Religion without God

Yeah, it is.
You want homophobic shit in our laws to hurt my gay friends, you'd better pony up a good reason.
You can't cough up a good secular reason, or it would have happened by now.
So all you've got is an appeal to the supernatural.
Well, you have to prove that shit.
Or else fuck off and go home with the bigot crap.

Do you have psychic powers?
Can you read my mind?
What am I thinking of right now?

This is your most ridiculous post yet.

How can you say that disbelief has nothing to do with lack of evidence?

I suppose you'll also say that disbelief has nothing to do with the God idea being highly improbable scientifically?

But yes, you're right about one thing. I don't need a 2000 year old story to tell me how to live my life. I'd rather think and decide things for myself. I mean, if God exists and gave me a brain and free will, why should I listen to what someone else tells me instead of using that brain to reason, think and exercise said free will?

Is there any reason (secular or otherwise) that would cause you to accept laws that "hurt your gay friends"?

Unless the answer from you is "yes" what point is there in me trying to provide one?

I promise you his answer will be "no".

Only someone without morals desires the unjust persecution of others.

Would you consider the jailing of rapists, pedophiles, et cetera to be "persecution"?

I wouldn't. Even though they might simply be acting out their natural desires.

A rapist is an aggressive sexual predator who acts without consent. The same for a paedophile, who also exploits the innocence and ignorance of children. Neither can act on their natural desires without harming others.

Are you saying that two homosexuals in a consenting relationship, based not just on sexual desire but love, are causing harm? Who are they causing harm?

Society as a whole. Acceptance of immoral conduct by some is like yeast, it causes rampant changes throughout all of society. Not change for the better.

Societies evolve around seeking order and structure. To this end they develop accepted forms of all relationships that promote that structure and order. When relationships are formed that upset the existing order they damage the whole of society that benefits a vast number of people.

When you accept the idea that "two men (or two women)" can be in a socially accepted relationship and that "mutual consent" is the only standard you are opening the door to ANY "consenting relationship" is acceptable then basically anything goes.

Why shouldn't a married man have a relationship with a married woman (not his wife) if both are consenting adults and it gives them happiness.?

What is immoral about to consenting adults harming nobody?

How? What damage does it cause? Indeed, what damage has it caused?

Your paragraphs so far amount to nothing more than "I fear change".

How? No you aren't. You judge on all the factors involved. There is absolutely no argument that a consenting adult relationship is a doorway to anything and based on anything we can assume you are claiming criminal acts like rape and paedophilia. Is that what you're saying?

I don't know? You tell me. I am fully behind married and unmarried, opposite and same sex relationships as I am unmarried and married relationships between consenting adults. I don't discriminate like you.

EDIT: I gather you poorly worded last paragraph is actually referring to people having affairs. I don't support affairs where one person does it behind the back of the other, married, unmarried, gay or straight. However, if two parties to a marriage both agree to relationships with other people with each other's full knowledge and consent, then yes I have no problem with that even if it's not something I would personally do.

Swap out gays for Jews, you've pretty much just written a 40's Nazi propaganda reel.
Congratulations.

Because the wife of the married man didn't consent.
But she can.
This is already a thing, it's called swinging.
I'm for that if people want to do it.

And no it's not "anything goes".
Chup already laid out why with his response to pedophelia and rape.

He might see men kissing, and his dick might move a little, and he'll have to cry in the shower for 72 hours.

Why are you seemingly incapable of believing that a person can find homosexuality disgusting and revolting without it being a sign of latent homosexual urges?

If the idea of eating haggis disgusts you does that mean you have a subconscious desire to eat haggis?

If the concept of fundamentalist Christianity appalls and disgusts you does that mean you have a subconscious desire to join the local congregation?

Exactly the same thing.

What is disgusting about homosexuality?

I don't think about haggis as much as Christians think about homosexuality.
I go years, even half-decades at a time without uttering the word "haggis".

Christians have made battling gay rights a central plank of their politics, indeed, existance.

Christians lost the battle against gay rights in the 1960s and 70s when many if not most of them simply accepted unscriptural divorce and remarriage as well as premarital sex.

Tell Mike Pence.

I'd like to hear this too.

I've said this before, but I've accidentally seen gay porn.
The straight filter on the tube sites don't always work.
My reaction was "nope, not into that ", and I flipped to the next movie over.
I didn't have to rip my eyeballs out, and whip myself with a rosebush branch.

Y'know what has grossed me out?
Extreme kinks of other straight people.
When it looks like a medical procedure, I check out.

I don't see Christian bakers denying cakes to straight people into asshole stretching.
If it's really about "disgust", they've got their work cut out for them.
Just saying.

If sex is his reason for being grossed out then he’s essentially claiming gay people are incapable of love and reducing their relationships down to carnal desire. That itself is bigoted.

Congratulations. You also have no clue about the scale of the temple or what it was used for.
The Court of the Gentiles was an area the size of six football fields protected by armed guards and used as a very large marketplace - the very centre of Jewish economic life. Particularly at the time approaching the passover there would have been hundreds if not thousands of traders in it. It was not a basement jumble sale with a dozen or so hagglers that could be chased away.

Why bother? You have your conclusions. Let's see how you get on with the nature of the Jerusalem temple first.

It's either biological disgust, or the whole "God doesn't like it, so I'm pissed on his behalf", bullshit.

Frankly, I think the latter always thinly diguises the former.

Without question.

Hmm, Dayton never took a crack at reading my mind.
I guess he can't.
Course, if he could read minds, he could win at blackjack at Vegas by seeing the dealer's hand in his mind's eye, and break the bank, and provide for his family forever instead of being a failure.
He hasn't done that, so he has no powers, so he can't know the mind of atheists enough to not just suppose, but ASSERT that we don't base non-belief on lack of evidence, but some imaginary daddy issue bullshit.

And if Lee Strobel had those powers, he wouldn't have to make money off writing his shitty apologetics books.
Absent those powers, Strobel can't assert that shit either.
So Strobel is a moronic asshole, and Dayton is a worse asshole for passing these fetid arguments along.
Worse, beacause on top of being a prick, he's the dupe of a prick.
And being a the toadie of a slime is always more pathetic.

Don't you find my views on warfare to be disgusting? Why do you find them disgusting?

Now you'll say "because innocent people get hurt".

So, if that is your reason why do you find that "disgusting"?

My point is you can keep asking why something is disgusting ad infinitum. The bottom line ultimately is simply that it just is and you have to accept that.

Lack of belief is due to lack of evidence.
Lack of obedience is due to not wanting to be told what to do.

Because once you establish existence of this being, you still have as much work to do to get me to worship it. Christians may not hold personal freedom to be a important value. I do.

Nope.
If I put salsa on my ice cream (I wouldn't, but let's just say), and I don't force you to eat it, you've got to deal with your "ick", feelings on your own.
That's too fucking bad for you.
Tough it out, wuss.

Soon as you try to ban salsa on ice cream, and criminalize those who eat it, you're a fascist.

Warfare doesn't work like that.
That's a conscious choice to get up in people's business.
The exact opposite of gayness.
You're not very good with analogies.
It's almost like your case can't be backed with logic.

"You don't want to be told what not to do", is very vague.

It depends on what I'm being told.

"Don't murder people".

Fine, I didn't want to anyway.

"Don't rape".

Fine, I didn't want to anyway.

"Don't burgle".

Fine, I didn't want to anyway.

"Don't eat pork".

Fuck you, I'm going to.

"Don't watch R rated movies".

Fuck you, I'm going to.

"Hand your neighbors over to the fascist police to go to the concentration camp".

Nope! In fact, I haven't seen them for months.
No need to check my attic.
In fact, I have no attic.

First of all, answering a question with a question is always gutless.

Second, I find your views on warfare to be disgusting because you treat it like a movie. You masturbate over weapons of war. You find conflict grand, romantic and inspiring. You sit eagerly waiting to see it all and you care little for who dies unless they are members of your family. It’s an appalling attitude and how dare you equate two people loving each other with your desire to see innocent people die. How fucking dare you.

You declare homosexuality disgusting you have a moral obligation to tell us why. Do it.

It just is.

Why do you find my treating warfare like a movie (assuming I do which I do not) to be disgusting? You have a moral obligation to tell us why. Do it.

Why do you claim this? How do you know I masturbate at all?

We've been friends but we've never been that close.

That's the answer of a 3 year old child.

You should be embarrassed.

You won't be though.
You never are.

Don't you find it a bit presumptive to declare when someone else should feel embarrassment?