a few more exchanges with you on this, as well as with anyone else who would like to ask some questions.

Of course I could be attracted to another woman. But I choose not to. I choose not to even entertain the idea of being attracted to a woman….

Then what makes you think that you could be? Do you suppose you could you be attracted to any woman? I asked you some questions about what you think can be consciously chosen, and what cannot. Apart from your apparent insistence that sexual attraction is an act of will, you have not answered these questions, nor have you offered any explanation as to what distinguishes the things that you think can be chosen from those that you think cannot.

…and I’m very happy as a heterosexual. I disagree with your saying that this might mean I’m bisexual….If I were denying a natural instinct, I would be a lot unhappier than I am.

Well, if you were bisexual, you wouldn’t be denying a natural instinct by being in a heterosexual relationship, anymore than a heterosexual would be denying their natural instincts by being in a heterosexual relationship.

If my ever-so-loving husband made a decision about my life that I violently disagreed with, those verses state that he should love me enough to listen to my disagreement, and respect that.

I’ve seen no one claim that your husband shouldn’t act this way, but what if he doesn’t? Do you submit and endure, or do you protest? Why or why not?

If you read carefully, I did not introduce sociopathy into this discussion.

This is an intellectually dishonest reply to a comment that was questioning your intellectual honesty! No one claimed that you introduced sociopathy to the discussion, only that you commented about it. Which you acknowledge… while completely ignoring the context in which the original comment was made (that being your insistence in an unsupported position, despite evidence to the contrary).

I believe that the wrong that people do are conscious choices, not personality flaws. This is a Christian fundamental.

But your standard of “wrong” is what, exactly? Granting for the sake of discussion that your particular god exists and that your interpretation of the bible is accurate, what makes something “wrong”? Is it merely God’s arbitrary declaration, or is there some standard which determines “wrong” apart from God? If the former, why should we agree, other than to save ourselves from a rather unpleasant afterlife? If the latter, why would we need to consult God in the first place, what in your opinion would this standard be, and how does it apply to homosexual relations?

As for people who were not reformed, certainly they should be put in prison and punished for the wrong that they have done. Choices have consequences-another Christian fundamental.

Calling a trivially observable fact about the world a “Christian fundamental” doesn’t exactly speak to the supposed insights of Christianity, especially when the consequences you speak of can be brought about by humans with no necessary connection to Christianity.

Isn’t everyone here defending a belief? Isn’t everyone defending something they believe in?

You appear to be defending an a priori belief that you can’t (at least, haven’t yet) managed to support. We are defending an a posteriori belief for which we have supplied evidence and supporting argument, which has yet to be countered by anything other than your persistent disagreement.

If I believed that homosexuality is not a choice, then certainly I would not be able to justify that it is wrong.

You’ve got a bigger problem than that–you still have to justify that it is wrong even if it is a choice. And if you’re going to appeal to God here, you first need to address the Euthyphro dilemma.

You appear to be admitting that you’re merely arguing from consequences (though as I’ve just observed, you seem to have misjudged the consequences). You certainly haven’t supported your position that homosexuality is always a choice, you simply note that it’s inconvenient to your case for it not to be. Even though you claim that you personally posses the ability to choose which sex you are attracted to, you state that you have never even entertained the idea of choosing… which is more consistent with our position (that such things aren’t generally chosen; you just aren’t attracted to the same sex).

I have a number of points I’d like to make regarding your subsequent post, but I’m losing steam, so I’ll just go with this one for now:

If gays were born that way -> condemning them is not fair -> God is not fair -> This can’t be, so the Bible may be wrong on this -> But the Bible has proven true to me every time I have examined it -> I have no reason to doubt what the Bible says -> gayness is a choice.

Your reasoning here is nothing short of horrific. First, even if the bible were correct on every other matter, it does not follow that it is correct regarding this particular matter. Second, that you claim the bible to have “always proven true” suggests that you haven’t examined very much of it, or that you’ve ignored the myriad ways in which it is lacking (one example: no geological evidence of a world-wide flood), so you lose even the weak, pseudo-inductive argument that you might have otherwise claimed. Third, any supposed truth that you identified upon examination of the bible was “proven true”–how? I would presume by weighing the claims of the bible against some extra-biblical evidence (which, incidentally, suggests that any truth you found in the bible could have, in principle, been discovered without the bible). If you were reaching your conclusion by engaging in the same sort of analysis here, you would be comparing (your interpretation of) the claims of the bible regarding homosexuality to real-world evidence… and yet when you do this, you cannot produce any evidence to support the biblical position, while you have been presented with evidence that challenges this position. Your conclusion remains unsubstantiated logically and empirically, yet you simply refuse to abandon it. Circumstances such as this are undoubtedly the motivation behind the oft-repeated Steve Weinberg quote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

Anyhow, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter despite the abundance of criticism you’ve encountered. If you’re still interested in continuing, I’m up for a few more exchanges.

Didn’t mean to assume, just thought when you thanked everyone earlier that was like a courteous parting shot or so. But yes, my question is – you said “there is science that states the soul exists” – and I was just wondering if you could point me towards what it is you have in mind?

cl, regarding your question to me–are you serious?