Did you see the definition of fact I put? A fact is something which can be proven. Just because you don't know your father is truly your father doesn't mean it isn't a fact. For example. A child may not know the sun is at the center of our solar system but it is still a fact.

It us important to know this definition as politicians will use it. You have seen candidates running commercials saying Fact.... about the other candidate. They can give false information but ad long as that information can be disproven it is still a fact. As a fact doesn't have to be true in these sense.

those words have become subjectively used over the years, depends upon whom you ask

my source, WEbsters dictionary ,, says this

atheist: one who believes THERE IS NO DEITY

agnostic: a person who believes that any ultimate reality (like God)is unknown and probably unknowable

I thought MsHarmony was saying that facts are true whether are not we personally have evidence to support the fact.

I thought her point was that faith and facts are not opposites - indeed we must, every time we believe in something without evidence, have faith in it.

And I feel that you, Leigh, are introducing a cool new semantic twist, which is: differentiating between an father defined by feelings and relationships, and father defined by genetics.

faith means you could be wrong, however small a chance... fact means it has been proven, so no chance of being wrong... as i said before, just because you want something to be true does not mean that it is...

i had faith that i would win the lottery... fact is i didn't and probably wont...

yes, and people who won, likewise had FAITH

so, they are not opposites,, one is just inclusive of the other,,,

Harmony and Mighty Mojo I'm giving both of you an A+.....

1. as a christian, I may not even want a school teaching my kid about sex in the first place, in which case I can choose (like an atheist) to opt out and teach them what I want, how I want to, at home.

my personal view is that sex education does not have to include information on EVERY variation of sex, it only needs to explain how to not catch disease or where babies come from, , there is no NEED to address it as homosexual because the parts are the same regardless of the relationship,,MALE FEMALE,,,Vaginal or ANAL or oral,,,,

bringing sexual preference into it only forces parents children to be exposed to things which they may have no other reason to be exposed to,,,,children, regardless of sexual preference, do well to know where babies come from and know about the PARTS of the male or female human body.

I see it as more shoving sexual preference down impressionable kids throats to insist that homosexual be mentioned in a sex education class. Sex, Male , and Female along with the anatomy is really all thats relevant and common to EVERYONE.

I dont feel 'punished' because the law doesnt see my situation with EXACTLY the same privileges (or responsibilities) as those who have committed to each other before creating and raising a child together. THat is something that should continue to be encouraged as the most IDEAL gift we can give children for their foundation in a growingly complicated world.

3. As a christian, I can be prevented from raising my child if the other parent has more money or more resources because of the 'balance' that culture has legislated as expected or healthy for a child

I dont agree with preventing people by law from raising there children for any reason but abuse

WE never hear people 'blame' christians for legislation against murder even though its a pretty specific CHRISTIAN doctrine. BUt people often 'blame' christians for any other restrictive legislation if they are able to find it anywhere in a bible. As if people would not possibly hold those values and opinions without religion.

5.As a christian, I often wonder why history only teaches about the 'good stuff' our founders achieved and doesnt mention any of their less than desirable actions or behaviors, to the point where they are REVERED even though they were no more or less flawed than any other person.

I dont know that history really deals in sexual preference even of heterosexuals unless to mention whom someone was married to, nor do I understand what sexual preference would have to do with studying achievements.

Giving people credit in history for their accomplishments does not require wrapping their identity up in those labels anymore than sexual preference has anything to do with what one has accomplished, unlike race or gender which are harder to hide 'in a closet' so to speak and out in the open for all to see and put obstacles up against.

alot here but I will try to address how common these issues are to both sides

1. as a christian, I may not even want a school teaching my kid about sex in the first place, in which case I can choose (like an atheist) to opt out and teach them what I want, how I want to, at home.

my personal view is that sex education does not have to include information on EVERY variation of sex, it only needs to explain how to not catch disease or where babies come from, , there is no NEED to address it as homosexual because the parts are the same regardless of the relationship,,MALE FEMALE,,,Vaginal or ANAL or oral,,,,

bringing sexual preference into it only forces parents children to be exposed to things which they may have no other reason to be exposed to,,,,children, regardless of sexual preference, do well to know where babies come from and know about the PARTS of the male or female human body.

I see it as more shoving sexual preference down impressionable kids throats to insist that homosexual be mentioned in a sex education class. Sex, Male , and Female along with the anatomy is really all thats relevant and common to EVERYONE.

2. The law doesnt forbid me from any relation I want. The law also does nothing to promote or encourage me to make the CHOICE to raise a child without a father, or to marry someone with the same parentage, than it promotes the choice of a homosexual to raise children with only one gender to guide them or to marry someone with the same anatomy.

I dont feel 'punished' because the law doesnt see my situation with EXACTLY the same privileges (or responsibilities) as those who have committed to each other before creating and raising a child together. THat is something that should continue to be encouraged as the most IDEAL gift we can give children for their foundation in a growingly complicated world.

3. As a christian, I can be prevented from raising my child if the other parent has more money or more resources because of the 'balance' that culture has legislated as expected or healthy for a child, much like the balance of mother and father that culture determines to be healthy for a child is often argued to try to deny homosexual pairings form raising children.

I dont agree with preventing people by law from raising there children for any reason but abuse. Im sure many atheists agree with me. Im also equally sure that there are many atheists who also arent too supportive of the idea of father father child rearing or mother mother child rearing. Although those who would oppose a biological parents right to raise a child must be the extreme on either side.

4. As a christian, it troubles me that people try to force the notion that humans are 'unchangable' in any character trait, tendency, preference or whatever, the same way it troubles non christians when the notion is forced that things like homosexuality CAN indeed be changed.

I believe before there were millions of christians, before there was a bible, there were people who believed those things or they would never have written them down. I believe its false logic to assume those particular objections are the effect of religion in isolation as opposed to culture, environment, and any other number of factors that help build an individuals 'values' as they grow and experience life. WE never hear people 'blame' christians for legislation against murder even though its a pretty specific CHRISTIAN doctrine. BUt people often 'blame' christians for any other restrictive legislation if they are able to find it anywhere in a bible. As if people would not possibly hold those values and opinions without religion.

5.As a christian, I often wonder why history only teaches about the 'good stuff' our founders achieved and doesnt mention any of their less than desirable actions or behaviors, to the point where they are REVERED even though they were no more or less flawed than any other person. I dont know that history really deals in sexual preference even of heterosexuals unless to mention whom someone was married to, nor do I understand what sexual preference would have to do with studying achievements.

Who a person is is not wrapped up in their sexual preference or their dietary preference or their taste in music. Giving people credit in history for their accomplishments does not require wrapping their identity up in those labels anymore than sexual preference has anything to do with what one has accomplished, unlike race or gender which are harder to hide 'in a closet' so to speak and out in the open for all to see and put obstacles up against. ANd bulling also doesnt require going into peoples preferences. Bullying is about behavior, it only needs to be addressed as an unhealthy and unfavorable behavior. The root cause of bullying is 'difference' of any type and that covers all subcategories of the bullied like smart kids, poor kids, fat kids, homeless kids, homosexual kids,,etc. ITs universal enough without making it ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

6. Behavior has to be visible to determine that its 'irrational'. Christians are highly exposed. What atheists do doesnt have quite the same open exposure. How often do you hear a news piece where they even mention someones affiliation with religion UNLESS they are religious? All those times its not mentioned at all, its possible those people are atheists but it isnt CALLED OUT in the same manner as it is for 'religious'.

in any case,, my point was only to say that we are all flawed, and we could all do to be more aware of whether we are addressing behaviors or just insulting humans,,,whatever our beliefs,,,

if its not true, its not a fact,, but the term is often inappropriately used in advertising, both political and otherwise,,,,

Most Christians state it as a belief. Even look at the Catholic Churches creed. The first line is. I BELIEVE IN one God. Right there it says believe. That is why it's called faith. Because if you knew for sure then you couldn't have faith.

this is funny chit here you put your faith into something claim it to be true and act like it exist when in reality you don't even know 100% that your deity even exist.Faith in God is real,but God isn't.Atheist don't believe God doesn't exist we know God doesn't exist.Muschristews are like "prove he doesn't" thats hard to do when something doesn't exist.Thing is other than the bible theres no other evidence that this thing does exist.

that kind of sounds like the mirror accusation to christians 'faith' in something that there is no 'proof' of

Im reminded of a saying in response,,,,absence of proof is not PROOF of abasence

not knowing about something doesnt prove that something isnt there,,,,

yeah but your mentioning about a deity,that formed man in his own image not blackholes or pulsars or quasars,your talking about the deity you believe that created the universe.It's amazing how your deity just left ya'll in limbo with those infamous words "free will".Yet it or whatever it is won't do anything like he did in the bible to show it's "glory".It's just simply amazing.

thats a line gays don't need to cross with me... i can't think of any reason i would want a gay man to hug me....

You might get turned on?



What about a gay woman? Can she hug you without creeping you out?

i'll take a hug from any women... but no guys...

You never even hug male friends or relatives? Are you worried someone is going to think you're gay if you hug a guy?