Beliefs inform actions... So, no. Besides there's nothing wrong with education. He's only pointing out flaws in arguments.

By that argument, you just gave Christians license to try to change the beliefs of homosexuals instead of refraining from claiming that homosexual acts are wrong. I don't know you, but I would assume you would want Christians to stop claiming this. If I'm wrong and you're fine with what Christians say about homosexuality, then your argument is fluid and life can go on. If I'm right, then you just hate Christians and your logic is emotionally compromised...

[quote]By that argument, you just gave Christians license to try to change the beliefs of homosexuals instead of refraining from claiming that homosexual acts are wrong.[/quote] Yes. [quote]I don't know you, but I would assume you would want Christians to stop claiming this[/quote]. Yes. [quote]If I'm right, then you just hate Christians and your logic is emotionally compromised...[/quote] :/ How so? I'm not condoning mind control. Of course let ppl believe what they want. But depending on what that is, I would prefer if people didn't believe it. That's why I think it's always best to challenge beliefs. The phrase, "let people believe what they want". Seems to me like we should ignore the belief. Which I think is a bad idea because beliefs inform actions. So, Yes. Everyone has the right to challenge beliefs.. Even Christians. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree or want it to continue. Especially depending on how it's conducted. You have set up a false dichotomy. I want Christians to continue to have the ability to challenge beliefs. Yet I don't agree with there stand point. [u][b]But how is my argument emotionally comprised?[/b][/u]

I didn't create a false dichotomy. You just said this in the same post: [quote][quote]I don't know you, but I would assume you would want Christians to stop claiming this[/quote]. Yes.[/quote] And... [quote]I want Christians to continue to have the ability to challenge beliefs.[/quote] So you "want Christians to stop" challenging beliefs, but you "want Christians to continue to have the ability to challenge beliefs". If you want Christians to stop challenging beliefs, what good is it to you, then, that Christians have the ability to challenge beliefs? What good is an ability if it not exercised? You're in such disagreement with Christians that you're failing to notice that they are meeting your own standard of "belief informs action"; spreading their beliefs IS the way in which they are meeting it. That is why I said you're emotionally comprised: Because by your own judgements, you have no basis to prefer that they stop spreading what they believe. It's hypocritical. [quote]Of course let ppl believe what they want. But depending on what that is, I would prefer if people didn't believe it.[/quote] Therefore, the phrase, "let people believe what they want" is not an invitation to ignore belief, but rather to observe, and to recognize belief. If you're constantly concerned with one-upping religious people and breaking down their faith, you will see the phrase as ignorance because you see their faith as ignorant. But if you're more concerned with loving others, you will begin to understand the phrase because you will begin to understand why they believe what they believe. I do not live my life by this phrase because it's more than apparent that truth is objective. And though the phrase is not ignorant, it would be ignorant not to prefer that Atheism OVERCOMES Christianity or that Christianity OVERCOMES Atheism. I can prefer one or the other in this case because I am affording the other the same chance I am giving myself. But to prefer that Christians stop spreading their beliefs altogether when I myself prefer to keep spreading mine?- I might as well imprison one rapist and let another go free.

No it's not hypocritical. It's freedom of Speech. I might want someone to stfu Lol. But freedom of Speech :/ And it's not my "standards." It's just a fact that beliefs inform actions. If you believe X, it will influence your action regarding Y. If they are connected. The reason I want them to stop spreading parts of what they believe, is because it is wrong. Homosexuality by definition is not, "evil, immoral or against nature". As many Christians say. Those are simply divisive lies. I want things of that nature to stop being spread. Not because of emotion. But because the truth is better. Homosexuality has nothing to do with morality. The idea that it's evil makes no sense and it's obviously not against nature. I have no idea of what you are talking about or where you are coming from for the second part. It seems like you're replying to a different discussion.

Webster Definition - Hypocrite: "a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs" The pretend belief you're trying to show is that you believe all people should be able to spread what they believe. You even said that. However, you clearly prefer that Christians not spread what they believe and that you retain the ability to spread what you believe. This is undoubtedly hypocritical - there's no debate...but maybe a better way to put it is that you are living by a double standard Right, the "belief informs action" standard is not YOUR standard. It is a fact- you're right. However, it is the standard YOU chose to support YOUR argument. That's why I said your standard. I'm only trying to show you that in judging others in the spread of their faith, you judge yourself too. [quote]The reason I want them to stop spreading parts of what they believe, is because it is wrong. Homosexuality by definition is not, "evil, immoral or against nature".[/quote] Whose definition of homosexuality is this? Yours? Webster's? Is it objective? Is it God's? Christians have a very different definition of homosexuality than you do because they attach morality to it. So when you argue that it's not wrong, they already don't believe you. What you're doing is exactly what a Christian does when he comes to you and says that homosexuality is wrong and you laugh because your definition of homosexuality is completely different. So to say "by definition" does not work. It's not their definition. You're using another double standard. And what does freedom of speech got to do with this? I never said you couldn't say what you did. I just meant it makes you look ignorant. Calling freedom of speech is usually just used as a distraction, and it has nothing to do with your argument in this case.