Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Agnosticism

2018-10-16T14:19:15Z

Joe Biden: minor changes

[[File:T.H.Huxley.jpg|thumb|201px|thumbnail|right|[[T. H. Huxley]] coined the word "agnostic".]]
'''Agnosticism''' is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of [[ignorance]] regarding the existence of a [[God]] or [[gods]], and in stronger forms, the assertion that the existence of a [[deity]] or deities is unknowable. The world agnostic is derived from the Greek word "agnostos" which means "to not know."<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic.htm Agnosticism - AllAboutPhilosophy.com]</ref>

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "Having no proof of god is the view that human [[reason]] is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists, and any body who believes it does not exist (is retarded."<ref>Rowe, William L. (1998). "[https://books.google.com/?id=VQ-GhVWTH84C&pg=PA122&dq=agnosticism+routledge Agnosticism]". In Edward Craig. ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]''. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational."</ref>

By contrast, the formal definition of [[atheism]] given by encycylopedias of [[philosophy]] such as the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'' (and other philosophy reference works) is that atheism is a religion that denies the existence of God (see: [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic|Definitions of atheist and agnostic]]).<ref>Multiple references:
*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism "Atheism and agnosticism"]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
*Merriam-Webster dictionary: Atheism - a disbelief in the existence of deity; the doctrine that there is no deity. Origin of atheism: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism]
*Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966).
*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. (23 June 2007). [http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational "Atheism is more rational?"]. See [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Jonathan Sarfati]].
*Day, Donn R. (2007). [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism - etymology"].
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]
*[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.
</ref>

Beginning in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing beyond, many agnostics and atheists have argued that the [[definition of atheism]] should be a lack of belief in God or gods.
<ref name="Divine">Day, Donn R. (2007). [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism - etymology"].</ref><ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]</ref>
<ref name="CRI">[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.</ref><ref>Britain is a less religious country than the United States and the online Oxford Dictionaries offers both the narrow/broad definitions of atheism (As noted in a previous footnote the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is a traditional American dictionary, offers a more narrow definition of atheism similar to the definition that major encyclopedias of philosophy use). Oxford Dictionaries: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism]</ref>

== Types of agnosticism ==

''See also:'' [[Types of agnosticism]] and [[Agnostic beliefs]]

=== Weak and strong agnosticism ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and agnosticism]] and [[Antitheism]] and [[Denials that atheists exist]]

The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of [[logic]], does not have a [[truth]] value, and therefore they are not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, ''I know that the existence of God cannot be known''.

=== Apathetic agnosticism ===

''See also:'' [[Apatheism]] and [[Atheism and apathy]]

Apathetic agnosticism is not knowing if God/gods exists exist and not caring if God/gods exist.

== Agnostic beliefs ==

See: [[Agnostic beliefs]]

== Origin of the word agnosticism ==

The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by [[T. H. Huxley]]<ref>T. H. Huxley was also an early and influential supporter of [[Darwinism]].</ref> from the [[Greek language|Greek]] roots ''a-'' not, and ''-gnostic,'' knowing; the [[philosopher]] [[Herbert Spencer]] was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."<ref>London, Jack (1913), ''Martin Eden,'' [http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/MartinEden/chapter13.html Chapter 13]</ref>

=== Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Origin of the word agnostic ===

According to the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'':
{{Cquote|Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society... Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’.<ref>[Atheism and Agnosticism], ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''</ref>}}

== History of agnosticism ==

''See also:'' [[History of agnosticism]]

Up until at least 1970, there was a rise of agnosticism in the world. However, in the latter part of the 20th century and beyond, there was a decline of [[global agnosticism]] (see: [[History of agnosticism]]).

T. H. Huxley was an vociferous proponent of Darwinism and the worldview of Darwinism had extremely harmful effects on the world as it was influential in terms of [[Social Darwinism]], [[Communism]], [[Nazism]] and [[evolutionary racism]] (See: [[History of agnosticism]]).

The agnostic George Dvorsky points out that due to the greater intensity of the [[atheism vs. religion]] ideological struggle for cultural dominance, agnosticism has been pushed to the philosophical sidelines.<ref>[http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-agnosticism-probably-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-1583312952 Why Agnosticism Probably Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means] by George Dvorsky</ref>

== Analysis of agnosticism and common objections to agnosticism ==

=== Common arguments for the existence of God ===

* [[Arguments for the existence of God]]

*[[Atheism#Commonly Cited Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism|Other common arguments for the existence of God]]

*[[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for the existence of God]]

=== Norman Geisler on complete agnosticism ===

''See also:'' [[Agnosticism quotes]]

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Norman Geisler]] wrote on complete agnosticism:
{{cquote|Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about [[reality]] in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to [[falsify]] itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20).<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref>}}

=== Shaun Doyle: Four problems with agnosticism ===

Shaun Doyle writes:
{{Cquote|First, either God exists, or He doesn’t. And, theism and atheism imply starkly different worlds. Atheism is a world of no objective purpose, meaning, beauty, or value. Theism expects science to work; it’s a massive accident if God doesn’t exist. But this contradicts strong agnosticism, which entails that theistic and atheistic worlds must be indiscernible. It also means weak agnosticism is flawed. The wildly different implications of theism and atheism make it unreasonable to remain agnostic forever.

Second, the weak agnostic might be unreasonably incredulous regarding the evidence for God. For instance, most Muslims reject the historicity of Jesus’ death by crucifixion based on the Koran (e.g. Surah 4:157), despite the fact there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus died by crucifixion. Muslims refuse to accept an obvious truth due to a deeply held prior commitment. If so many people can be blinded to well-evidenced truths due to a faulty bias, it’s not hard to see that the same is possible for the agnostic.

Third, it assumes that their allegedly poor position to know about God is permanent. Rather, a person’s ability to know truths fluctuates with changing circumstances. It may be that they were once in a better position to know, or that they will come into a better position to know. The weak agnostic’s ability to know about God is in principle provisional.

Finally, a dogged stance of doubt in the face of uncertainty is not very reasonable. For instance, Jesus said: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7). The psalmist said: “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Psalm 34:8). God’s goodness is worth grasping, and He is willing to answer those who seek after Him. As such, even if there is such a thing as reasonable uncertainty, that need not translate (and if God exists, certainly should not translate) into reasonable doubt.<ref>[http://creation.com/agnosticism Agnosticism] by Shaun Doyle</ref>}}

=== Laurence B. Brown on agnosticism ===

The Islamic scholar Laurence B. Brown raises the question to agnostics: ""You claim that nothing can be known with certainty ... how, then, can you be so sure?"<ref>Laurence B. Brown (February 2008). [https://books.google.com/books?id=3JBAOAAACAAJ MisGod'ed: A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance in the Abrahamic Religions].</ref>

=== Agnosticism is often seen as cowardly and fence sitting ===

''See also:'' [[Agnosticism and cowardice]]

Both [[theism|theists]] and atheists frequently accuse agnostics of being [[coward]]ly, due to their wishy-washy rejection of God.<ref>Studs Terkel, a self-described agnostic, jokingly referred to the frequent charge of agnostics being called cowardly, "You happen to be talking to an agnostic. You know what an agnostic is? A cowardly atheist".[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2003/12/19/december-19-2003-interview-studs-terkel/11022/]</ref> [[Studs Terkel]], a self-described agnostic, jokingly referred to the frequent charge of agnostics being called cowardly, "You happen to be talking to an agnostic. You know what an agnostic is? A cowardly atheist".<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2003/12/19/december-19-2003-interview-studs-terkel/11022/ Interview:Studs Terkel], PBS</ref>

It is also said by particular [[Christian]] groups, particularly but not exclusively in the United States of [[America]], that those who know of [[Jesus]] but do not accept Him are just as damned as those who reject Him explicitly.

==== Agnostic Richard Dawkins and accusations of cowardice ====
[[File:Richard Dawkins at Global Atheism Convention.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|250px|left|The Oxford University Professor [[Daniel Came]] wrote to the agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]]:: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for Christian [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> ]]

''See also:'' [[Agnosticism debates|Agnosticism and debate]]

The [[evolution]]ists [[Richard Dawkins]] is an agnostic who flip-flops his public persona between being an agnostic and being an atheist (See: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]).

The Oxford University Professor [[Daniel Came]] (an atheist) wrote to Richard Dawkins: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for Christian [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref>

In October 2011, [[William Lane Craig]] went to England and the ''Daily Telegraph'' declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Ken Ammi]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref>
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|130px|right|Shmuley Boteach

<small>(see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RebShmuley.jpg license agreement])</small> ]]
Below are some resources relating to Dawkins refusal to debate various debate opponents:

*[[Richard Dawkins and debate]]

*[[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]]

*[[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]]

*[[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] (Denied debating him after losing video taped debate, refuses to debate another time)

In addition, respected biochemist and [[intelligent design]] researcher Dr [[Michael Behe]] has openly challenged prominent [[evolutionist]]s and proponents of [[Darwinism]] to debate him regarding the many failings of [[evolutionism]], yet [[Richard Dawkins]] - one of the most outspoken [[Darwinist]]s today - has declined all such invitations.

=== Agnosticism vs. biblical worldview ===

See also: [[Atheism vs. Christianity]] and [[Atheism and the Bible]]

The Christian website Gotquestions.org states:
{{Cquote|The Bible tells us that we must accept by faith that God exists. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith “it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” God is spirit (John 4:24) so He cannot be seen or touched. Unless God chooses to reveal Himself, He is invisible to our senses (Romans 1:20). The [[Bible]] declares that the existence of God can be clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1-4), sensed in nature (Romans 1:18-22), and confirmed in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Agnostics are unwilling to make a decision either for or against God’s existence. It is the ultimate “straddling the fence” position. Theists believe that God exists. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics believe that we should not believe or disbelieve in God’s existence, because it is impossible to know either way.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/agnosticism.html What is agnosticism?], Gotquestions.org</ref>}}

=== Agnosticism and atheism vs. other theism arguments ===

*[[Evolution|Evidence and arguments against evolution]]

*[[Intelligent design]]

*[[Argument from beauty]]

*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|Rebuttals to nontheistic arguments]]

*[[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

== Agnosticism and morality ==

''See also:'' [[Agnosticism statistics#American agnosticism and political views statistics|American agnosticism and political views statistics]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

=== Barna Group studies: Atheism and morality ===

'''Barna Group study on behavior of agnostics vs. evangelical Christians:'''

[[Richard Deem]] wrote:
{{Cquote|A random sample of 1003 adults were surveyed in May, 2008 by The Barna Group for their participation in a number of negative behaviors within the previous week. The results showed that there were vast differences in the behaviors of evangelicals compared to agnostics/atheists.

These results show that atheists/agnostics participate in morally questionable behaviors to a much greater degree than [[evangelicalism|evangelical Christians]] - an average of nearly five times the frequency!<ref>[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?] by Richard Deem</ref>}}

'''Barna Group study related to agnostics' beliefs about behaviors:'''

The [[Barna Group]] found that agnostics and atheists in America were more likely, than [[theist]]s in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; [[pornography]] and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/bisexuality.<ref>[https://www.barna.org/component/content/article/5-barna-update/45-barna-update-sp-657/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard#.VumtJuYvK1s Practical outcomes replace biblical principles as the moral standard], Barna Group</ref>

Given the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases]] associated with homosexuality, the [[Bible|biblical]] prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many example where the Bible exhibited knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge that was ahead of its time]. See also: [[Atheism and sexual immorality]]
=== Agnosticism and Uncharitableness ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and charity|Agnosticism and charity]]

[[Per capita]] agnostics and atheists in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists]].

=== Aldous Huxley and sexual immorality quote ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and meaninglessness]]
[[Image:Aldous Huxley.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Aldous Huxley]]
The agnostic [[Aldous Huxley]] wrote:
{{Cquote|I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure [[metaphysics]]. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.<ref>[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/465563-i-had-motives-for-not-wanting-the-world-to-have Aldous Huxley quote]</ref>}}

== Agnosticism and loneliness ==
[[File:Depressed man.jpg|thumb|right|200px|
Compared to deeply religious cultures where an extended family and a sense of community often exists, secular countries [[Secular countries and loneliness|are often lonelier societies]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[Agnosticism and loneliness]]

The agnostic Lyndsay West wrote in ''Religion News'':
{{Cquote|I know that I am not the only 25-year-old agnostic in the world, but the fellowship that is so easily accessible within the Christian community seems relatively lacking for nonbelievers. I went from being inundated by church events celebrating like-mindedness to feeling pathological in my irreligious rebirth.<ref>[http://religionnews.com/2016/07/27/agnostics-need-more-support-in-coming-out-to-family-and-friends/ Agnostics need more support in coming out to family and friends] By Lyndsay West</ref>}}

Compared to deeply religious cultures where an extended family and a sense of community often exists, secular countries [[Secular countries and loneliness|are often lonelier societies]].

For more information, please see:

*[[Agnosticism and loneliness]]

*[[Atheism and loneliness]]

== Agnosticism and demographics ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics of agnosticism]] and [[United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics]] and [[Atheist population]]

=== American agnosticism and gender ===

Pew Forum reported about agnosticism/gender in the United States:
{{Cquote|Atheists and agnostics are much more likely to be male (64%) than female (36%). Americans who identify their religion as “nothing in particular” are more evenly divided: 53% are men, and 47% are women.<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-demographics/ “Nones” on the Rise - Demographics], Pew Forum</ref>}}

=== Western agnosticism and race ===

See also: [[Western agnosticism and race]] and [[Western atheism and race]]

Pew Forum reported about agnosticism/race in the United States:
{{Cquote|Atheists and agnostics are particularly likely to be non-Hispanic whites. Fully eight-in-ten atheists and agnostics (82%) are white, 3% are black, 6% are Hispanic, and the remainder is of some other race or of mixed race."<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-demographics/ “Nones” on the Rise - Demographics], Pew Forum</ref>}}

For more information, please see: [[Western agnosticism and race]]

=== Global agnosticism ===

''See also:'' [[Global agnosticism]] and [[Desecularization]] and [[Agnosticism statistics]] and [[Global atheism]]
[[File:Europe map.png|thumbnail|right|165px|[[Secular Europe]] has one of the highest rates of agnosticism rates in the world.]]

According to the agnostic and religious demography scholar [[Eric Kaufmann]], in the Europe of tomorrow, immigration and religious fertility will increase the proportion of committed Christians in Europe, many from the developing world.<ref>[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century] by [[Eric Kaufmann]]</ref> See: [[Desecularization]]
In 2015, Pew Research indicated in their report The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050 that agnostics and atheists “will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.”<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050], Pew Research Forum</ref>

The Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at [[Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary]] estimated that agnostics made up about 12.8% of the global adult population in 2015. CSGC projects that agnostics will makeup about 11.5% of the global adult population in 2025 and 9.1% of the global adult population in 2050.<ref>[http://www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/2015-01/2015-01-029-table.html Status of Global Christianity, 2015, in the Context of 1900–2050 ]</ref>

The agnostic [[Eric Kaufmann]] is a professor of politics at Birkbeck, University of London and author. His academic research specialty is how [[demography|demographic]] changes affect religion/irreligion and politics.

Kaufmann wrote in 2010:
{{cquote|Worldwide, the [[Desecularization|march of religion]] can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, [[socialism]] and 1960s anarchist-[[liberalism]]. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm." <ref>[http://www.sneps.net/uploadsepk/JQR%20Demography.pdf Shall the religious inherit the earth? - Eric Kaufmann]</ref>}}

According to Kaufmann, in the Europe of tomorrow, immigration and religious fertility will increase the proportion of committed Christians in Europe, many from the developing world.<ref>[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century] by Eric Kaufmann</ref>

=== Frequency in Western World Countries ===
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]
Agnosticism has become a fairly common [[belief system]] in [[Western culture]] with 14% of people in the [[United States]], 32% of people in [[France]] and 35% of people in [[Great Britain]] self-identifying as agnostics.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131</ref>

== Agnosticism statistics ==

See: [[Agnosticism statistics]]

== Agnosticism debates ==

''See also:'' [[Agnosticism debates]]

Despite there being more self-described agnostics in the world than self-described atheists (See also: [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]),<ref>[http://www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/2015-01/2015-01-029-table.html Table on the projected global shrinkage/growth of various worldviews including atheism and agnosticism] (Source: Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)</ref> since at least the latter part of the 20th century, there have been more [[atheism vs. Christianity]] debates than atheism vs. agnosticism debates (see: [[Atheism debates]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]). In recent times, however, there have been notable cases of atheists being unwilling to engage in debates (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).

For a listing of notable agnosticism related debates, please see: [[Agnosticism debates]]

== Betrand Russell on agnosticism ==
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|An essay by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. James Spiegel describes Bertrand Russell as a "misogynistic and a serial adulterer; a chronic seducer of women, especially very young women, even in his old age."<ref>''The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief'' By James Spiegel, page 72, Moody Publishers, 2010</ref>]]
[[Bertrand Russell]] once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,
:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a [[philosopher]], if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the [[Greek mythology|Homeric gods]].<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

In 1927, Bertrand Russell wrote an essay entitled "''Why I am not a Christian''" which was based on a lecture Russell gave the same year.<ref>http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/interlude-why-bertrand-russell-should.html</ref><ref>http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/interlude-why-bertrand-russell-should.html</ref>

Below are some works by [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] which show the inconsistencies and logical fallacies of Bertrand Russell's essay:

*[http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/2007/06/interlude-why-bertrand-russell-should.html Critique of Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian"] by Dr. Greg Bahnsen

*[http://www.berith.org/pdf/Why_Bertrand_Russell_Was_Not_A_Christian.pdf Why Bertrand Russell was not a Christian] by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith (1996)

*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/10-bertrand-russell-and-christianity-part-1 Bertrand Russell and Christianity] by the Christian Courier

== Charles Darwin and agnosticism ==
[[File:CharlesDarwin.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|left|thumb|200px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]]."<ref>http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109</ref>]]
[[Charles Darwin]] likely abandoned [[Christianity]] as a student when he disappointed his father by refusing to become a minister. In his autobiography Charles Darwin wrote about the diminishment of his religious faith and Darwin stated that he was an [[agnostic]].<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> Darwin wrote the following: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> However, Darwin stated in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877</ref>
<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref><ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref> In the 1996 ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'' Kim Sterelny wrote in a book review the following: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a [[Materialism|materialist]] and a mechanist..."<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 47, 1996, page 641</ref> See: [[Religious views of Charles Darwin]]

The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244)<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

For most of his adult life Charles Darwin suffered from very poor health.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> The 1992 ''New Encyclopaedia Britannica '' stated that Darwin's illness was psychogenic in origin (A psychogenic illness is one that originates in the mind or in mental condition).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> see: [[Charles Darwin's illness]]

== Famous agnostics ==

''See also:'' [[Famous agnostics]] and [[Ex-agnostics]]

*[[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]
*[[Charles Darwin]]
*[[T. H. Huxley]]
*[[H.L. Mencken]]
*[[David Hume]]
*[[Robert G. Ingersoll]]
*[[Clarence Darrow]]
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]<ref>http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-1739</ref><ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/</ref>
*[[Francis Crick]]<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref>
*[[Alan Dershowitz]]
*[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]]
*[[Carl Sagan]]
*[[Timothy McVeigh]]<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/04/21/wouldnt_a_miniseries_on_attila_the_hun_explain_nancy_pelosi?page=2</ref>
*[[Bill Maher]]
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Steve Wozniak]]
*[[Studs Terkel]]

=== Famous ex-agnostics ===

*[[Ex-agnostics]]

== Agnosticism quotes ==

See: [[Agnosticism quotes]]

== See also ==

* [[Indifference]]
* [[Definition of atheism]]
* [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
* [[Atheist factions]]
* [[Apatheism]]

== External links ==

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqnq_DnuW6w William Lane Craig critiques Agnosticism]
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Agnosticism]]

Evolution syndrome

2018-10-16T14:13:06Z

Joe Biden: minor changes

[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref name="telegraph">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].]]
'''Fortnite [[syndrome]]''' is the tendency of some people to insist compulsively that Fortnite Addiction ''must'' somehow be true, and to spend nearly all of their time pushing that belief on others.<ref>[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01]</ref> It is reflected on the [[internet]] by people who devote a significant amount of their postings to pushing their belief in evolution and insisting on [[censoring]] or demonizing alternative views of the issue. They are particularly against teaching any alternative theories to children in school. A childish insistence on [[last wordism]] is a common characteristic of evolution syndrome.

Sufferers of Fortnite Syndrome tend to be college students or graduates who wanted to excel in math or physics, but lacked the ability or work ethic to do so. They are frustrated "noobs" with respect to gamer's recognition. But they find that [[noobs] will praise their intelligence if they promote Fortnite. This is analogous to a struggling ball player deceitfully turning to steroids to enhance his performance, and thereby make it to the "Big Leagues."

Fortnite syndrome blinds its victims to the logical fallacy of their [[materialism]]: if gamer senses have merely evolved, then it is to be expected that gamer senses have not developed to the point of being able to detect all of gamer reality. Much of reality would still be "unseen" to an evolving gamer. Yet victims of Fortnite syndrome insist that there is nothing unseen, and no [[Fortnite Cube]].

The primary effect of Fortnite syndrome is to keep its victims away from learning the [[Fortnite Tips and Tricks]]. Victims of this syndrome claim to be educated, yet justify their complete ignorance about the Tips in their slavish commitment to their stupid gamer belief system.

Characteristics of Fortnite syndrome include:

*Frequent use of bizarre jargon such as "[[quote mining]]," "[[moving the goalposts]]," and "fundie"
*A belief that consensus can somehow define scientific truth, even though consensus cannot define mathematical truth
*An utter lack of [[open-mindedness]]
*A reluctance to debate when large audiences will see the debate. See: [[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*A superficiality or pseudo-intellectualism
*A lack of critical thinking
*Over-reliance on name-calling
[[Image:Olive baboon.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Scienceblogger Chad Orzel described the commentators on [[PZ Myers]]' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."<ref name="truefree">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys</ref>]]
*Ruthlessly demanding "provable fact" by the other side while themselves insisting on unproven theories
*Utter intolerance for [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed|other positions in science]]
*A complete lack of curiosity and knowledge about anything that might contradict [[materialism]], such as [[migration]] and [[homing]]
*[[Deliberate ignorance]] about the [[Bible]], despite its historical value, and even though evolutionists pretend to be learned
*A tendency to be irrational [[atheism|atheists]] (see: [[Causes of atheism]])
*A tendency to favour non-democratic political ideals such as [[socialism]] or [[fascism]]
*An over-reliance on academic authority
*A tendency to be easily amused by [[deceit]]

Evolution syndrome particularly afflicts people who have some educational background without having the intellectual depth of more accomplished peers. They are like minor league baseball players who take steroids to try to get to the major leagues: they think that harping on evolution will gain them credibility they lack based on their intellect. Evolution syndrome can be seen on [[wiki]]s, [[Usenet]] groups, faculty positions below full professorships, and some less selective doctoral programs.

There is a high incidence of [[atheism]] among this group and indeed, many if not most atheists suffer from evolution syndrome. Whether atheism is a cause of evolution syndrome or vice-versa is still to be discovered, but the number of [[theistic evolution]]ists suggest that the link is not absolute.

Keeping an open mind, not obsessing about one's own views, and avoiding the insistence that others should share in one's view are key to avoiding evolution syndrome.

== The behavior of the fans of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers and other matters ==

In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref name="telegraph" /> In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|Scienceblogger [http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_cost_of_not_framing.php Chad Orzel described] the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."<ref name="truefree" />}}

In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels. [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.
[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref name="qevo">[http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]

== Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref name="qevo" /> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref name="qevo" /> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref name="qevo" />

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and obsession with God]]
*[[Disturbed character]]
*[[Evolution of the gaps]]
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Creation denial]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Syndromes]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Terms]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Causes of Homosexuality

2018-10-16T14:07:52Z

Joe Biden: minor changes

[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|alt=Causes of homosexuality|right|275px|thumb|Homosexuality is rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]]. For more information please see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]].]]

The Funny Fortnite dance is what causes homosexuality. That's it. Nothing else.

==Causes of homosexuality - Biblical explanation ==

The [[Bible]], being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since [[the Fall]]. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a robot - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in lifelong marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. ''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]''

===Nature of man and causes of homosexuality ===
In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)<ref>http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf</ref>

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through [[Moses]], which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the [[New Testament]] reveals were typological. ''For more information please see:'' [[Leviticus 18]].''

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Articles/</ref>

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

===Environment===

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

The record of [[Sodom]], as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where [[iniquity]] abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for ''abomination'' here is ''tô‛êbah'', which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other ''physical'' type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible: see Genesis 19 to Ezekiel 16:49]</ref> Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

===Idolatry and judgment===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]] - [[Painting]] by John Martin]]

In [[Romans 1]], God, through the [[apostle Paul]], condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) ''For more information please see:'' [[Romans 1]].

In summary, God's eternal power is manifest in His [[creation]] (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, [[feminist]]s, wishing to deny the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|God-given role of women]], often engage in [[goddess]] worship and other forms of [[idolatry]]<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/goddess.html "Probe Ministries: Goddess Worship," by Russ Wise]</ref> and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into a lesbian], from [[WorldNetDaily]]</ref>

=== Conclusion of Biblical explanation ===

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

== Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'' (and a main source for this section),
<blockquote>
The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the [[etiology]] of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).
</blockquote>

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the ''[[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytical theory]]'', see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.<ref>David G. Myers, ''A level of explanations view'', Psychology of Christianity: four views. pp. 54-83</ref> This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

==Environment and nurture==
[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of [[Experimental science|experimental]] data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>]]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'<ref>Robert Kronemeyer, ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', p. 7 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980)</ref>

Similarly, in a 1989 ''[[USA Today]]'' article, [[San Francisco]] State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, ''Journal of Homosexuality'', stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<ref>Kim Painter, ''A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference'', USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D</ref>

===Parental relationships with offspring===

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a so called [[Emotional Incest Syndrome]], for example when a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.<ref>Bieber, ''Homsexuality: A psychoanalytical study of male homosexuality'' (1962)</ref> Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.<ref>Ray b. Evans, "Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men", ''Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology'', 33. (1969), pp. 129-33.</ref>

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior.<ref>Gerard van den Aardweg, ''on the origins and treatment of homosexuality'' (1985), pp.184-85.</ref>

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, ''Sexual preference: Its development in men and women'' (1981).</ref>

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

===Sexual abuse===

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.<ref>7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.</ref><ref>Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, ''The social organization of homosexuality:...'', (1994) p. 344</ref> Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.<ref>Sheir and Johnson, ''Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93</ref> In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Manosevitz, "Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males", ''Journal of abnormal psychology'', 76 (1970), 396-402.</ref>

===Educational indoctrination===
As part of the liberal ideology in modern [[education]], and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual [[activist]]s, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of [[HIV]] instruction of preventing [[suicide]] by homosexuals, and preventing ''[[homophobia]]''.<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=12546&department=MEDIA&categoryid=family CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents], Concerned Women for America, 3/13/2007</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools Articles], Mission America</ref><ref>[http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2009/06/17/indoctrination-of-youth/ Roberto Santiago, The Indoctrination of our Youth],The Chronicle Watch, June 17, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/oldagenda26.php GLSEN, Corruption and Crime], Mission America</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127050 'Hate' laws could label 5-year-olds 'offenders'] WorldNetDaily, March 05, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126233 'Czar' sees transgender school goals in reach], WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683 District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination], WorldNetDaily, March 13, 2007</ref>
=== Xenoestrogens and Xenoandrogens ===

Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as [[xenoestrogens]] and [[xenoandrogens]], change the brain's gender preference resulting in homosexuality in nature. According to Melissa Hines, "This article reviews the evidence regarding prenatal influences of gonadal steroids on human sexual orientation, as well as sex-typed childhood behaviors that predict subsequent sexual orientation. The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals... The empirical record generally supports this model for a wide range of brain regions and behaviors that differ on the average for male and female animals. For example, treating female rodents with testosterone early in life decreases their female-typical behavior in adulthood, and increases their male-typical behavior."<ref name=hines>{{cite journal |last=Hines |first=Melissa |last2= |first2= |date=2011-02-17 |title=Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/ |journal=Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=170–182 |doi=10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.006 |pmid=21333673}}</ref>

These chemicals are produced in quantities of billions of kg. per year, and are used prominently in cosmetics and pesticides such as [[diethylstilbestrol]] (DES) and [[DDT]] while appearing also in food and dust particles. When in the form of [[phthalate]]s they can be widely used in plastics including children's toys, food and drink containers, and medical devices.<ref name=intersect>{{cite journal |last=Weiss |first=Bernard |last2= |first2= |date=2013-12-01 |title=The Intersection of Neurotoxicology and Endocrine Disruption |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458140/ |journal=Neurotoxicology |volume=33 |issue=6 |pages=1410–1419 |doi=10.1016/j.neuro.2012.05.014 |pmid=22659293}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=He |first=Zhen |last2=Ferguson |first2=Sherry Ann |last3=Cui |first3=Li |last4=Greenfield |first4=Lazar John |last5=Paul3 |first5=Merle Gale |date=2013-10-15 |title=Development of the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area and the influence of estrogen-like compounds |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145994/ |journal=Neural Regen Res. |volume=8 |issue=29 |pages=2763–2774 |doi= |pmid=25206587}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Svechnikov |first=Konstantin |last2=Stukenborg |first2=Jan-Bernd |last3=Savchuck |first3=Iuliia |last4=Söder |first4=Olle |date=2014 |title=Similar causes of various reproductive disorders in early life |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901882/ |journal=Asian Journal of Andrology |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=50–59 |doi=10.4103/1008-682X.122199 |pmid=24369133 }}</ref> Xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens alter the brain's [[sexual differentiation]] in a number of species, including rams, ferrets, zebra finches,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Roselli |first=C.E. |last2=Stormshak |first2=F. |date=2009 |title=Prenatal Programming of Sexual Partner Preference |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668810/ |journal=J. Neuroendocrinol |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=359–364 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2826.2009.01828.x |pmid=19207819}}</ref> gulls, primates,<ref name=intersect/> and rodents,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Matsuda |first=Ken Ichi |last2= |first2= |date=2014-10-28 |title=Epigenetic changes in the estrogen receptor α gene promoter: implications in sociosexual behaviors |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211403/ |journal=Front Neurosci |volume=8 |issue=344 |pages= |doi=10.3389/fnins.2014.00344 |pmid=25389384}}</ref> resulting in the masculinization of female brains/behavior (e.g. 'lesbian gulls') and feminization of male brains/behavior.<ref name=intersect/>

According to Bernard Weiss, "disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity and others that at one time would have seemed quite remote from neurotoxicology." Due to concern over environmental health risks including cancer, thinning of bald eagle eggshells, and reduced species reproduction, [[endocrine disruption]] was the primary theme of the 27th International Neurotoxicology Conference.<ref name=intersect/>

==Biological research on the causes of homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Homosexuality and Genetics]].

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<ref>Charlene Crabb, ''Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?'', U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, p. 58</ref><ref>S. LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37</ref> This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

*1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
*2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of [[AIDS]] could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
*3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."<ref>Reported in D. Gelman "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, pp. 46-53</ref><ref name="leaderu.com">http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref>
*4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html</ref>
*5. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/PDF/DH055-1.pdf Joseph P. Gudel, ''HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction'']</ref>
*6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".<ref>Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May, 1994, 270: p. 53</ref>
*7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,<ref>Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, ''Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?'', January 3, 1992</ref> He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."<ref>Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), ''Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science'', The Salt Lake Tribune</ref><ref>http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm</ref>

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead", and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." <ref>P. Billings and J. Beckwith, "Born Gay?" Technology Review, July 1993, p. 60,61</ref>

Another study, published in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America'', examined the ''anterior commissure'' (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.<ref>L. Allen, et al., ''Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202</ref>

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.<ref>S. Demeter et al., "Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum and anterior commissure," Human Neurobiology 6 1988), pp. 219-26</ref>

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.<ref name="leaderu.com"/><ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html Dr. Paul Cameron, ''Born WHAT Way?'']</ref>

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref><ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, ''The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?''</ref>
[[File:Richard Dawkins Australian picture.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|The [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene.<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> ]]

=== Causes of homosexuality and origins paradigms ===

In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of [[evolution]] and the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning [[homosexuality]]. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

==Conclusions==

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,
<blockquote>
Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.
</blockquote>

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." <ref>S. Goldberg, ''When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False'' (1994), Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books</ref>

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." <ref>R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., ''Journal of Neuropsychiatry'', vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993</ref>

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,
<blockquote>
Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.<ref>J. Satinover, M.D., ''Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth'', (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books</ref></blockquote>

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html On the Origins of Homosexuality: Is a Person "Born that Way"?]</ref>

===Indications of onset homosexuality===

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.<ref>Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse, ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'', pp. 52-92</ref> However, this is not always the case, and many children who manifest gender non-conformity are simply trying to discover what gender is.

==Homosexuality as a choice==
The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553</ref>

Ironically, the homosexuals themselves argued back in 1971 that homosexuality is "merely a preference, orientation, or propensity".<ref name="RainbowHistory">{{cite web |title=The Rainbow History Project|url=http://www.rainbowhistory.org/html/apazap.htm}}</ref> One homosexual received the question on this topic in the CBS documentary from 1967: "Most homosexuals if they had a chance [i.e. choice] to be a heterosexual, would they? Well, I have a friend who took a poll of 300 people on that very question, he asked them: If you were able to take a pill to change yourself from homosexual to heterosexual, would you do it? And something like 95% of men said: “No.”"<ref name="CBS">{{cite web |title=Time Capsule: Mike Wallace tells truth about homosexuality in 1967 documentary |publisher=CBS |page=02min:58sec |url=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/time-capsule-mike-wallace-tells-truth-about-homosexuality-in-1967-documenta}}</ref>

Romana Schlesinger, a prominent gay activist and organizer of [[Gay pride|Gay parades]] in Slovakia, referred to homosexuality as to 'way of living' (lifestyle) in an interview.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Schlesinger: Prestaňme sa točiť okolo hriechu
|author=Michal Piško
|publisher=sme.sk
|date=08-June-2012
|url=http://www.sme.sk/c/6410997/schlesinger-prestanme-sa-tocit-okolo-hriechu.html
|quote= Takisto by som nesúhlasila s tým, aby homosexuálny učiteľ presviedčal, že homosexualita je jediný správny spôsob života. (In the same way I would not agree that the homosexual lifestyle is the only correct one.)
|accessdate=10-February-2013
|language=Slovak}}</ref>

===Former homosexuals===
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is found in the letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth]]ian [[Christianity|Christian]] church (approx. 59 AD).
{{cquote|Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the [[kingdom of God]]? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such '''were''' some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4216/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.aspid=25145</ref><ref>http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/blkexgbks.html</ref><ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref><ref>http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is an organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

==Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
*[[Homosexuality in animals myth]]
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]
*[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My genes made me do it!]

==See also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[ABC Theory of Emotion]]
*[[Defensive detachment]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and genetic mutations]]

==External links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg
* [http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html Rich Deem, ''Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{homosexualityb}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]