Homosexuality is a sin and if one continues in the sin, then it will sadly lead that person to hell.

Nevertheless, despite his efforts, I do not think that he comes remotely close, either to demonstrating that god exists, or that the Bible is his message to mankind, and I shall be explaining why in just a moment. Let me start however by saying that while my opponent is perfectly correct in his assumption that I am an atheist, he is not correct in his assumption that I have actually conceded that the Bible itself teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is debatable as to whether or not the Bible teaches this - hence why many Christians disagree about it [1] - and I could, if I chose, make an argument attacking my opponent's resolution on those lines. I choose not to do so however, because I think it far simpler to show that the Bible cannot be considered to be the inspired work of a divine being - and once that is shown, who cares what it says! So let's start with the issue of whether or not a god actually exists. The cosmological argument that my opponent presents is little more than an argument from ignorance. It is not a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing; at the quantum level, particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, with no discernible cause or reason at all. [2] My opponent quotes the Christian theologian Robert Sproul to support his case, and I have to ask him what scientific knowledge the said theologian has that makes his opinions on the origin of the universe remotely authoritative. How does he know that nothing could exist without a self-existent being, and what evidence does he have to support this assertion? I submit that this whole argument is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion that seeks to insert god as an explanation for things that we simply do not understand yet - something that human beings have been doing all throughout history. Moving on, the teleological argument is countered very easily by the scientific Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, which provides a convincing and credible explanation for all the apparent design that we see in the universe today - namely (putting it very simply) that it arises out of genetic variation within a population [3], with the result that those creatures whose genes give them an advantage over others (slightly better hearing/eyesight etc) are more likely to reproduce and pass on those genes to the next generation. [4] And so, gradually and slowly over time, due to this process of Natural Selection, living creatures become more adapted to life in their respective environments [5]. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and although scientists do disagree over relatively minor details, the basic facts of evolution are no longer in scientific dispute. [6] Most crucially, nowhere is god needed as an explanation to make this process work. Moving on to the moral argument, it is now accepted as self-evident truth by most people today that slavery is a terrible evil, and one that is rightly outlawed. If the moral argument is valid therefore, it surely follows that it is objectively true that slavery is evil, and (if the Bible is the work of the god who exists by the moral argument) that the Bible should therefore condemn it. However, far from condemning it, the Bible explicitly endorses it. Leviticus 25:44-46, which grants the Israelites the right to purchase male and female slaves from the foreigners in their midst is just one example amongst many. For this reason, many religious Americans as late as the 19th century considered slavery to be morally approved by god. [7] And so, I regard the moral argument as an example of what I informally call 'an argument from wishful thinking. ' Yes, it would be nice in many ways if objective truth did exist. It would make settling issues a lot easier if we could simply appeal to some unquestionable 'objective truth. ' Sadly however, there is no evidence that such a thing even exists, and religious organisations themselves give us absolutely no reason to believe that it does. Incidentally, given that slavery is clearly endorsed by the Bible, yet we now consider it to be wrong, one could just as easily argue that we have no good reason to consider homosexuality wrong, despite the fact that you can find verses in the Bible condemning it. However, I have already explained why I see no need to explicitly construct an argument along these lines. The fundamental point that I do wish to make is that given that we see no evidence of an 'objective morality' within religious institutions, there is no reason to believe that they have any kind of access to any source of 'objective morality. ' My opponent goes on to list various properties which he claims demonstrate that the Bible is of divine origin. Property D - scientific foreknowledge - has already been effectively demolished and destroyed by the Theory of Evolution, whose implications flatly contradict the creation story in Genesis. To give one further example, science makes a complete mockery of the story of Noah's ark, since (to give one of many arguments) the ark specified in the Bible would not have been large enough to carry all the animals and food required to repopulate the earth. [8] I can take B and C - the so called eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus and his miracles - together. We have no idea who wrote the four gospels and why. We therefore have no idea where the writers got their information or whether or not they were even eyewitnesses to the events they describe. [9] Furthermore, the different gospels can't even agree on fundamental details concerning important events such as Jesus' death - did he die confused and despairing, wondering why God had forsaken him, as told by Mark 15:33-34, or did he die knowing that he was fulfilling god's plan and that he was going to paradise, as told by Luke 23:43 - 46. Surely, if the Bible were the inspired work of god, he would have made sure that its message on this vitally important matter was clear and consistent. Finally, I would ask my opponent to provide an example of an Old Testament prophecy which he thinks has been fulfilled. And so, my opponent still has much work to do. He has, I submit, so far completely failed to show that god exists or that the Bible is his message to mankind. He tellingly provides no rational reason whatsoever as to why that god, if he exists, would wish to outlaw homosexuality, relying instead on another argument from ignorance, using god to explain logic in the same way that people used to use god to explain rain, wind and thunder. We as yet have no reason to believe therefore that god even exists, let alone that homosexuality is against his law, and I look forward to my opponent's final response. [1] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = . http://www.scientificamerican.com... [3] = . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [4] = . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [5] = . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [6] = . http://books.nap.edu... [7] = . http://www.religioustolerance.org... [8] = . http://www.talkorigins.org... [9] = . http://www.npr.org...