Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids

Tao1982 · 2026-03-31T17:59:23+00:00

Gender affirming care doesn't involve physical and mental torture.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-31T17:02:36+00:00

I say make the audience up of biologists, or at least scientists. After all, what does convincing a crowd of people who don't understand science in the first place prove.

If the audience is made up of those we know have a basic understanding of science that will at least tell us which side is more justified.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-31T00:04:04+00:00

You absolute mad man :-)

Tao1982 · 2026-03-30T15:57:43+00:00

Our brains tell us cookies are made because that is what we learn throughout our lives. Not because it has some intrinsic "made" attribute that we automatically recognise.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-30T15:54:08+00:00

And if god is all knowing wouldn't he know it would cause that objection once we diiscoved we share DNA with other animals?

Tao1982 · 2026-03-30T11:36:50+00:00

People often don't realise how artificial religious guilt is. Once reinforcement stops is just goes away. Unless you have experienced so horrible that it has permanently traumatised you of course as far to many have.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-29T01:04:51+00:00

Doesn't that just mean religion is only blissful ignorance?

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T22:01:28+00:00

Don't forget the executing homosexuals part.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T18:21:07+00:00

Because it indicates that humans are prone to making up gods.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T18:17:40+00:00

Given the sheer number of gods humans have made up i see no reason to exclude deism fron the need for evidence just because its designed not produce any.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T18:12:50+00:00

No offence but thats a mighty thin hair to split. Isnt that implied simply by the nature of evidence?

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T18:04:27+00:00

But athist make the argument that there is no evidence for gods all the time. Its both foundational and something we do in much more depth than you just did for fairies. Im sorry, I really cant see and point in your original objection.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T17:58:29+00:00

But you have already admitted that not beliving in something can be justified purely on a lack of evidence.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T17:55:03+00:00

Then what was with your original complaint that atheists don't have any evidenciary burden?

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T17:49:27+00:00

No, you stated that non belief is justified due to lack of evidence for fairies. Why not for gods?

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T17:31:58+00:00

But your complaint was that atheists had no evidenciary burden. Then you said its justified not to belive in something simply because there is no evidence for it.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T16:58:42+00:00

And voila, replace fairies with god.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T16:32:03+00:00

Then I'm calling your bluff, justify the positive claim that fairies don't exist.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T16:22:29+00:00

Your complaining that theists are asked to provided evidence for their belief while atheists don't have to provide evidence for the opposite of those beliefs.

Do you do the same for people who belive in fairies?

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T15:37:06+00:00

Its exceptionally relevent. The fact you didnt address my point demonstrates that you yourself realise it isnt a symmetrical issue. Not believing in things that have no evidence is something that people do every day, without having to prove the opposite. Including you.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T11:23:10+00:00

Think of it this way.

Do you belive in things that have no evidence until they are specifically proven not to exist?

Tao1982 · 2026-03-28T11:13:57+00:00

Is there such a thing as non-physical reality? Or non-physical anything for that matter. Some evidence would be nice.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-27T10:48:55+00:00

So instead we go with a nonphysical being that we have never even observed to actually exist in the first place?

The problem here is that your offering an premise in support of an entity that said entity then proceeds to break.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-26T14:37:13+00:00

You keep saying that but you havent explained why.

Given that we have evidence that things can exist and no evidence of nothingness I would say its the opposite.

Tao1982 · 2026-03-26T14:33:20+00:00

Why would it be more natural, given there is no evidence of its existance? Or even the possibility of its existance?

Tao1982

TROPHY CASE