Only site-sanctioned polygamy. Christian thought is traditionally as opposed to informal polygamy. But most of the values of modern western societies - democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to express sexuality, freedom of movement and separation of Church an State derive from enlightenment, not Christian values. Things like laws against oral sex persisted in some US states as sort of fossils from previous times.
Umm no I don’t ‘believe’ in either of those things. 1) I am not sure what you mean by the ‘universe’ and 2) science has very limited knowledge about these issues. So I simply don’t think about them a lot. People who are not religious usually don’t spend a lot of time thinking about things to which we have no present answers unless they are scientists looking at them specifically.
Depends on wht you mean by polygamy. If you mean it to include the possibility of a man having several wives, but not at the same time, then there are many examples of Christian men who have had several wives, but not at the same time. in Catholicism for example, you can get married and have several children, and then after 15 years or more of marriage say that there was a defect in your consent or that of your wife at the time of the marriage. This defect can enable you to obtain a marriage annulment, which leaves you free to marry again and have a second wife. Many famous Christians have been married two or three times and still profess to be Christian. It is just that they say that their first marriage was not really a true marriage, but they did not understand that until 15 or 20 years later on, when it suddenly dawned on them.
Can you explain why an eternal universe is in violation of all evidence?
www.bbc.com
How do you know the physical laws that exist within our universe apply to the creation of universes?
You beg the question. How do we come to know what is inhuman? Your take on morality – the definition of what is right or wrong, good or evil, humane or inhuman – converts the fallacy of ad populum into the determining principle of morality. Democracy, sometimes the tyranny of the majority, hardly protects humans from the inhumanity of others. In our day, abortion and infanticide evidence that truth. In earlier days, for instance, it was older women who had the misfortune of habitually talking to themselves.
Mormons are not Christians. It teaches that there are many gods, and that humans can become gods and goddesses in the Heavenly kingdom.
Say what you will, but it is valid to say that humans naturally tend to theism. The human soul is meant to transcend this world.
It is also true that given any point in human history, public rejection of the prevailing religion would result in some form of social persecution for the majority of people (from loss of friends to criminal prosecution.)
that is a lie. there are astrophysicists who tout the cyclical theory.
No, evolution is a fact. Genetic material is transferred by descent (with some irrelevant exceptions). All living things share genetic material. Therefore living things evolved to their present state. The ‘theory’ of evolution is about the process by which this fact is explained.
We don’t ‘come to know’. We decide. You are constantly begging the question: you amuse the existence of some sort of transcendent morality an claim that anything else is therefore not truly moral.
What about viruses?
Because atheist and agnostic aren’t mutually exclusive. Atheist simply means one lacks a belief a god or gods. Agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief. One can be both agnostic and atheist, by being unsure, and therefore not believing.
Other species certainly share genetic material wth viruses. Whether this material, passed on by descent, originated in descent is the ‘not relevant’ caveat I mentioned in my earlier comment. Shared genetic material by descent extends to plants and to fungi.