College students likely to disagree with religious teachings that homosexuality is a sin

Jul 17, 2012 by Jared Wadley

(Phys.org) -- College students' beliefs about same-sex relationships can be shaped by their church's teachings, but some are willing to oppose their religion's position on the issue, a new University of Michigan study indicated.

And this can influence students' views about same-sex .

Researchers looked at whether or not ' taught that homosexuality was a sin and students' level of agreement with these teachings, which is described as syncretism.

Syncretism concerning same-sex sexuality plays a small but unique role in explaining opinions about attitudes toward same-sex marriage, beyond that of religious tradition, participation in services and importance of religion in one's life, says Michael Woodford, assistant professor of social work and the study's lead author.

"And what's most important, syncretism really matters for students who belong to religions that teach being gay is a sin," he said.

Woodford and colleagues collected data by using an anonymous Internet-based survey, with a sample consisting of nearly 1,100 of various faiths. The respondents answered questions about their religion, its teachings on homosexuality, the frequency they attended , and how important religion is to them.

While the researchers found high support for same-sex marriage, they also found that respondents affiliated with denominations that affirm homosexuality generally endorse same-sex marriage more than respondents affiliated with denominations that maintain that same-sex sexuality is a sin.

"Also, the more the individual's personal beliefs about same-sex sexuality are consistent with the teachings of anti-gay denomination, the lower is the rate of endorsement of same-sex marriage," Woodford said.

In other words, if someone belongs to a church that teaches being gay is a sin, the effect of those teachings on the person's endorsement of same-sex marriage depends on how consistent his personal beliefs are with those teachings.

The study's results highlight the complexity of religion and attitudes about controversial policy issues like same-sex marriage.

"Just because a person belongs to a homophobic religion, doesn't mean their line up with their church's teachings," Woodford said. "The same can be true for gay-affirming religions."

The results remind advocates for same-sex marriage not to assume that religiously affiliated individuals who belong to conservative religions will oppose same-sex marriage. In fact, researchers found that a large percentage of respondents, including individuals affiliated with anti-gay denominations, supported same-sex marriage.

"Part of religious life today involves thinking critically about what ones personal religious beliefs are, and these are not necessarily congruent with the doctrine of one's religion," he said.

Woodford collaborated on the research with N. Eugene Walls, associate professor at the University of Denver, and Denise Levy, assistant professor of at Appalachian State University.

The findings appear in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion.

Explore further: Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Sexual attitudes changing in South Korea

Jun 02, 2006

Two-thirds of South Korean college students said premarital sex was acceptable, reflecting an increasingly liberal mindset among Korean youths, a survey showed.

Marriage's effect on lesbian and gay couples studied

Mar 17, 2009

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships, including marriage, influences how gay and lesbian baby boomers prepare for late life and end of life issues. Unmarried same-sex couples may suffer greater fear and anxiety around ...

Recommended for you

Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

Aug 29, 2014

One wish many workers may have this Labor Day is for more control and predictability of their work schedules. A new report finds that unpredictability is widespread in many workers' schedules—one reason ...

Girls got game

Aug 29, 2014

Debi Taylor has worked in everything from construction development to IT, and is well and truly socialised into male-dominated workplaces. So when she found herself the only female in her game development ...

Computer games give a boost to English

Aug 28, 2014

If you want to make a mark in the world of computer games you had better have a good English vocabulary. It has now also been scientifically proven that someone who is good at computer games has a larger ...

Saddam Hussein—a sincere dictator?

Aug 28, 2014

Are political speeches manipulative and strategic? They could be – when politicians say one thing in public, and privately believe something else, political scientists say. Saddam Hussein's legacy of recording private discussions ...

User comments : 403

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
2.6 / 5 (33) Jul 17, 2012
"Part of religious life today involves thinking critically about what ones personal religious beliefs are, and these are not necessarily congruent with the doctrine of one's religion," he said.

This is certainly the take-away message from the article. The more critical one becomes of the bible - since the word "church" is used here, I assume the article refers to Christianity - the less one is inclined to believe what it says in plain, simple, straightforward language.
What this means is that those who believe that practicing homosexual acts is not a sin simply do not believe the bible. This brings into question why they would want to affiliate themselves with what is written in there in the first place.
Now, having said that, it's quite possible that someone who is new to the Christian faith can still carry over some of her/his previous beliefs, but it is generally the case [in my experience]that those who persist in condoning homosexual practice are not truly converted.
kevinrtrs
2.6 / 5 (35) Jul 17, 2012
"Part of religious life today involves thinking critically about what ones personal religious beliefs are, and these are not necessarily congruent with the doctrine of one's religion," he said.

Basically it comes down to inventing one's own religion, hence the word "syncretism" being used in the article.
In this case one simply elevates oneself above the word of God as depicted in the Christian-Judeo bible and installs oneself as the supreme being - able to decide what is right and what is wrong. This of course is nothing new - it's simply a modern variation of the original sin shown in genesis where Adam decided to disobey God.

Such a self-elevation then leads one to believe in billions of years, a local flood and of course sinless homosexual practice.
I'm just giving an explanation for the what the researchers found. It would have been very illuminating if they could have simultaneously tracked a belief in evolution and a local flood with this study on homosexual belief.
dogbert
3 / 5 (27) Jul 17, 2012
Michael Woodford has a long history of promoting same gender sexual behavior and unions. This is not so much a study as an agenda.

If you have any doubt about the bias of the study, note the use of the word "homophobic".

It is sad when people use the cloak of science to promote their personal agenda.
roboferret
3.5 / 5 (24) Jul 17, 2012
What is this obsession the fundies have with homosexuality?
Did it occur to you, Kev, that many people, Christians included, think Leviticus 18v22 is as relevant as Leviticus 19v19.
Why do we not get fundies protesting with "God Hates No-Iron Shirts" placards?
Had a haircut recently Kev? Hope it wasn't short back and sides (Leviticus 19v27). Or don't you believe the bible?
Or, like most of your kind, does the arguement boil down to "eeewww, buttsex"?

Newsflash. There are more Christian denominations than there are verses in the Bible. They all claim to have the One True interpretation. Yours is as selective as any. Who are you to decide who is converted or not?



SoylentGrin
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2012
"They disagree with my view of the bible, therefore they disagree with GOD HIMSELF!!"

Either they're equating themselves or a book with God. I'm not always sure which, either.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (25) Jul 17, 2012
A church I attended had a discussion of the issue and did discuss the purpose of marriage and why societies adopted that concept. That purpose was to protect women and raise children.
Today's 'progressive' doesn't believe children are a needed anymore for a society to grow. Or if they do, the govt should raise them so they have the appropriate indoctrination.
The state's purpose for recognizing marriage is to aid in defining property rights. But the 'progressives' don't support property rights and don't support inheritance, then there is no need to strictly define marriage. Any definition will do.
I argue the state should not recognize any definition of marriage. Then individuals would be free to define the term any way they choose.
But if you protest, and the state must recognize marriage, then the state, via the ballot box, MUST define the term.
If it becomes a civil 'rights' issue, then polygamy must be recognized by the state. To deny it interferes with the first amendment.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2012
Kevin, I gave you a 3 for that first comment... I've rated dozens of your comments, and I've never given them anything but a 1, because they are usually embarrassingly incorrect, presumptuous, or bigoted. But I found nothing that I disagree with in this case. If not for the second paragraph of your second comment I would have given that one a 3 as well, but alas, I had to give it a 1.
SatanLover
3 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2012
Today's 'progressive' doesn't believe children are a needed anymore for a society to grow.


sigh... when will you ever give up on your bullshit?
jane_ravenswood
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2012
this simply confirms that religion is nothing more than a human invention, an attempt to declare one's beliefs to be supported by a imaginary friend. Religion makes no one a better person, it only gives them a reason to remain that way. It also gives hateful bigots a way to excuse their attitudes "but but God feels the same way!" What childish primitive beliefs.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (22) Jul 17, 2012
Religion makes no one a better person

History says otherwise.
Ever hear of John Newton?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (25) Jul 17, 2012
Today's 'progressive' doesn't believe children are a needed anymore for a society to grow.


sigh... when will you ever give up on your bullshit?

Most of the 'progressive' followers of Paul Ehrlich encourage sterilization to cut population growth.
Sterilization prevents the birth of children and most 'progressives' favor murdering children before they are born.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2012
Today's 'progressive' doesn't believe children are a needed anymore for a society to grow.


sigh... when will you ever give up on your bullshit?

Most of the 'progressive' followers of Paul Ehrlich encourage sterilization to cut population growth.
Sterilization prevents the birth of children and most 'progressives' favor murdering children before they are born.


I'm in favor of both of those (with limitations and regulation, it's more complicated than you are making it out to be) and I have 2 sons that I love dearly... what now?

When you paint things in black and white you lose all the details, and you create a false representation of reality... understand?
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (23) Jul 17, 2012
I'm in favor of both of those (

You support coerced abortions and serialization?
What is complicated?
paint things in black and white you lose all the details,

Depends upon how small the black dots are on a white background.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Jul 17, 2012
If gaydom serves an important biological function, it is perhaps due to some perceived need to limit population growth.

Mechanisms which prevent or interrupt gestation can be found throughout the animal kingdom, and there is no reason not to expect them within our own species. Rabbit does in overcrowded warrens will absorb unborn fetuses for example.

It may be possible that this is an epigenetically-induced form of prenatal neutering, and so is normal in this context.

But as kevins religion, and all religions for that matter, base their morality EXCLUSIVELY upon outgrowing, overrunning, and obliterating their counterparts, it is understandable that their holy books would vilify anything which would counter this, natural or not.

And yet we are left with the curious icons of a softspoken lovegod batchelor who wanders about with his all-male entourage. And of course his mum, the only woman ever to give birth without being sullied by the touch of a man.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Jul 17, 2012
And what minority groups might these two images most appeal to? What groups typically harassed by society might want to live together in brotherhood and sisterhood, safe and secure behind monastery and nunnery walls, content to pursue their own interests and willing to vehemently defend the institution which enables this?

Homosexuals forced to live in society may raise families like anyone else, but they remain a danger to maximum growth. Enlisting them in the clergy however makes more sense.

"There are no homosexuals in iran" says amadinejad; and for all practical purposes he is right. EVERYONE in hardcore religionist cultures are enlisted in the vital process of reproductive aggression. Women begin reproducing as soon as possible and make babies until it kills them. Communities support families which can no longer support themselves.

In the west we keep females in school throughout what is biologically their most productive periods. Warren jeffs thinks this is immoral.
Deathclock
2.9 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2012
I'm in favor of both of those (

You support coerced abortions and serialization?
What is complicated?


COERCED abortions? No... you never said that... I'm in favor of having the option to have an abortion under several circumstances, including prior to the 2nd trimester, in the case of rape, or in the case of danger to the women if she were to give birth.

Sterilization is even more complicated, I am in favor of it in a limited set of specific circumstances and only if it can be reversed. I am in favor of sterilization for any violent crime for a length of time that is longer (twice as long?) as any resulting prison sentence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (27) Jul 17, 2012
Homosexual priestly castes are certainly not new. Eunichs and vestal virgin-type cults can be found throughout history. I would search for examples but I really dont want to. Try athena, artemus, dionysus, epicureans, hedonism, etc.

More Evidence that xianity is really only a continuation of preexisting institutions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (27) Jul 17, 2012
You support coerced abortions and serialization?
What is complicated?
Overpopulation is the most DANGEROUS THREAT to civilization today, as it always has been; and by extension are the institutions which promote it. And yes, they will tend to do this through coercion.

Women not living in such coercive religionist cultures will tend to limit the number of children they produce to what they can support. As they age they will begin to fear reproduction as a danger to their health, which it can very well be.

Societies forced to enact limits to family size do so for EXTREMELY IMPORTANT reasons. Women who flaunt these laws should expect to be punished for their wanton irresponsibility and disregard.

THEY allow themselves to become pregnant even though they know they will be forced to terminate the pregnancy.

Only religionists live under the caustic, murderous fantasy that god will provide for however many babies they can produce for him. He NEVER does.
Calenur
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 17, 2012
kevin, rygg, dogbert, you've overstayed your welcome. Please do the right thing and see yourselves out.

The ramblings of a long since irrelevant text (the bible) have no basis in reality, and the idea that they're used to influence public opinion makes me sick. Please, churches, pay us the taxes you owe and keep your bigotry out of my society.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (24) Jul 17, 2012
as it always has been

No, it has not.
BILLIONS of people live better TODAY than the few thousand world elite did 100 years ago.
The ramblings of a long since irrelevant text

It's not irrelevant to MILLIONS of people around the world.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (25) Jul 17, 2012
I'm in favor of both of those (

You support coerced abortions and serialization?
What is complicated?


COERCED abortions? No... you never said that... I'm in favor of having the option to have an abortion under several circumstances, including prior to the 2nd trimester, in the case of rape, or in the case of danger to the women if she were to give birth.

Sterilization is even more complicated, I am in favor of it in a limited set of specific circumstances and only if it can be reversed. I am in favor of sterilization for any violent crime for a length of time that is longer (twice as long?) as any resulting prison sentence.

So you do support coerced population control. That's how Planned Parenthood started, in the eugenics 'science' 100 years ago.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (24) Jul 17, 2012
While college student are readily available for studies, the efficacy of any data collected is poor.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Jul 17, 2012
BILLIONS of people live better TODAY than the few thousand world elite did 100 years ago.
?? Define 'better' as opposed to 'relative'. Our houses are so clean that it is stunting our immune systems as children, and we suffer our whole lives with allergies as a result. We would be living much healthier, simpler and saner lives if capitalists didnt coerce us into buying all sorts of nonsense we didnt need.

And of course, billions live in demonstrably worse conditions than their counterparts did in the past. Dont they? http://en.wikiped..._poverty
It's not irrelevant to MILLIONS of people around the world.
They are seriously deluded. They think that there is no alternative to the bigotry and fantasy that the book sells them. They dont know that the book is full of LIES as are all holy books.

Look at yourself - these lies have been spelled out for you and yet you prefer them to reality, because they make you FEEL better. As does any such drug.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (25) Jul 17, 2012
capitalists didnt coerce us into buying

How do they do that?

All novels are lies so they have no social value? All of Shakespeare's work are lies, all of Aesop's fables, all lies and have NO value in Auto's rational world.
What distinguishes humans from other animals is the capability of abstraction.
Alas Auto does not have this ability.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2012
It is interesting that the young US generation is as critical towards religious authority on homosexuality as on science (climate science and biology,say). This is promising, and it is probably the internet that has enlightened the fundamentalist darkness.

That said, creationists shouldn't comment on science, they are ludicrous.

"bible" - argumentum ad populum fallacy.

"self-elevation" - said from a position argued from populum and from special pleading. Can you be more arrogant than to think your belief is true, explains the world and your magical skydaddy enslaves the world? As opposed to, say, find the facts out yourself.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2012
@ ryggesogn2:

"Today's 'progressive' doesn't believe children are a needed anymore for a society to grow."

Newsflash: homosexual behavior is not a disease and it is not genetically transmitted. Even if you contain those who display it, you will find a) the same amount of homosexuals appearing outside the fence b) procreation inside the fence.

For a social animal, humans display very little homosexuality. Compare with bonobos or goats. The reason is probably because evolution has adjusted the behavior to suit our tight society.

"Most of the 'progressive' followers of Paul Ehrlich encourage sterilization to cut population growth."

And now you are just lying, and showing it by not giving references. Most progressives procreate and they also recognize the problems of overpopulation as early biologists did, way before Ehrlich. (I had forgotten about him.)
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 17, 2012
There is hope from university students:
"Students wearing empty holsters have gained full attention at Oakland University. OU Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, which was officially approved as a student organization Monday, has been demonstrating on campus since last week and will continue through Thursday."
http://oaklandpos...tention/
http://concealedcampus.org/
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2012
Ehrlich:
"We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."
"One plan often mentioned involved the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size. "
"A governmental first marriage grant could be awarded each couple in which the age of both partners was 25 or more. "
http://rinf.com/a...on/1957/
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2012
""We must cut out the cancer of population growth. Coercion? Perhaps, but coercion in a good cause [population control] ... We must be relentless in pushing for population control."

(Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968)"
http://www.ukapol...rol.html

The UK is doing its part with the NHS rationing health care and killing the old folks.

"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

Read more: http://www.dailym...0vmvoPCL
"
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2012
Ehrlich:


Who is Ehrlich and why should I care? Are you trying to shoe horn the beliefs of millions of "progressives" (your term, not mine) into line with this man who I've never heard of?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (22) Jul 17, 2012
What kind of 'liberal' has never heard of Ehrlich?
Physorg has many stories about him.
http://phys.org/n...net.html
http://phys.org/n...red.html
Deathclock
2.9 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2012
You label me... I don't label myself. I think labels are for simpletons.
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 18, 2012
FYI, I skimmed those articles you linked to, and if they accurately represent the beliefs of this Ehrlich then I don't agree with him. The number of humans the planet can support is not fixed, as technology advances we can support a larger population. Human population EXPLODED with the switch from nomadic hunter/gatherer societies to agricultural societies, not because people wanted it to, but because it COULD. We don't have to worry about the number of people the planet can support, because the resource/technological limitations will take care of the problem for us through starvation/disease/war etc... The only choice we have is to willfully limit our population growth or to let nature do it for us... the latter is often less humane though.
xen_uno
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
Religious conservatives like ryg are the worst. They want abortion to be illegal yet don't want to pay for the child once born, because in most cases the parent can't afford the kid, so the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

As far as the article is concerned, I'm glad that the majority of the students are able to break free of religious shackles and think for themselves.
Anorion
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
would be funny to see reaction of those conservatives gay haters, when / if they have kids and some become ....gay.
oups! must be cause they sined and gawd punished them by sending them gay childrens ! or maybe its even devils work ! exorcism anyone ?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (16) Jul 18, 2012
Today's 'progressive' doesn't believe children are a needed anymore for a society to grow.

You know - whether gays marry or not: They're not going to have children either way. So preventing them from marrying is going to do diddly-squat for the birth rate.
And marriage is also not really an issue about whether you will have children or not, anymore. That used to be so 50 years ago - but today the two issues have nothing to do with one another.

BILLIONS of people live better TODAY than the few thousand world elite did 100 years ago.

No thanks to religion. You should thank science for that one (Something religion has fought tooth nail and claw since the dark ages).
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2012
Religious conservatives like ryg are the worst. They want abortion to be illegal yet don't want to pay for the child once born,

Well, sure. He's a freeloader at heart. Taxbreaks for him, cheap labor to get all the stuff he needs (slave labor if he can get it), and coerced business deals with other nations at the point of a gun.

If he really were to do the math on what his life costs society and the environment he'd have to come to grips with the notion that HE is the parasite - and that the only reason why he can continue to live the way he lives is by other chipping in more than they get out of the system (which is even MORE extreme than socialism!).
JVK
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2012
...the key components of this olfactory/pheromonal model appear to be as irreducibly complex as the basic tenets of evolution and the basic tenets of religion.
From an evolutionary perspective, highly conserved GnRH peptide ligand/receptor signaling mechanisms are the molecular biochemical mechanisms for sexual reproduction in all organisms. These signaling mechanisms also appear to play an integral role in the development of sexual preferences. From a religious perspective, these signaling mechanisms dictate that the creation of life, which begets life, also allows for the creation of diversified life through the same mechanisms.
Perhaps the creation of diversified human life gave us the ability to recognize differences between our sexual behavior and the sexual behavior of others. Since all life does not beget diversified life, those who judge sexual preferences that do not seem to result in diversified life may be judging creation itself.
alfie_null
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2012
Go off to college, get exposed to other cultures, other points of view. Understand others better. Cease to feel threatened by them. Is there something bad about this?
Regarding the fringe right viewpoint espoused by some here, I'd guess that these groups have to synthesize bogeymen, spread FUD, to create a rationale for their existence. Tools.
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2012
Go off to college, get exposed to other cultures, other points of view. Understand others better. Cease to feel threatened by them. Is there something bad about this?

Of course. When you have invested most of your life into one set of ideals then anything that migh put those ideals into perspective (or show them to be self contradictory, mysoginistic or just plain wrong) is a threat.

Humans tend to recoil from perceived threats.

It's a struggle to push through a threat. It will detroy old ideals but you'll certainly get new (and better) ones down the road.

Trading immediate comforts for future gains has, however, never been a strong point for most humans - so they tend to want to stick to their comfy delusions.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2012
And marriage is also not really an issue about whether you will have children or not, anymore. That used to be so 50 years ago - but today the two issues have nothing to do with one another.

Then end govt recognition and preferential treatment towards marriage if it's not important.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2012
so the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

There are many who want to adopt. So much so they go to China or Romania or Korea to adopt babies.
And there are people in the US who WILL pay, using private money. to care for the mother until she has the baby and allows the baby to be adopted.
It is the socialist welfare state that creates the illusion that taxpayers are stuck with any bill.
But why do you care about this in the first place? The present regime is PROMOTING, advertising on radio and TV to increase the number of dependents. They should welcome the opportunity to have more babies dependent upon the govt.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
You label me... I don't label myself. I think labels are for simpletons.

The only choice we have is to willfully limit our population growth

You label yourself.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
No thanks to religion. You should thank science for that one (Something religion has fought tooth nail and claw since the dark ages).


No, thanks to religion.
It was the religious monks that kept science alive during the dark ages caused by the collapse of the socialist Roman Empire.
"Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus."
"Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God."
"Even the so-called dark ages from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome."
http://blogs.natu...dle-ages
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Jul 18, 2012
Newsflash: homosexual behavior is not a disease and it is not genetically transmitted.
-Neither of which you can say for sure because nobody yet knows for sure. In 'Religulous', maher interviews a married minister who proclaims to be 'cured' of his former gayness. Maher himself has admitted to gay experiences.

I can propose that it is an epigrnetic phenomenon because it makes sense in the context of our animal natures and our chronic overpopulation. We are tropical animals who have eliminated most natural attritive factors in our environment you see. But who knows if I'm right? (I probably am)

The discovery that mothers neuter their children in the womb would be a politically unfortunate one, and difficult for doctoral theses and securing grant money I suppose. This would suggest for instance that it IS preventable. Would parents choose to engineer this out of their prenatal children? Who might be screaming bloody murder at the possibility?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Jul 18, 2012
No thanks to religion.
Hey we agree on something. I have this on a t-shirt.
It was the religious monks that kept science alive during the dark ages
Who else? That was their JOB. It is why they existed.

But in truth your source is hopelessly biased. Science and the preservation of knowledge occured in the Islamic world, and was reintroduced to the west only after the Americas had been secured.

The principle Reason for the religionist martial which was imposed on Europe, was the extreme DANGER that independent trade with the pre-Columbian cultures posed to western civilization. Those were virulent cultures with million-man armies and cities bigger than any in Europe. And they had a healthy appreciation for science as well.

Had they acquired knowledge of gunpowder, iron metallurgy, and ocean navigation, they would have destroyed the Eurasian cultures. Not to mention all the gold and silver which would have crashed euro economies had it flooded markets there. Obviously.

antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2012
Then end govt recognition and preferential treatment towards marriage if it's not important.

Over here that is already happening. Tax advantages for married couples are being reduced (and same sex couples are starting to be accorded similar rights with reagrds to inheritance, custody of children, etc. )

It was the religious monks that kept science alive during the dark ages

That's why I said SINCE the dark ages (and you even quoted that part in your post). After that...well...history and todays' news) speak for themselves. When was the last time that religion actually made anything better in your living memory?
JVK
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2012
When was the last time that religion actually made anything better in your living memory?


Each day, actually. Every time I remember my role in medical diagnostics, and especially when all treatment efforts fail, I am reminded that not only my religious beliefs but the beliefs of others make survivors better able to adapt to their loss. Even my atheist or agnostic 'biker' friends acknowledge that the loss of our mutual friend, who was killed by a drunk driven while riding with them, is a bit easier to accept since he was a Christian, as were his family members.

Francis Collins, who is the current NIH director writes of similar reasons for his Christian beliefs in "The Language of God." Collins, as some may know, led the human genome project to its completion, which is why I gave copies of his book to two college students after asking if peer pressure had caused them any doubts about their beliefs. Both of them are also involved in scientific study.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 18, 2012
You label me... I don't label myself. I think labels are for simpletons.

The only choice we have is to willfully limit our population growth

You label yourself.


What? Where? Are you referring to that out of context quote at the end there where you conveniently left of the "OR" part?

I said "The only choice we have is to willfully limit our own population growth OR let nature do it for us"

I REALLY hate people that are intentionally dishonest. Don't quote out of context when the source you're quoting is 3 posts above yours you fucking moron.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
and same sex couples are starting to be accorded similar rights with regards to inheritance, custody of children, etc


The state should not recognize ANY such 'rights' if the state does not recognize marriage.
Why should the state recognize or grant any privilege to any family relationship?
SINCE the dark ages

"Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus." "Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God." "Even the so-called dark ages from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome." http://blogs.natu...dle-ages

ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (22) Jul 18, 2012
I REALLY hate people that are intentionally dishonest.

I am in favor of sterilization for any violent crime for a length of time that is longer (twice as long?) as any resulting prison sentence.


What is the context here?
So far you acknowledge support govt laws that kill babies and sterilize criminals.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2012
What is the context here?

You quoted out of context with the intent to misrepresent me...

So far you acknowledge support govt laws that kill babies and sterilize criminals.


I don't support "killing babies", you are disingenuous and you attempt to use emotional appeals in your argument by wording things in such a way. Fetuses are not babies... They are not only unconscious in early development, but they have NEVER achieved consciousness. They are no more of a person than a sperm cell, or a potato.

I support temporary sterilization of convicted violent criminals, yes. If you are put in jail for rape, murder, assault, etc then you are not fit to be a parent, by any sane persons definition of a fit parent. I believe people can and do change over time, so the sterilization term must be limited and so the procedure must obviously be reversible.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2012
I support temporary sterilization

How do you do that?

How is a fetus genetically different than any other human? Is fetus a separate species?

hey are not only unconscious in early development, but they have NEVER achieved consciousness.

How do you KNOW?
I here playing music to babies in the womb is beneficial.
Scientist_Steve
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2012
@ Deathclock
"I support temporary sterilization of convicted violent criminals"
I have always agreed with this statement and what you go on to say. Unfortunately, i often hear the argument that reproduction is considered a right protected under the constitution. Personally, i think if you are convicted of any of the crimes you listed, most of your rights should be revoked anyway.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2012
I support temporary sterilization of convicted violent criminals

I'm not really sure what the next generation has deserved to be punished for the sins of their fathers. That smacks of 'original sin'.

Revoke social rights and privileges: fine. But revoking the ability to have children is going too far.

Society is a system of rights and privileges. But the ability to have children is not a right (or a privilege) granted by society - so it should not be something used in punishment
(which can also be said about freedom - but imprisonment is a also a means of protecting society...something that doesn't figure in having/not being able to have children)
Deathclock
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2012
I support temporary sterilization of convicted violent criminals

I'm not really sure what the next generation has deserved to be punished for the sins of their fathers. That smacks of 'original sin'.


I find this an extremely odd way of looking at things... I would argue that I am doing the would-be child a favor by not permitting them to be born to shitty, violent, abusive parents... but even then, that would be child does not exist so I can't do them a favor, or harm for that matter.

People don't exist until they exist... not allowing the conception of a human life is not tantamount to murder, or even to denying someone a life... the person that MIGHT exist but will not exist due to a sterilization policy DOES NOT EXIST, I cannot possibly do anything unjust to a person that does not exist.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2012
I find this an extremely odd way of looking at things... I would argue that I am doing the would-be child a favor by not permitting them to be born to shitty, violent, abusive parents...

Criminals are automatically abusive parents? Woha. Where did you get that from?
Next we'll prohibit all alcoholics from having kids.

People don't exist until they exist... not allowing the conception of a human life is not tantamount to murder

I'm not arguing for murder - I'm just arguing that you're not accomplishing anything by preventing them from having kids (and if the crime is really THAT serious then they are in jail and can't have kids anyhow during that time)
I'd also argue that, potentially a kid could be a rehabilitative factor. I sounds like you're saying that someone who has paid his debt to society should not be considered exonerated but should be considered worthy of further punishment - despite having received his punishment.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2012
Criminals are automatically abusive parents? Woha. Where did you get that from?


I didn't say criminals, I specified violent criminals every time I've said it. FYI I don't agree with most laws, especially drug laws and other nanny-state laws. In my opinion rapist, murderers, and other violent felons should not be parents.

Next we'll prohibit all alcoholics from having kids.


Strawman? I didn't argue this. I said violent criminals.

I'm not arguing for murder - I'm just arguing that you're not accomplishing anything by preventing them from having kids


Really? Maybe Germany is different, or maybe your perspective is limited, but I have seen the horrible torment that children can go through when they are born to shitty parents. To claim that preventing this would not accomplish anything is a position that I cannot understand.
Deathclock
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2012
@ Deathclock
"I support temporary sterilization of convicted violent criminals"
I have always agreed with this statement and what you go on to say. Unfortunately, i often hear the argument that reproduction is considered a right protected under the constitution. Personally, i think if you are convicted of any of the crimes you listed, most of your rights should be revoked anyway.


Agreed. The reality is shitty people come from other shitty people... kids with terrible parents will likely become terrible people and ultimately terrible parents of their own unfortunate children. Of course there are exceptions, but the exceptions are irrelevant considering the benefit such a policy would have.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2012
In my opinion rapist, murderers, and other violent felons should not be parents.

And I think once someone has served his punishment then that's it.
Strawman? I didn't argue this. I said violent criminals.

No. You're arguing that someone who has a high correlation for being abusive to their kids (e.g. violent criminals) should therefore be prohibited to have kids because they WILL be violent to them.
I think that is confusing correlation with causation.
(Alcoholics have the same correlation - that is why I brought it up)
I have seen the horrible torment that children can go through when they are born to shitty parents

No doubt. But coupling paternity to a criminal record (even by severity of crime) isn't a good idea.
There's no really good solution for that - and that isn't the issue here. You're not going to eradicate shitty parenting by preventing criminals from having babies. A murderer is probably more capable of raising a child responsibly than a crackhead.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2012
And I think once someone has served his punishment then that's it.


It would be a part of that punishment... it would be temporary and the term would be a part of the sentencing like a prison term... Like I said.

No. You're arguing that someone who has a high correlation for being abusive to their kids (e.g. violent criminals) should therefore be prohibited to have kids because they WILL be violent to them. I think that is confusing correlation with causation.


No, in this case correlation is sufficient, think about it... I'm not saying that being convicted of violent crimes CAUSES you to be violent... I don't care what causes it, if they are correlated then that is justification enough.

(Alcoholics have the same correlation - that is why I brought it up)


It's perfectly possible to be an alcoholic and never harm a fly. Drinking alcohol is not evidence of a violent nature... being convicted of violent crimes IS evidence of a violent nature.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2012
"A murderer is probably more capable of raising a child responsibly than a crackhead."

You're considering this in a vacuum. I didn't say that the ONLY qualification for being a good parent is not being a violent criminal... I said that being a violent criminal is evidence that you probably won't be a good parent.

Also, crack addicts are far more likely to get arrested for a violent crime, so yes there is some overlap there... but I am not going to punish drug users simply for using drugs, but I will punish drug users who commit violent crimes WHILE using those drugs (or otherwise of course).

You have to consider what type of people commit violent crimes... a good number of them ARE drug addicts... so the point you're making here is void.

Consider this, I would not punish people for actions that do not harm others. Smoking crack does not harm others, smoking crack is not the problem. The problem is what these people do BECAUSE they smoke crack, and the punishment is for that alone.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2012
It's POSSIBLE to do drugs all your life and be a great person, to never hurt anyone, and to raise your child well... hence I wouldn't punish anyone simply for doing those drugs. I would punish them for harming someone else, whether it be caused by drug use or whatever else. I don't give a flying fuck what your reason was for raping, murdering, or violently assaulting someone... that doesn't matter... it means you are not, at this point in your life, suitable to be a parent.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 18, 2012
But the ability to have children is not a right (or a privilege) granted by society -

It is in some societies now and supported my many who post here for the world.

I would argue that I am doing the would-be child a favor by not permitting them to be born to shitty, violent, abusive parents.


Do you like playing God? BTW, did you bother to ask the would-be-child if he would want to exist?
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2012
did you bother to ask the would-be-child if he would want to exist?


When you hold irrational views your arguments tend to devolve into the irrational.

To answer your question, I cannot ask anything of a person who does not exist... When you fully understand the consequences of this come back and we will continue our discussion.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 18, 2012
did you bother to ask the would-be-child if he would want to exist?


When you hold irrational views your arguments tend to devolve into the irrational.

To answer your question, I cannot ask anything of a person who does not exist... When you fully understand the consequences of this come back and we will continue our discussion.


. I would argue that I am doing the would-be child a favor by not permitting them to be born to shitty, violent, abusive parents.


Everyone suffers. Are you doing people a favor by ending their misery? Who are you to judge?
xen_uno
3.4 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
Who is this god character, ryg? Would that be the same one that thru nature aborts life continuously? Is he vengeful? He must be instrumental in famines and other natural catastrophes. I'm curious where your religion ends and your understanding of science begins.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2012
Everyone suffers.


Doesn't have to be that way...

Are you doing people a favor by ending their misery?


/sigh...

I am not ending anyone's misery, I am preventing it from ever occurring in the first place. Again, theoretical people who do not exist DO NOT EXIST, I don't have to consider their desires because they do not have any because they do not exist. I told you to come back once you fully understand this, you have obviously ignored me.

Who are you to judge?


Who am I to judge that it's good to prevent misery? Are you arguing that misery might be good? This is getting pretty philosophical (intentionally or not), but lets just agree that suffering is bad, okay?
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2012
This same irrational position is exhibited by most people who oppose these things, they think someone that does not exist has feelings or desires... it's nonsense and that is obvious for anyone of sound mind, but it fits right in to a worldview that is full of magic and mysticism.

Ryg thinks that souls are waiting in a giant line in heaven to be sent into the body of a new baby... he thinks that they'll have to wait longer if we sterilize people, or if you use a condom, or if you don't fuck with the intent to impregnate every single night.

It's just stupid horseshit.
xen_uno
3 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2012
Ryg can judge because he's religious, therefore moral. Ted Haggard could blast homosexuality because he's religious, therefore moral, despite being a homosexual himself. Jesse Jackson can race hustle because he's religious, therefore moral. I wonder what examples of hypocrisy ryg has in his closet ...
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2012
Most of this stuff is about fear. I'm not going to use the word homophobia, because I don't think people are afraid of homoxexuals...I think their fears are more internal.

They're afraid that society is changing and it's not the vision they had for it. It's not turning out how it "should". If "this" or "that" become accepted then they'll be confronted with it and they'll have to take an honest look at their beliefs and why they hold them...most people don't want to do that...

As to whether or not it's a sin is a non-sequitir, since there is no such thing as a sin. You can talk about whether or not it's "right" or "wrong" if you want, but I'm not even sure that's helpful. It would be better to talk about whether or not something is mature or not mature and in this respect it's more instructive to ask that question about the people asking the question in the first place...
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 18, 2012
Ryg can judge

What am I judging?
I have simply stated that IF the govt is going to grant benefits and privilege to a construct called 'marriage', then the govt MUST define the term. Which they have in many govts: minimum age, only one spouse at a time, one man one woman, etc.
Before the 'progressives' run off and try to make society 'better' by forcing society to change, maybe they should give some thought as to why the how the institution of marriage evolved and why has the state granted benefits and privilege to those who are married.
'Progressive' don't like that discussion so in many states they have tried to use courts for force society to accept their views. Not very democratic.
The end result of declaring marriage a 'right' MUST lead to every definition desired. And especially Mormons and Muslims must be allowed multiple wives based upon their religious rights.
Just think of all those conservative Muslims and Mormons making babies.
What has 'liberalism' wrought?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2012
Are you arguing that misery might be good?

Adversity builds character.
Boot camp, BUD/S are miserable for a reason.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2012
Are you arguing that misery might be good?

Adversity builds character.
Boot camp, BUD/S are miserable for a reason.


You and I are using the term "misery" differently. Being raped by your father does not build character. Being physically and mentally abused by your mother does not build character... it traumatizes you for life and causes you to become someone equally terrible.

Evil begets evil, right? It's often true.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 18, 2012
it traumatizes you for life and causes you to become someone equally terrible.

Better to follow in the path of the Shakers and end all misery?
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
it traumatizes you for life and causes you to become someone equally terrible.

Better to follow in the path of the Shakers and end all misery?


I'm not familiar with the reference, but if you are talking about ending the human race then even you must see how nuts you are to take the statements I have made in this discussion and extend them to that extreme.
SatanLover
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2012
character? are you kidding me? do you want everyone to be some kind of character that the elite made up or do you want people to be themselves?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 18, 2012
Death, you chose your name well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
This is a very active thread. Nobody even acknowledged that it was MOSLEMS not monks who reintroduced sequestered knowledge into medieval europe.
http://en.wikiped...l_Europe

-Or you could keep PRETENDING to know. Why not?
Every time I remember my role in medical diagnostics, and especially when all treatment efforts fail, I am reminded that not only my religious beliefs but the beliefs of others make survivors better able to adapt to their loss...
-You mean like antidepressants or PTSD counseling? Because as we know, the variations many of religionist fantasy have ALL been proven to be based on untruths.

None of the bible stories ever happened; and by extension, neither did any of those found in the koran. Archeology has CONFIRMED this for us.

I suppose you could just as well wish upon a star or make up an imaginary friend... or you could use antidepressants and PTSD therapy instead of superstition. Ah its a crapshoot really-
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2012
None of the bible stories ever happened;


"The largest ancient dam built by the ancient Maya of Central America"
Why did it take so long for anyone to find this?

"According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly."

"And God said, Let there be light, and there was light."

The first part of the Bible is consistent with modern theory.
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2012
Death, you chose your name well.


Yeah I'm so evil, not wanting kids to suffer horrible childhoods and all that, what a monster!
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 18, 2012
"The years from AD 500-1,000 were the "Golden Age" for Irish medieval scholarship. It was a time when wandering Irish monks made their definitive mark on the European study of mathematics, astronomy and the sciences, states Prof Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, the director of NUI Galway's Foundations of Irish Culture Project."
http://www.irisht...968.html

Mohammed wasn't born until 570.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2012
Death, you chose your name well.


Yeah I'm so evil, not wanting kids to suffer horrible childhoods and all that, what a monster!


Your method to prevent suffering is non-existence or death.

I recommend "Man's Search for Meaning".
http://www.goodre..._Meaning
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2012
Death, you chose your name well.


Yeah I'm so evil, not wanting kids to suffer horrible childhoods and all that, what a monster!


Your method to prevent suffering is non-existence or death.


Death? No...

Non-existence? So what? You still think that preventing someone's conception is equivalent to murdering them? You still think that people who do not exist have feelings or opinions? Every second that you are NOT impregnating a women you are participating in the denial of existence of countless millions of potential humans... see how insane that line of reasoning is?

Have you impregnated a women today Ryg? No? Then you denied a potential human their ENTIRE life... right, right? That's what you think right?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 18, 2012
Well Death, by your own admission, you support killing a fetus and you assert that the fetus is NOT human, a non-existent human.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2012
First: I don't get your point...

Second: No, I never said this. A fetus is a human, a fetus is not a person. Do you understand the difference? A PERSON has a life, a history, a personality, memories, emotions, etc... these are defining qualities of personhood. A HUMAN is any living organism of the species homo sapien sapien. A fetus is a human, it is a human fetus... a fetus is not yet a person. Yes, abortion is killing, though it is not murder. When you pick a flower you kill the flower, but you do not murder the flower.

These terms have meaning, you should familiarize yourself with them.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Then the NAZI concentration camps did not murder anyone as it was quite lawful.
Same for the millions killed by Stalin, Mao, DPRK, Pol Pot, ....

Death is ok with killing humans, just not 'persons'.
I guess that's how the socialists can kill, they just declare some humans non-persons.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2012
Do you seriously not understand the difference between a pre-conscious fetus and a person who's been alive for years?

You're a fucking idiot... where do you draw the line? When is it okay to kill the pre-person, when it is a sperm cell? egg with a sperm? 4 cells? 8 cells? 16? 32? 64?

You tell me, in your woefully ignorant opinion how many cells must a fetus have in order to qualify as a person? Tell me where the line is... because it has to start somewhere.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (16) Jul 19, 2012
@DC
What you may not realize or never learned, is that not only do the cells keep dividing before birth, but the cells divide AFTER the baby is born. AND those cells continue to divide long after birth and in the growing years of the child all the way to adulthood. New cells are always added throughout a person's life and old cells die and are cast off.
It is the particular CELL DIVISION that makes us human, from the zygote to the blastoma to the foetus - the cells are always dividing. As the foetus grows in the uterus, cells divide to make the brain, heart, spine, face, body, hair and nails - everything that makes a baby is due to cell division.

http://news.bbc.c...5892.stm
Right now, YOUR cells are dividing. LIFE consists of cell division and it continues until we die and cell division ceases. So, your argument that a foetus is human but not a person is false. The human cells and human DNA make it a person.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2012
The DNA is a remnant of every living person in that baby's ancestry, thereby making it a combination of many people who ever lived in the past in his or her family..
Some of the differences between you, a fully grown person, and an unborn foetus, is your experiences and acquisition of knowledge and stimulations after you came out of the womb. But your human cells have divided to make you the person you are, and will continue to divide until you die. While you have grown and become who you are, another foetus has yet to get to the same stage as yours. That is also a person who has yet to enter the stages of life that you have already gone through. To consider it a non-person or just a bunch of cells is trivializing life. It was nothing before the egg and the sperm came together. But once cell division started, then life started. You could even say, from nothing came something and it would be true.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2012
College students are allowed to think any way they want....whether it be about heterosexuality, polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, bisexuality, transsexuality, foot fetishism, Socialism and Capitalism...even Taoism.
Homosexuality is NOT a sin....it is a mental aberration, even though the world of psychology prefers to call it a normal sexual practice and behavior, which it is not. This aberration has been going on since prehistoric times, and it will probably continue well into the future.
The religious and other intolerance for it will make no difference as every generation produces children who are psychologically homosexual and nothing can be done about it. If college students are being brainwashed to accept homosexuality by their educators, or even encouraged to indulge in that practice, it is the students themselves who have to determine wrong from right and understand the difference.
Intolerance only makes one bitter and unhappy. But coercion to accept it as normal is wrong.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2012
I don't care what causes it, if they are correlated then that is justification enough.

The problem here is: it's just a slippery slope. You can find such correlations all over the place. Then it's a matter of defining the cutoff point. With long jail sentences for severe crimes the thing you propose (double the time preventing them from having kids) is equivalent to forced sterilization. And you'd probably have to have forced (at least temporary) sterilization because there's just no way you could enforce that (except for mandatory DNA checks of all babies after birth and forced killing if the DNA matches an offender - and that still leaves the ability to have the child elsewhere).

Basically we'd be back in the mid 1900's eugenics programs.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2012
What you may not realize or never learned, is that not only do the cells keep dividing before birth, but the cells divide AFTER the baby is born.


Ummm... what? Of course they do... so what? I am not sure if you misunderstood my point or what, but this has nothing to do with anything.

The point I was trying to make was surely no tears would be shed for ending a pregnancy a millisecond after fertilization, because you cannot make a tenable argument that it is wrong to kill a couple of cells.... I was asking where the line is, when it becomes "wrong" (in his or your opinion) to end the pregnancy, how many cells must the fetus posses, or whatever trait must it possess, for it to be "wrong" to have an abortion? In my opinion it becomes wrong with the development of consciousness... but you all seem to disagree, so I am asking you to tell me what you think.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2012
The problem here is: it's just a slippery slope


"If you are rape, murder, or violently assault someone (not in self defense) you are not currently fit to be a parent."

Please argue against that point... or do you agree? It doesn't matter WHY you raped/murdered/assaulted someone... be it drug influence, mental disease, anger management problem etc... these all mean you should not be a parent right now.

With long jail sentences ... is equivalent to forced sterilization.


Sure, so what? If you are convicted of such a serious crime to get decades in jail then so what? The jail sentence alone is basically sterlization, we do this already.

you'd probably have to have forced sterilization


Yes...

except for mandatory DNA checks of all babies after birth and forced killing if the DNA matches an offender


I would never support such a thing.

we'd be back in the mid 1900's eugenics programs.


Not by a long shot. Exaggeration.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2012
So, your argument that a foetus is human but not a person is false. The human cells and human DNA make it a person.


You don't understand the difference between those two terms, and what is most troubling is that it should have been evident to you as you wrote this, yet you didn't bother to do any research on the subject... you seem to be considering these terms as synonyms, they are not.

Human cells and human DNA make it a HUMAN. A PERSON has a PERSONALITY and qualifies for legal protection of their defined rights in society... it is a matter of philosophy, it is not simple term to be looked up in Miriam-Webster.

http://en.wikiped...rsonhood
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2012
"If you are rape, murder, or violently assault someone (not in self defense) you are not currently fit to be a parent."

I just don't see the connection. It's like saying "if you rape, murder or assault someone you're unfit to wear the color yellow"

If you mean that by showing disregard for the rights of others disqualifies you from being a parent then you propably have to include all politicians and anyone who has ever made an advertisement (now sterilizing those groups I'd happily endorse)

Point being: there even to people who have that kind of a criminal recors there can be a significant difference between 'kin' and 'victim'. For an extreme example you could probably look to the mafia. Good family men. Cold blooded killers.

Just saying: the causation you see isn't there. Correlation Yes. But there are a lot of other things that have a higher correlation to being bad parents.

Exaggeration

Try wikipedia on forced sterilization. No exaggeration at all.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2012
And realy when you get down to it: why do we punish people in the first place?

To not get them to do it again and to protect society fom their actions.

Using something totally unrelated to the crime isn't an effective punishment.
If you really want to have harsher punishment then lobby for longer prison sentences. That will have the same effect (as people don't tend to breed in prison)
Maat
3 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2012
I just don't see the connection. It's like saying "if you rape, murder or assault someone you're unfit to wear the color yellow"


I've been following this conversation and it's a very interesting one, I am conflicted on the topic myself, but in response to this I think it's about being violent, as DC said earlier people who would commit such acts either have a violent personality or some other problem that leads them to violence. The argument that people who commit violent acts would not make good parents on the average is tenable, in my opinion.

For an extreme example you could probably look to the mafia. Good family men. Cold blooded killers.


Yeah but, should they really raise children in that environment? You're saying a mafia hitman is a good role model for a child?

Just saying: the causation you see isn't there. Correlation Yes


Being a "bad parent" isn't necessarily an "active" thing though, it can a passive on as well, such as setting a bad example, etc.
Maat
3 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2012
What I meant by that last bit is that you don't have to do something directly to the child to be a bad parent, your actions that have nothing to do with the child can make you a bad parent. Suppose a mafia hitman has a family, and his family know nothing of his criminal life (unlikely but go with it) and by any outside observation appear to be a happy family... eventually his children are going to find out that he is a hitman, either when he winds up dead or in prison... imagine how that would affect them? An average teenager finding out that your father is a cold blooded killer... that type of disillusionment destroys people mentally.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2012
Yeah, as much as I like a good debate it seems that people who want to argue that violent criminals often make good parents are arguing for the sake of arguing... It seems the stigma with sterilization has everything to do with emotion and nothing to do with reason, and I say this because we already effectively sterilize these people during their prison sentences, and no one has a problem with that... I just think that your right to freedom and your right to produce offspring are separate issues and can be treated separately.

...and before you go using emotional arguments about violating people rights, we do that ALL THE TIME already, so unless you oppose prison entirely then that argument is invalid.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2012
I love all the 1 ratings from people who are too cowardly to participate in the discussion... you've gotta be quite the coward, or know that you are not an intellectual equal anyway, to hide yourself on an already anonymous medium.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 19, 2012
Tell me where the line is... because it has to start somewhere.

Yes, it does does it not?
And that is the point. If you want to feel good about yourself being able to kill babies before they are born you decided a person is "fill in the blank". Or if you want to kill old people you decide they are not longer a person when "fill in the blank".
But if you respect life, especially human life, you must agree human life and person hood begin at conception.
To choose otherwise will and has led to millions murdered.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2012
Yes, it does does it not?


Then tell me... I've asked several times now.

And that is the point. If you want to feel good about yourself being able to kill babies before they are born you decided a person is "fill in the blank".


The motive for separately defining a person from a human is based on our legal system and involves the extension of rights... the motive is NOT to validate murder. You're a lunatic.

Or if you want to kill old people you decide they are not longer a person when "fill in the blank".


Have I ever argued anything regarding killing old people? No? Then why are you bringing it up? I don't agree with it...

you must agree person hood begins at conception.


No, that's fucking stupid and it stems from your ignorance of both science and philosophy. It's an emotional position, not a rational one.

To choose otherwise will and has led to millions murdered.


Millions of "murdered" cells, better not scratch my ass!
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 19, 2012
The motive for separately defining a person from a human is based on our legal system and involves the extension of rights... the motive is NOT to validate murder.


Of course it it to validate murder.

It allows mothers and abortionists to FEEL good about themselves while killing a baby.

It's an emotional position, not a rational one.

Isn't 'personhood' defied by emotions?
The only rational, objective method to use genetics to define a person. Any other method is subjective and irrational.
Maat
2 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2012
Of course it it to validate murder. It allows mothers and abortionists to FEEL good about themselves while killing a baby.


I'm sure everyone feels really good about it, I am sure the rape victim feels awesome about it, or the mother who has to choose between her own life and her child's life... you're an idiot, no one likes doing it, it is sometimes the lesser of two alternatives.

Isn't 'personhood' defied by emotions?


If you had read the link I posted regarding personhood you wouldn't have to ask this...

http://en.wikiped...rsonhood
Deathclock
2 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2012
So according to your own statements a person begins at conception, so sterilization is of zero consequence to the non-existent babies that are not born as a result, correct?

There, killed one of your stupid arguments by forcing you to disagree with yourself, awesome huh?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Jul 19, 2012
"And God said, Let there be light, and there was light."
Sorry no. Your god produced light before he made the lightmaker for light here on earth - the sun. He got it backwards.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 19, 2012
And that is the point. If you want to feel good about yourself being able to kill babies before they are born
But ryggy feels fine about ascribing to a system that advocates producing so many babies that they have no choice but to die on the battlefield in adolescence. This is not HIS fault however, but the fault of his religionist adversaries whose culture only happens to be doing the very same thing, and blaming HIM for their misery.

Without religion-mandated overgrowth there would be plenty of room and resources for everybody, and no NEED for abortion. Religions go so far as to regard any form of family planning as an affront to god.

Therefore religion gives society only 2 choices: either abortion or war. Society does have a third choice however: RESIST and CONDEMN religion until it is GONE.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2012
Without religion-mandated overgrowth there would be plenty of room and resources for everybody, and no NEED for abortion. Religions go so far as to regard any form of family planning as an affront to god.

Therefore religion gives society only 2 choices: either abortion or war. Society does have a third choice however: RESIST and CONDEMN religion until it is GONE.


Otto shut the hell up, people don't have abortions due to overpopulation problems, no one thinks "there are too many people on this planet competing for its resources, I'd better do my part and get an abortion!"

Jesus Christ you guys are loons!
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 19, 2012
no one likes doing it, it is sometimes the lesser of two alternatives.

Is that why so many do everything they can to make it so easy to the point of violating the law?

a person begins at conception, so sterilization is of zero consequence

Sure. But you supported coerced sterilization to 'protect' children from being raised by bad parents.
But since the human being is not a person in the womb, that person does not exist so Death supports killing the human being, since he states it is not a person.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (21) Jul 19, 2012
Otto shut the hell up, people don't have abortions due to overpopulation problems
There have been ONE BILLION ABORTIONS within the last 100 years. A country the size of india, and their offspring to 2 and 3 generations, was never born.
http://www.johnst....html#SU
http://www.johnst...310.html

Where would all those people be living? What would they all be EATING? The overwhelming majority of these took place in communist china and the USSR. The world wars and the communist martial law regimes which followed, expressly destroyed the religionist cultures which would have resisted the legalization of abortion.

THIS WAS NO ACCIDENT. Peace reigns across eurasia only BECAUSE of abortion.

A womans freedom to choose means the freedom not to have to stand in breadlines, and send her children off to war. Overpopulation has always been the species' worst problem, and infanticide and war were always the only options.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2012
no one likes doing it, it is sometimes the lesser of two alternatives.

Is that why so many do everything they can to make it so easy to the point of violating the law?


It's to protect the right to use it as an option in the regrettable situations that I mentioned... no one LIKES getting or giving abortions, just like no one really likes putting a wounded animal (or person) out of it's misery, but it's the right thing to do in some cases.

a person begins at conception, so sterilization is of zero consequence

You support coerced sterilization to protect children from being raised by bad parents.

But since the human being is not a person in the womb, that person does not exist so you support killing the human being, since it is not a person


You have two sentences here, the second begins with "but, since..." which leads me to believe that they should be connected in some logical way, but I am having trouble seeing the connection between the two...
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2012
Okay Otto, I get what you're saying, but it was an unintended side effect if anything. No individual women is motivated to get an abortion due to a real or imaginary population crisis...

Overpopulation has always been the species' worst problem, and infanticide and war were always the only options.


Abstinence? Contraceptives?

I agree with you that whether or not we actively control our population it WILL be controlled, by nature if nothing else, with equally tragic results. People don't understand this... regardless of whether we force limits on number of children or force sterilization or murder babies (ugh...), the alternative to doing nothing is starvation, war, disease, and death regardless. Overpopulation is not possible, nature will see to that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (23) Jul 19, 2012
Jesus Christ you guys are loons!
So perhaps DC has learned something new today, and the world looks a little less confusing to him yes? Humans have eliminated most all natural attritive elements. This has resulted in chronic overpopulation and intertribal conflict.

These conditions directed our evolution throughout the pleistocene. Religion learned how to prevail in conflict by maximizing these tendencies. But as technology made war more dangerous to civilization, Alternatives had to be found.

Whereas infanticide was traditionally the only alternative to war, technology has given us reliable ways of effecting it prenatally. Western culture has been altered to enable women to CHOOSE to limit family size.

The human condition is a horrific one. The Goal is to offer people compelling alternatives to making large families. But obviously for this to endure, the religions which restrict women to making and raising children, have to END.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2012
I agree with most of that, at least there's nothing I see that is particularly wrong with it... I still don't think the only options are abortion/infanticide or war/starvation... contraceptives and abstinence are what we should be pushing for, no help from the Catholic church of course...

From a purely theoretical point of view... some people don't want and won't have children, some people cannot have children whether they want to or not, and some people die before they can... so if, on average, everyone else had 1 child to replace themselves (2 in a family, to replace father and mother) our population would decrease steadily. It's not a problem to have kids, it's a problem to have a litter of them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 19, 2012
it was an unintended side effect if anything.
The sheer MAGNITUDE of this, and the FACT that it is the only possible solution to humanitys most serious endemic problem, means that it cannot be anything BUT the primary Reason. The wars were fought expressly to destroy the religion-dominated cultures which would have resisted the new technologies which made abortion possible.
No individual women is motivated to get an abortion due to a real or imaginary population crisis
The natural tendency of a woman is to limit family size, select for quality over quantity in her offspring, and to STOP bearing children as she ages because, for humans, it becomes more dangerous the older she gets.

Women know these these things intrinsically. The unnatural state, the one in which we have been living for the last few millenia, is the one forced upon us by religion. Women have typically died in childbirth trying to meet the quotas imposed upon them by some warmonger god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 19, 2012
I agree with most of that, at least there's nothing I see that is particularly wrong with it... I still don't think the only options are abortion/infanticide or war/starvation
They always have been. Warfare was the norm throughout the pleistocene. Religion discovered how to make things WORSE.

"3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate." psm127

-A typical edict. Start as young as possible and bear till you drop. The Formula for world conquest. IT WORKED.
our population would decrease steadily. It's not a problem to have kids, it's a problem to have a litter of them.
2.1 children/family is the current replacement figure.
http://en.wikiped...ity_rate

-Only within the last few gens do we have Alternatives.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2012
Only within the last few gens do we have Alternatives.


Abstinence was always an option...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (23) Jul 19, 2012
Only within the last few gens do we have Alternatives.


Abstinence was always an option...
Not for religionists. For them it is an insult to god. As tropical animals our natural tendency is to reproduce. The act of making babies is so pleasurable because it is so important. Raising children is the MOST rewarding thing we can do. This makes the human condition even more tragic. Abstinence is painful for the young.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2012
As tropical animals our natural tendency is to reproduce.


Tropical or not, every individual of every successful species is driven to reproduce frequently, that is why the species is successful.

The act of making babies is so pleasurable because it is so important.


Agreed, the pleasurable sensations of the act is an evolved trait with benefits to the species.

Abstinence is painful for the young.


I don't know about that... but I'll agree with you that it is unreasonable to ever expect it, we are biologically driven to reproduce due to traits that we have inherited from our ancestors for millions of years which were selected for due to the fitness benefit they impart to the species... this is true of almost all organisms.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (22) Jul 19, 2012
Tropical or not, every individual of every successful species is driven to reproduce frequently, that is why the species is successful.
But the farther north a species resides, the more seasonal its reproduction becomes. Offspring born in early spring have the best chance of growing strong enough to survive the next winter, and so there are mating seasons. Recognition of this in our species is reflected the june wedding tradition.

Neanderthal may well have become extinct because his reproduction had become seasonal and he could not replace his numbers as quickly as the tropical cro-mag when they came into conflict.

Humans are a runaway invasive species that has not had sufficient time to adapt to its new environs. But then it doesnt really have to does it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (22) Jul 19, 2012
Environmental influences to reproductive timing: http://en.wikiped...us_cycle Attrition rates - tropics vs temporate climates http://www.aibs.o...inen.pdf

One species per niche (neanderthal fail)
http://en.wikiped...ntiation

-Some have suggested that neanderthal may have become nochturnal due to competition, giving rise to legends such as Grendl in the beowulf sagas... a horde that attacks at night.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2012
No argument about any of that from me...
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (20) Jul 19, 2012
no one LIKES getting or giving abortions

That's what you would hear from Planned Parenthood.
xen_uno
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2012
Drop the BS ryg ... what the hell do you know? Have you been interviewing these women? Serial aborters are probably less common (percentage wise) than pedophile priests. One who lives in glass house should not cast stones.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Jul 19, 2012
"The video footage shows employees at two different clinics promising to provide a sex-selective abortion and coaching a woman to lie on official paperwork to conceal the reason for the procedure. Both the Camelback Family Planning clinic in Phoenix and the Tucson Womens Center in Tucson are members of the National Abortion Federation (NAF)."
http://www.breitb...er-Video
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (20) Jul 19, 2012
"As I was registering to get my D and C [dilatation and curettage], a woman barged in the front door demanding an abortion immediately. The attendant told her she would have to wait her turn, to which she responded that she'd already had six abortions and it was no big deal, couldn't they just rush her case a little since she had several more appointments to keep that day. "
http://www.theatl.../201069/
"n the last year, more than 12000 legal abortions were done at state hospitals and clinics in the province.

Staff at the womens clinic at Dora Nginza Hospital in Nelson Mandela Bay see up to 20 patients a day seeking abortions, and the monthly abortion rate has already doubled since January.

"http://www.pehera...cle/6720
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2012
Yes and some priests fuck little boys and some christians murder doctors or blow up their offices and some other christians picket the funerals of soldiers killed in combat and other people do other horrible things... there are horrible people, and they do horrible things... this is not news to anyone who has lived on this planet for more than few years, nor is at all indicative of the average person.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (22) Jul 19, 2012
Yes and some priests fuck little boys

And some teachers and football coaches too.
And, there is an organization that lobbies for it: NAMBLA.

or is at all indicative of the average person.

Never said it was, but if there are no objective standards, such as being opposed to abortion and euthanasia, the 'average' person can be supported to be better than 'average'.
Moral relativism, such as homosexual marriage, flexible definitions of 'personhood' give excuses to those who want to be below average.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2012
I am not a moral relativist... see Sam Harris...
roboferret
4 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2012
Morality is simply a measure of how our behaviour impacts others.

Q. Do you know what the impact will be if we allow homosexual marriage?

A. Gays will get married.

Thats it. No dog/cat hybrids, no breakdown in order, the tide will go in and out and the bible belt will continue to get hammered with tornados. Get over yourselves, haters.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2012
"the tide will go in and out"

Tide goes in, tide goes out... CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT! /O'Reilly
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (16) Jul 20, 2012
A. Gays will get married.

Why should they?

Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex before they forced courts to permit homosexual marriage.

What does 'marriage' mean? Soon it will mean very little as Muslims and Mormons demand multiple spouses, some will demand state/societal recognition for being married to an animal, etc.

When the 'marriage' means anything, it then means nothing so why bother.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2012
"What does 'marriage' mean?"

It's practically meaningless already and has always been. When the divorce rate is > 50% you have to realize how insignificant marriage "vows" are.

My girlfriend and I have chosen not to bother with it, we'll have been together for 10 years this September, I met her in college and we have 2 sons together... There is no significant difference between our relationship and that of any married couple.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 20, 2012
When the divorce rate is > 50%

"30.5% = men and women, combined, who ever married end up getting divorced"
http://digitalcit...e-third/

The mother of your children must be quite confident you will do nothing to leave her or your children in any financial hardship or property loss.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (23) Jul 20, 2012
"The video footage shows employees at two different clinics promising to provide a sex-selective abortion
The preference for male offspring is typical in religionist cultures.
to which she responded that she'd already had six abortions and it was no big deal
And ryggy would actually be happy to see children raised by a person like this. Yes we should outlaw abortions and force dimwits and monsters to produce more generations of tortured, demented, abusive criminal types just like their parents.

'A species will always produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' With humans this is a formula for suffering, misery, and war. Religionists like ryggy want to make this worse. Because back when their books were written, it actually made sense.

The world is full to overflowing ryggy. Time for god to go.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (23) Jul 20, 2012
"30.5% = men and women, combined, who ever married end up getting divorced"
http://digitalcit...e-third/
No doubt a natural tendency. Ryggy would force people to remain locked in miserable, abusive relationships because it looks better, and god wants it that way.
The mother of your children must be quite confident you will do nothing to leave her or your children in any financial hardship or property loss.
People are more compelled to limit the size of their families when their futures are uncertain. This is a GOOD thing. Cultures which allow divorce have lower growth rates. This is also a good thing.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2012
"What does 'marriage' mean?"

It's practically meaningless already and has always been. When the divorce rate is > 50% you have to realize how insignificant marriage "vows" are.

My girlfriend and I have chosen not to bother with it, we'll have been together for 10 years this September, I met her in college and we have 2 sons together... There is no significant difference between our relationship and that of any married couple.


Actually there is. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that you'll be together another ten years whereas if you were married I'd give it a 50% chance.

Marriage most certainly DOES do something to a relationship...it invites one or more of the parties to quit trying at the relationship because they feel they have a "lock" on it.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2012
When the divorce rate is > 50%

"30.5% = men and women, combined, who ever married end up getting divorced"


Yes, but that is by person, not by number of marriages vs number of divorces... many people end up getting divorced more than once.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2012
"They argue that the promise of permanency is what makes marriage more of a beneficial relationship than simply living together. This allows each to direct their resources to different areas, to specialize in some areas while the other specializes in other areas. Instead of having to be proficient in all areas, they can divide up their responsibilities and accomplish more by working together."

http://www.psychp...her.html

Sounds like same reason why limited govt and free markets create wealth, comparative advantage.

"Married people live longer as well. Single men have mortality rates that are 250% higher than married men. Single women have mortality rates that are 50% higher than married women (Ross et all, 1990). "
"Further, women who were more career oriented were more likely to cohabitate (57%), as were men who rated their leisure time as more important (53%) (Clarkberg, 1995). However, cohabitators tend to hold more positive ideas about divorce, and more
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2012
Married people live longer as well.
Shorter lifespans also aid in reducing population growth while allowing for faster evolution of society.
"Further, women who were more career oriented were more likely to cohabitate...as were men who rated their leisure time as more important
Exactly. Women who earn their own money are more conscious of an uncertain future; and thus more apt to plan for it and to refrain from reproducing more than projected income can reasonably support. Women restricted to bearing and raising children in perpetual wedlock, will do nothing but that.

So are you starting to realize the many Benefits of this new Age we live in? Women have been empowered, and a womans prerogative is to select the best possible donor for EACH and EVERY child she wishes to bear; AND to bear if and when she wants. Mates are constantly measured against the competition. Trading up is only prudent if it means a better baby.

This means smaller and HEALTHIER populations. Win-win.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2012
Mates are constantly measured against the competition. Trading up is only prudent if it means a better baby.
This is of course true whether she consciously wants to reproduce or not: as we are tropical animals, the urge to merge is constantly with us and it colors all our behavior.

Sex is inextricable from conception. The sole purpose of sex is to reproduce. For instance, if couples are having sex and the woman is not getting pregnant, both partners perceive in a very real physiological sense that something is WRONG and that they are wasting their time and resources. Both will begin looking around for new partners, and both will look for excuses, consciously or not, to end the relationship.

The People who concocted your religions KNEW this full well.

"18 I also said to myself, As for human beings, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals..." ecc3

-Etc. The primary Intent of your religions is to obscure the FACT that we are animals.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2012
-Because They needed to compel us to act very unnaturally, to reject most all of our animal urges, if they were going to forge complex technologically-oriented societies. In other words they needed to domesticate us, teach us to do tricks.

Is the dog which does backflips for biscuits acting naturally? What if there was a plant in the wild that dispensed biscuit-like fruit when the dog did backflips?

How can humans who are taught that killing is a mortal sin, nevertheless be convinced to kill an enemy on the battlefield? Its a trick.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2012
So are you starting to realize the many Benefits of this new Age we live in? Women have been empowered,


Is that why 50 Shades of Gray is selling so well?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2012
Is that why 50 Shades of Gray is selling so well?
Consider all the many alternatives to procreative sex that had been considered serious crimes, and which only a generation later were being condoned and encouraged? How many were considered indications of insanity which are now considered signs of mental health?
http://www.autowo...on-t.htm

If this had occurred in the 1930s poor fred would have spent his retirement in a lockdown for the criminally insane.

"There is a [PROPER] time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens...

a Time to scatter stones and a Time to gather them,
a Time to embrace and a Time to refrain"

-Timing is everything in the creation of Empires. Population growth is one of the most critical Factors in the Equation; growth and recovery must be balanced with depletion AT THE PROPER TIMES. Solomon taught us this. Only he never existed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2012
Ecclesiastes - 'for the Priests'. This is the kind of thing you learn in seminary school.
IronhorseA
4 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2012
I suspect the reason the Romans threw the Christians to the lions was because they were Jehovah's Witnesses and it was the only way they could shut them up. ;P

Hmm...maybe...oh well, probably not. ;P
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2012
I suspect the reason the Romans threw the Christians to the lions was because they were Jehovah's Witnesses and it was the only way they could shut them up. ;P

Hmm...maybe...oh well, probably not. ;P

How 'tolerant' you are, NOT.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2012
"The best selling novel, 50 Shades of Grey has sparked a new genre known as mommy porn. The success of 50 Shades of Grey cannot be ignored. Thirty-one million copies of the book have been sold and it has recently surpassed Harry Potter as the fastest selling paperback of all time. The book is noted for its explicit sex scene and, more disturbingly, its use of bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism (BDSM)."
"Whether you are a Complementarian or Egalitarian, the tragedy is that on an issue where Christians of all persuasions should be unitedvoluntary sexual degradation is evilwe are sadly distracted by what the word, conquest means and whether is can be used euphemistically."
http://juicyecume...my-porn/
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2012
Rygg..

Having eyes you do not see, and having ears you do not hear. Has your heart been hardened?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (23) Jul 22, 2012
How 'tolerant' you are, NOT.
In the few hundred years prior to constantines adoption of your religion as the official state-sponsored religion, xians were slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands. And as xians were only too happy to offer themselves up the way their little godman had demonstrated, this was not too hard to do.

But not all xians were martyred - this period was used to both reduce contrarians in general, AND tailor this emerging Social Construct to suit. The church took a few centuries to refine and polish before it could be accepted as a component of Empire, and accommodating martyrs was a necessary and beneficial and integral Part of this Process.

When finished , Rome had a very succinct definition of xianity and a very homogenous body of adherents. In this form it was resilient enough to endure until the Reformation could be Launched, and healthy Competition resumed. After the Americas were safely secured that is. The Reason for the dark ages to begin with.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2012
I couldn't agree more with Otto. After a long dispassionate look at Christianity I can quite securely say that...Christianity is not Christianity.

It's only after I absolutely quit being a Christian that I could be a christian...
(caps meant to be where they are)

Please to not mistake the previous statement to be that I am a Christian, or believe in God, or that I have "religion".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jul 22, 2012
I couldn't agree more with Otto. After a long dispassionate look at Christianity I can quite securely say that...Christianity is not Christianity.

It's only after I absolutely quit being a Christian that I could be a christian...
(caps meant to be where they are)

Please to not mistake the previous statement to be that I am a Christian, or believe in God, or that I have "religion".
AHA! I knew you weren't saved. There is no god. There is no metaphysical. There is no eternal netherworld and no soul within you to travel there when you die.

When we die we END. So while we are here we have to make the best of things for ourselves, our families, and our tribe. There are no supercouncilors to guide us and no superheros to protect us. And sorry, that's just the way that it is.

Repeat this until you believe it. Then swear upon your mums nonexistent soul that you will fight the scourge of religion unto the death. Because it is a LIE.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2012
I rather put it that there is no "babysitter" for any of us, and that Pascal's wagerr DOES indeed cost us more than the religionists would pretend it does...

It costs me...me...
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2012
I rather put it that there is no "babysitter" for any of us, and that Pascal's wagerr DOES indeed cost us more than the religionists would pretend it does...

It costs me...me...

And you will be the one to pay.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2012
I rather put it that there is no "babysitter" for any of us, and that Pascal's wagerr DOES indeed cost us more than the religionists would pretend it does...

It costs me...me...

Maybe others will pay, too:
"What sparked not only his admiration for President Bush, but turned him into a strict opponent of abortion and a harsh critic of this nations social mores?

Religion, Miller said. I had a conversion. I had a late life conversion. I changed my views on several things. This had to do with my son going blind, and me having to carry him to the doctor with his hand on my shoulder, Miller said. This was in the early 2000s. His son, Matt, had been a lifelong diabetic.

I prayed and prayed that they could do something about his sight, Miller said. The prayers seemed to work. He can see pretty good out of one eye right now."
http://blogs.ajc....version/
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2012
I rather put it that there is no "babysitter" for any of us, and that Pascal's wagerr DOES indeed cost us more than the religionists would pretend it does...

It costs me...me...


BTW,

Like it or not,

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2012
BTW,

Like it or not,

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"


Saved from what exactly? An eternity of torture that this "god" has created as well? What kind of god is that? His love is said to be infinite, yet I, a lowly human being would NEVER set up such a system with my flawed and finite capacity to love and empathize.

Your concept of God is a being with the emotional capacity of a two year old child...or perhaps not even that old...
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2012
Like it or not,

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"


Don't you realize how stupid this is? You believe that God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, created all of reality, including you... if you have to be "saved" by anyone or for anything then it is Gods FAULT. God had all possible knowledge of past, present, and future when He created reality, that is what omniscience means. He also had the power to create reality in any way He chose, that is what omnipotence means... the only logical conclusion is that everything exists EXACTLY as God intended it... so why does anyone need to be "saved"?

God creates a conflict and a victims of that conflict, God saves the victims of the conflict that He created, God is a hero?

Bullshit... it's nonsense for idiots.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2012
so why does anyone need to be "saved"?

Good question.
Why don't you know the answer?

Just proclaiming it nonsense doesn't make it so.

What is the motivation behind such 'nonsense'? No individual human really can benefit except through deception.
Why is faith so important to God?
Asserting all is nonsense fails to answer any of these questions and asserting they are stupid questions is falsified by how Western civilization has developed for the past 2000 years.
Why didn't Eastern 'religions' produce an Eastern Civilization that would have dominated the West?
Why did the concept that God is above man who is above the state create more liberty and prosperity than the concept that state is above man?
I guess that's why socialists must attack even the concept of God as the state must be over man not a creation of man.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2012
et I, a lowly human being would NEVER set up such a system with my flawed and finite capacity to love and empathize.


Of course no socialist would create a system in which man has liberty.
Good parents understand they cannot control their children 100% of the time and must teach them to take care of themselves. They must be allowed to fail in order to grow. Good parents and teachers know this.
So you would create a world in which humans are forced to do what you want them to do and be? Sounds quite childish.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2012
Why didn't Eastern 'religions' produce an Eastern Civilization that would have dominated the West?


Why would you equate domination with superiority?
antialias_physorg
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2012
Why didn't Eastern 'religions' produce an Eastern Civilization that would have dominated the West

They did for a time. Muslim influence was well inside Spain and the Turkish advance was only stopped at Vienna (1683)

Earlier the huns had taken vast swaths of the west, though that one wasn't really religiously motivated.
(Arguably there weren't any big religious wars in history - not even the crusades. At their core they were all more motivated by greed than by religious fervor.)

By contrast "western" civilizations have a pretty mediocre record of dominating a lot of eastern territory. The Roman Empire coming closest (but that was already 250 years after it had its greatest extent under Trajan - when it turned christian under Constantine)
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2012
Why do you imply physical domination?
The Chinese created all sorts of inventions, but never capitalized upon them, but the Europeans did when Marco Polo returned.
The Chinese may have sailed around the world, but it was the Spanish and Portuguese that are remembered for it.
Why did the Muslims collapse after a few centuries of 'civilization'?
I guess this is what happens when multiculturalism stopped the teaching of Western Civilization.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2012
but it was the Spanish and Portuguese that are remembered for it.

Not in China. Duh.
It's no surprise that western civilization would have a rather western-centric take on history (just as history books everywhere seem to be rather centric on the region they are written in).

Why did the Muslims collapse after a few centuries of 'civilization'?

Wecause they turned monotheistic. Baghdad was the world (pr at least the western world) center of learning until the 1300's. It was multicultural. Then monotheism reared its head and everything stopped.
Same thing when catholicism reigned in the dark ages.
Same thing with the decline of science in the US now.

Lack of multicultralism just stops enquiry dead in its tracks every time.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2012
Same thing when catholicism reigned in the dark ages.

No, it did not.
The church funded science and carried civilization through the dark ages.
"Given that the Church has not been an enemy to science, it is less surprising to find that the era which was most dominated by Christian faith, the Middle Ages, was a time of innovation and progress. "
http://blogs.natu...dle-ages
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2012
"through the good hand of God, many well devoted persons have been, and daily are moved, and stirred up, to give and bestow, sundry gifts, legacies, lands, and revenues for the advancement of all good literature, arts, and sciences in Harvard College, in Cambridge in the County of Middlesex, and to the maintenance of the President and Fellows, and for all accommodations of buildings, and all other necessary provisions, that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and godliness: "
http://hul.harvar...ter.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jul 23, 2012
I rather put it that there is no "babysitter" for any of us, and that Pascal's wagerr DOES indeed cost us more than the religionists would pretend it does...

It costs me...me...
And you will be the one to pay.
Standard threat... believe or else. And just in case god doesnt act (he never does), legions of self-righteous fanatics are ready to do his will.
Good parents understand they cannot control their children 100% of the time and must teach them to take care of themselves.
No, you religionists terrorize them with horror stories of hell and damnation. And you also convince them that, if they remain faithful and pray with all their might, god will always make things right.

Of course you seed this with the various standard disclaimers which usually blame them when god does not come through, designed to make them feel guilty for his disfavor.

This is a formula of persistant generational abuse and insanity. And of frustration, and guilt, and misery. Obviously.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jul 23, 2012
I prayed and prayed that they could do something about his sight, Miller said. The prayers seemed to work. He can see pretty good out of one eye right now."
-A freeking miracle! We should try this on every diabetic kid. And just to keep parents sincere, we should outlaw conventional medicine, Because it is only an expression of our lack of trust in god.
Why is faith so important to God?
BECAUSE without it he WOULDNT EXIST.

Faith is belief DESPITE evidence, and as only contrary evidence exists for superbeings like your vaporgod, he would simply evaporate without the peoples willingness to believe.

Because the stakes are so HIGH arent they? Immortality, instant wealth, cures for diabetes, absolution of guilt (but the application of whole new layers). Well worth the surrender of your reason and the corruption of your kids.

You pays your money, you takes your chance eh?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2012
"through the good hand of God, many well devoted persons have been, and daily are moved, and stirred up, to give and bestow, sundry gifts, legacies, lands, and revenues for the advancement of all good literature, arts, and sciences in Harvard College, in Cambridge in the County of Middlesex, and to the maintenance of the President and Fellows, and for all accommodations of buildings, and all other necessary provisions, that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and godliness: "
You pays your money, you takes your chance eh?
The church funded science and carried civilization through the dark ages.
Your religionist blogger is lying through his teeth. And as I directed to the facts and you still post lies, then you are lying as well.

See what a THREAT religion poses to civilization? You think monks making wine and buggering each other for 500 years, is carrying civilization.

Its not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 23, 2012
Islamic science throughout western decadence
http://en.wikiped...ic_world
http://en.wikiped...lden_Age
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2012
Why don't you know the answer?


Because there is no answer, because the question is based on faulty premises. There is no god and no one needs to be "saved".

Just proclaiming it nonsense doesn't make it so.


I didn't just proclaim it, I explained it... nice try.

Why is faith so important to God?


It wouldn't be, God supposedly created us, that means all of our attributes came from him. He also knew how each and every one of us would turn out, the details of our entire life, before he created us, or anything (omniscience).... That means God created us SPECIFICALLY to do exactly what we do, because he knew we would do it BEFORE he created us and he could have created us anyway he wanted to (omnipotence) but he chose to create us this way knowing what we would do. Everything we do is because he WANTED us to do it.

Your God makes people sin and then punishes them when they do, he is an asshole.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2012
Your God ...is an asshole
Religionists have talked their way into, and out of, the predestination issue
http://en.wikiped...lvinism)
-Understandably an early sticking point in the concoction of monotheism.
Just proclaiming it nonsense doesn't make it so...Asserting all is nonsense fails to answer any of these questions
Its funny how you religionists elevate your own particular brand of superstition, while denigrating all the others; even as they are doing the same to yours. One would think that this would tend to weaken the whole voodoo business as a whole, but the opposite is true. Because there is SO MUCH at STAKE isnt there? Your tribe against theirs. Only room for yours in heaven...the Chosen People.
and asserting they are stupid questions is falsified by how Western civilization has developed for the past 2000 years.
As if the state-sponsored voodoo was the only factor. More false presumptions ie deception ie lies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2012
Hey ryggy

Fellow religionists capture a tank and thank allah for being born into impoverished families and having nothing better to do than to fight and die for no good reason. Allahu ackbarrrrr! (praise jesus!)
http://www.youtub...RMvOIc9Y

-'Look at my holy book!' says one. 'This means god is on OUR side!' Nearby another freedom fighter kisses dirt. They will again be free when a certain percentage of them are dead, as usual. Nothing new under sol invictus.
http://www.youtub...Ye9egstU

Yay.
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 23, 2012
Deathclock,
God supposedly created us, that means all of our attributes came from him. He also knew how each and every one of us would turn out, the details of our entire life, before he created us, or anything (omniscience).... That means God created us SPECIFICALLY to do exactly what we do, because he knew we would do it BEFORE he created us ...


Redefining God to assign to him attributes which he has not claimed for himself and which allow you to disparage him is called a straw man argument and is a well known logical fallacy.

...he is an asshole.

Because you defined him to be so.

God is not your straw man.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2012
There is no god and no one needs to be "saved".

No one KNOWS that and no one can 'prove' it either way.
This is why faith is required.
BTW, 'science' is just a small subset of human cognition and heuristic.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (16) Jul 23, 2012
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
Max Planck "

"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.
Max Planck"

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck "
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2012
No one KNOWS that and no one can 'prove' it either way.This is why faith is required.
SCIENCE has thoroughly disproved the god you pray to, the one in your bible.
BTW, 'science' is just a small subset of human cognition and heuristic.
That is only true for the things science has not yet discovered. You imply that there are things which exist that are beyond the reach of science.

This is fantasy.

And even the mechanisms which compel you to believe in fantasy, can and will be thoroughly explained by science.

Only science has the ability to decide whether or not god exists.

Planck was being poetic. He was not being serious.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2012
I am always amazed at how these people who have no belief or faith in God always seem to get their noses out of joint at the thought of believers actually practicing the religion in which they believe, and how steeped atheists are in the knowledge that a certain percentage of the world's population are Christians, Jews, and Muslims whose religions give them a reason for living, or dying, depending on their particular religious dogma. Rather than keep their lack of faith and belief to themselves or each other, atheists choose to proselytize and rage against religions and its adherents to try to convince believers somehow that only atheists have all the answers in regard to a Creator and that those who actually do believe and have faith have no answers at all and are wasting their lives with belief in God.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2012
Thus, atheists make a big show of their disdain and disrespect for those who are either followers of religion, or those without religion but who still have faith in God because, after all, science still hasn't discovered who or what God is and where he came from, not to mention did HE create life. Therefore, atheists deduce that it is impossible for God to exist because he is unseen and there is no record of his existence in any of the sciences such as geology, biology and even astronomy.
Atheists are so concerned about this problem of God's nonexistence that they spend a lot of time substantially congratulating each other on their status of "atheist" and removing any doubt as to how they view others who are not up to their level of self-perceived intelligence.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (16) Jul 23, 2012
You imply that there are things which exist that are beyond the reach of science.

A scientist "implied" this.

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck "

"arithmetic was an heuristic! Arithmetic might only be an
heuristic, but clearly it was a good and very necessary one. All the while I could not help
wonderingIf arithmetic is in doubt, what is not?"
http://www.google...OL1neMKA
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2012
Atheism is an elitist frame of mind that somehow feels threatened by those in the population who believe in the "SOUL", that elusive entity who will be either rewarded or condemned, depending on how they lived and what they did while in human form.

This bothers the atheist immensely. The very idea of reward or punishment based on a life's actions gives them the spook-willies, simply because it reinforces the idea of individual responsibility for one's own actions that crosses over into another realm after the death of the individual. Atheists actually prefer the thought that whether or not they live an exemplary and pious life, or behave like the evil character in "The Picture of Dorian Grey", nothing will happen to them after death because nothing else happens. This gives them a choice of either being evil or good or a combination of the two.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2012
For the atheist, being evil and causing hurt is independent of good deeds. They can be good one day and absolute evil the next, and it doesn't matter because they don't have to consider that their soul will come to a bad end. So, good or evil to the atheist is just another way to express themselves and to influence others.

Atheists wonder why Christians and other believers cling to life so tenaciously in the face of imminent death. To them, when you're gone, you're gone bye bye and the end. They don't understand that Christians who lived a good Christian life also enjoy living, and often wonder if there was one more thing that they could have done or said to make life better for someone else. It isn't just a matter of dying and that's the end of it. For Christians there is far more to be concerned about. Mainly the individual's immortal soul is number one in importance because what we did in this life reflects on whether or not our soul dies also.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2012
Souls contain the mind. The death of the human brain is a chemical death. But the memories, intelligence, emotions, etc. transfer into the soul which is not chemical. Therefore, the person that was you, which lived in your brain, at the moment of chemical death, shifts into your soul completely and leaves your body. Cell death is not Soul death and because the Soul lives on, the two separate from each other.

Atheists don't believe in this process, and so they cling to life tenaciously also, but for a very different reason. For them, the words, "Is that all there is" has so much more meaning than for Christians.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2012
The concept of a soul has appeared many times in science fiction shows without much outrage by atheists.
Q in Star Trek NG is a god-like being. Star Gate has the ancients who ascended and one of the main characters ascended and returned.
And one can't forget the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2012
Math can be perfect, but as with life, it all depends on what you've put into it.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 23, 2012
You imply that there are things which exist that are beyond the reach of science.


"Science can't answer questions about value.
Science can't answer questions of morality.
...science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.
supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.
" Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon. "
http://www.cod.ed...mits.htm

PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2012
There are some who believe that when a Soul passes by, a slight breeze can be felt. It's easy to test this idea outdoors. If you feel a slight breeze but there are no leaves or grass moving, it's a Soul passing by. Children are usually more sensitive to these things, even if never having been taught about souls. They just pick up on it naturally.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2012
I don't think that what God is made of can be found in the Periodic Table of Elements. There is no "natural" process that makes up His intelligence and wisdom. He will come to us on His own good time...or we may never see him. But the return of Yeshua is promised. It's kind of like working for Microsoft on the assembly line. You know that the big boss is Bill Gates, but will you ever see him in person? Not likely.
Ok...bad analogy LOL
dtxx
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2012
There are some who believe that when a Soul passes by, a slight breeze can be felt. It's easy to test this idea outdoors. If you feel a slight breeze but there are no leaves or grass moving, it's a Soul passing by. Children are usually more sensitive to these things, even if never having been taught about souls. They just pick up on it naturally.


Oh I didn't realize that all children inherently know this. Gee, fuck science then. Great argument.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2012
There are some who believe that when a Soul passes by, a slight breeze can be felt. It's easy to test this idea outdoors. If you feel a slight breeze but there are no leaves or grass moving, it's a Soul passing by.

Wow. That must be the dictionary definition of an inversion fallacy.
"The sky is blue - therefore everything that is blue must be the sky!"
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2012
Science can't answer questions about value.
Science can't answer questions of morality.

No. Science cannot answer questions on (absolute) values. Those are illusory concepts and science doesn't deal with delusions (only on a pathological/medical level)
But science CAN say things on morality, as morality is a function of society and interactions therein. Morals aren't chosen nilly-willy. They have a purpose (at the time). Sometimes morals outlive their purpose and turn into obsolete traditions.

...science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.

No it can't. Anything supernatural doesn't concern anyone in the real universe. If it has an influence on the real universe (the 'natural') then it isn't supernatural - and then it's fair game for science.

By making god a supernatural phenomenon you've just made him irrelevant to any- and everything.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2012
There are some who believe that when a Soul passes by, a slight breeze can be felt. It's easy to test this idea outdoors. If you feel a slight breeze but there are no leaves or grass moving, it's a Soul passing by. Children are usually more sensitive to these things, even if never having been taught about souls. They just pick up on it naturally.


For those who believe themselves to have a reading comprehension higher than a second grade level, explain to me where it is that I said ALL CHILDREN, as dtxx aka GhostofBlotto claims to have read.
Now read it carefully and digest each word. Try to note that I prefaced my comment with the words, "There are some...".
Science is unable to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING, no matter how much you dweebs expect from scientists, whether religious or not. Your complete veneration of science, however imperfect it is, is laughable. Even more laughable is when scientists make a booboo on something which all of you swallowed hook, line and sinker immediately
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2012
Let's examine the word "supernatural". For the purposes of having to explain some of its many meanings, here is the dictionary definitions.

Super: (combining form) over, above; beyond; or of a higher kind

Natural: adjective - 1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So what do we have here? Supernatural can mean: over, above or beyond what is existing in or caused by nature; OR of a higher kind.

What does this mean? Obviously, God is an entity that is over, above and beyond that which exists in or is caused by nature.
Do we know everything about nature? Noooo
Do we know everything about science? Noooo
So how do we describe God? As a concept? An idea? A thought? A wish?
Do we also say God is impossible? But where is the evidence for that impossibility? Where did you find that evidence?
If you can't provide the evidence, it's stupid to say that God is impossible because you very likely will be wrong. A higher kind, over and above nature. Think of it.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2012
A super-intelligence; an all-knowing "spirit" who doesn't interfere in mens' affairs. If this God prefers to not interfere with the direction we are headed, does it mean that He doesn't care? Or is it just that He understands us better than we understand ourselves. He understands how thick-headed we are and that we THINK we know everything. Mankind is like the typical teenager. You let them have their way...up to a point, and you expect them to grow and learn and become wise. If God interferes, then we revert to little children depending on their Papa for everything. A species who wants eventually to travel to other planets, and then other galaxies, aren't supposed to regress. So He leaves us alone to mature and find our own way. But he won't let us destroy the planet. It's not ours to destroy...we're only renting. God is the ultimate scientist...smarter than all the scientists combined, and for that we should all be grateful. We're on the verge of moving out and growing up...hopefully
roboferret
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2012
Just because a proposal is putatively possible does not mean we need give it equal weight to established theory.
The problem with a deistic, non-interventionist god is that it is indistinguishable from no god at all.
And given that all unverifiable god claims are equally likely, and there is an infinite number of possible contradictory claims that could be made, the probability that your claim is the correct one is 1 over infinity.

So the concept of god/s is:

1. Scientifically unnecessary
2. Philosophically unlikely

It's true we don't know everything. The correct response to this is to ADMIT we don't know, rather than pretend we do and insert fabrications.
What we DO know does place clear limits on what is possible, even in parts of the universe we cannot observe. We know there are no chocolate planets with caramel seas. Saying that we don't know absolutely everything is not a licence to insert absolutely anything - that includes supernatural realms and brainless minds.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2012
Christians are almost as atheistic as the rest of us. There are liker 2870 recorded deities throughout history. All of which have exactly the same claim to veracity (oral records and written testaments). I don't believe in 2870 of them. Christians don't believe in 2869 of them. No big difference.

(However why they make this one exception is baffling - since it makes them out as the most inconsistent human beings on the planet. This is why I argue that theistic belief has to be a form of schizophrenia.)
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2012
So the concept of god/s is:

1. Scientifically unnecessary
2. Philosophically unlikely

3. But politically necessary.

If there is no higher power, socialists assert all individual human rights originate from the state, not from your Creator.

Science can't answer some simply basic questions like 'Why are we here?'

It is interesting that many physics folks have very little difficulty believing in God. Paul Davies, William Phillips and Marlan Scully, Max Planck, are just a few.
It seems the biologists have the most difficult time.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2012
But science CAN say things on morality,

Dr. Mengele had much to say.
roboferret
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2012


If there is no higher power, socialists assert all individual human rights originate from the state, not from your Creator.

I've never heard any socialists make that claim. You would be close if you said communists, but I doubt you understand the distinction.


Science can't answer some simply basic questions like 'Why are we here?'

Because it's a dishonest query that begs the question. "why" implies intent, which implies agency, which in this case would have to be a god. "Why are we here" means you have already presupposed the existence of a higher agency.

It is interesting that many physics folks have very little difficulty believing in God. Paul Davies, William Phillips and Marlan Scully, Max Planck, are just a few.

you're right, they are just a very few. Scientists of all types are disproportionally athiest or agnostic. If you are going to use argumentum ad populum you should make sure you have the "populum" on your side first.
roboferret
3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
But science CAN say things on morality,

Dr. Mengele had much to say.


Morality describes individuals that belong to a social species acting in a socially responsible way. It's not hard to see how that would evolve.
I'm not sure why you bring up Mengele, he was not a typical scientist and he was a self-confessed Catholic.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012

But science CAN say things on morality,

Dr. Mengele had much to say.

So? What kind of argument is that supposed to be?
(Apart from being a non-argument it is also one of the basic logical fallacies: argument from authority)

Not every scientists who says something automatically therefore says it in the name of science (or with any kind of scientific support behind it).
Not everything that was ever said which seemed supported at the time turned out to be right (plenty of theories in the past have been shown to be wrong).
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2012
There is no god and no one needs to be "saved".
No one KNOWS that and no one can 'prove' it either way. This is why faith is required.



That would only be true if we were "required" to disprove every fantastic concept the human mind can conceive of. I have no belief in Superman, thankfully I'm not required to disprove him to you in order to go about my life happily and peacefully. I'm sorry that you apparently DO feel some need to do so...
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2012
acting in a socially responsible way.

What does that mean?
We have scientists like Paul Ehrlich who advocate forced sterilization is acting in a socially responsible way.
There were eugenicists who believed (and some still do) aborting black babies, or deformed babies or....was acting in a socially responsible way.

You would be close if you said communists, but I doubt you understand the distinction.

There is no distinction. Communism is a form of socialism. Both believe the state is the grantor of rights because in order to redistribute wealth, they must plunder that wealth from those created it. If the creators of that wealth have property rights not granted by the state, but protected by the state, then the socialists are in a conundrum. But if the state decides what rights you have and do not have, then the state has no 'moral' dilemma to plunder your wealth, or your life.
roboferret
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
acting in a socially responsible way.

What does that mean?

It means acting empathically. We do not wish to be killed, so we make a collective moral contract not to kill. We do not wish to be forcibly sterilised so we make a moral contract that prohibits anyone from doing so. Emapathy is an evolved trait that allows individuals to live in large groups, and is not exclusive to humans.


We have scientists like Paul Ehrlich who advocate forced sterilization is acting in a socially responsible way.
There were eugenicists who believed (and some still do) aborting black babies, or deformed babies or....was acting in a socially responsible way.


None of these ideas are socially responsible, because they are socially divisive.
roboferret
3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012

There is no distinction. Communism is a form of socialism.


You can't have it both ways. It can't be a member of its own set. That's called the fallacy of composition.


Both believe the state is the grantor of rights because in order to redistribute wealth, they must plunder that wealth from those created it. If the creators of that wealth have property rights not granted by the state, but protected by the state, then the socialists are in a conundrum. But if the state decides what rights you have and do not have, then the state has no 'moral' dilemma to plunder your wealth, or your life.

Have you heard of the "Bill of Rights"? That would be the state deciding what rights you have. You don't have the right to kill people. You don't have the right not to make a contribution to the society from with you are benefiting. No-one likes paying taxes but its the best system we have for paying for infrastructure. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2012
I have one quibble here...

Have you heard of the "Bill of Rights"? That would be the state deciding what rights you have.


That's actually more like the state recognizing you have these rights independent of the state and the state saying they're going to enforce or support them. This is a subtle, yet extremely important distinction. It sets a framework where the state can't arbitrarily give or remove rights, but presupposes that human beings/nature are not arbitrary hence neither are any set of rules that should be applied to them.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2012
Have you heard of the "Bill of Rights"? That would be the state deciding what rights you have.

Ever hear of the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

The govt is created by men to protect their inherent and unalienable rights.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
http://aynrandlex...ism.html
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2012
It means acting empathically.

By whose standard?

Here is the only socially responsible way to live:

"Absence of plunder. This is the principle of justice,
peace, order, stability, conciliation, and of good sense,
which I shall proclaim with all the force of my lungs
(which is very inadequate, alas!) till the day of my death."
The Law, Bastiat
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2012
Absence of plunder.


By who's standard?
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2012
Science can't say anything about morality? Sam Harris would like a word with you...
roboferret
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2012
Science can't say anything about morality? Sam Harris would like a word with you...

Seconded. If you can't read his book, have a look at his TED talk on YouTube. He explains how religion is not only unnecessary for morality, it is obstructive.
And we get that you don't like paying tax. Waah.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2012
Science can't say anything about morality? Sam Harris would like a word with you...

What is the absolute scientific definition of 'good'?
What is the absolute scientific definition of 'evil'?
roboferret
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2012
Science can't say anything about morality? Sam Harris would like a word with you...

What is the absolute scientific definition of 'good'?
What is the absolute scientific definition of 'evil'?

http://www.youtub...a_player
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2012
What is the absolute scientific definition of 'good'? What is the absolute scientific definition of 'evil'?

None, because defining absolutes is inherently false (and idiotic) in a dynamic environment. What is 'good' today may be 'evil' under a different set of circumstances.

Asking for such absolutes is - yet another - logical fallacy: Strawman.

(You do seem to collect logical fallacies at an alarming rate. Gotta catch 'em all?)
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2012
Right, nothing is "good" or "bad" by it's very nature, things are good or bad TO someone. Consider the classical ethical dilemma of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children. Most would agree theft is wrong, most would also agree that allowing your children to starve when you can act to prevent it is also wrong... so how do you reconcile this? You don't... there is no absolute good or bad value, it is good for the children to eat the bread while simultaneously bad for the owner of the bread that was stolen.

That's the way it goes, things are not always simple, don't like it? Too fucking bad, the world is complicated and attempting to simplify something into a single term ("good" or "bad") doesn't always work.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2012
Asking for such absolutes

Math and physics folks do for their science.
They either found the Higgs boson or they did not. Quite absolute.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2012
Asking for such absolutes

Math and physics folks do for their science.
They either found the Higgs boson or they did not. Quite absolute.


Wow...just wow...
Calenur
3 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2012
This debate is silly. Homosexuality won't be taboo in a generation or two, it becomes more and more accepted with each generation. The driving force behind this change? It's simple: The older generations with their supernatural nonsense are dying off, and their ridiculous beliefs are going with them. I'm pretty happy I'm going to be alive when it's finally completely legal in the United States.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
"What is the absolute scientific definition of 'evil'?" - RyggTard

Self Contradiction or the replacement of reality with ideology.

You are guilty of both.

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2012
Asking for such absolutes
Math and physics folks do for their science.

Math is an ABSTRACT tool.
And physics does not ask for absolutes in any way shape of form (only for ABSTRACT notions like absolute zero - which is a temperature that does not exist in reality).

Abstractions are used as limits - not as descriptions of realities.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2012
Is gravity 'good' or 'evil'?
Is entropy 'good' or 'evil'?
Is gamma decay 'good' or 'evil'?
Is kinetic energy 'good' or 'evil'?
....
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2012
"What is true? What is right? What is beautiful? Science considers what is true, starting out with almost unimaginable ideas (The earth is moving! The future is unpredictable!). The job is to understand these ideas and fit them into a broad and logical picture of the universe. Politics considers what is right. This requires broad understanding and eventual consensus of points of view that often appear incompatible. Art is the development of what is beautifulwhether through words, a musical note, or architecture. "
Edward Teller
http://www.scienc...200.full
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (21) Jul 24, 2012
"What is true? What is right? What is beautiful?
I think it is decidedly true that any self-professed religionist who posts gay porn links here on physorg, a site frequented by kids, is a very wrong and ugly person indeed. Maybe you wanna call the vicar about this rygg?
http://phys.org/n...rth.html
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
"The problem with a deistic, non-interventionist god is that it is indistinguishable from no god at all. And given that all unverifiable god claims are equally likely, and there is an infinite number of possible contradictory claims that could be made, the probability that your claim is the correct one is 1 over infinity. So the concept of god/s is:
1. Scientifically unnecessary
2. Philosophically unlikely " - roboferret

A non-interventionist God is no problem at all. That is obviously part of the Plan, to not interfere. If you have read the part of my comment that God doesn't interfere in the affairs of men, it should have been the perfect explanation. As to WHY there is no interference in our lives and actions, the most reasonable answer would be that of our "free will". In a totalitarian state where there is little or no free will tolerated, that would be the equivalent of God stepping in and ordering us around and telling us what to do and not to do. That is not conducive (contd
PussyCat_Eyes
2 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2012
to exercising of our free will, making mistakes, and realizing our mistakes and fixing them. God obviously doesn't want us to remain as children except in the way we treat each other in an innocent and fair fashion. If God wanted to step right in and tell us, "no, you're being evil" or "no, you're doing it wrong"...we would have no need to learn such things on our own because Daddy is ever present.
Your intellect is a result of your learning on your own volition because you had the abilities to do so. You're not autistic, so you learn easily. You experience things and concepts. God doesn't need to teach or rule over you because he gave us certain abilities. God allows us to evolve. He INVENTED evolution, otherwise we would still be swimming through the primordial soup with flagella.
For the record, I don't buy the 6,000 years that some religions teach. More like 2 billion years or so. But even 2 billion years is just the blink of an eye in the age of the universe.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
What is the absolute scientific definition of 'good'? What is the absolute scientific definition of 'evil'?

None, because defining absolutes is inherently false (and idiotic) in a dynamic environment. What is 'good' today may be 'evil' under a different set of circumstances.

Asking for such absolutes is - yet another - logical fallacy: Strawman.

(You do seem to collect logical fallacies at an alarming rate. Gotta catch 'em all?)
antialias

Doing good and/or being good is an absolute in itself and is quite logical. It is one of the final results of critical thinking, especially in the analysis of moral expediency. Belief in or faith in God provides us with that critical thinking that forces us to consider certain moral precepts, without which we would revert to a less civilized state.
There is the other absolute of doing or being evil, which involves less critical thinking. Isaac Asimov formulated the Three Laws of Robotics for the absolute good of man and robot.
roboferret
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
"The problem with a deistic, non-interventionist god is that it is indistinguishable from no god at all. And given that all unverifiable god claims are equally likely, and there is an infinite number of possible contradictory claims that could be made, the probability that your claim is the correct one is 1 over infinity. So the concept of god/s is:
1. Scientifically unnecessary
2. Philosophically unlikely " - roboferret

A non-interventionist God is no problem at all.


I said the concept is problematic because it is indistinguishable from NO GOD AT ALL, not a problematic concept in itself. If you cannot demonstrate a difference, why believe in a god at all?

Also, free will does not require non-intervention. A fire-fighter rescuing someone from a burning building is not infringing on their free will.
In the same way, if god intervened in a similar situation, that would not be a violation of free will.
In fact, god prevents free will by not acting to protect it.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
Doing good and/or being good is an absolute in itself

Drivel. For any good dead or good person I can show you how they could, potentially, be better.

Belief in or faith in God provides us with that critical thinking

Oh....Wow...Words...Fail...me. What you have just said is "Blind acceptance of X supports critical thinking of Y". If you don't see the blatant problem with this then you may have to look up the word 'logical' before you use it again. Because I'm quite sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.

consider certain moral precepts, without which we would revert to a less civilized state.

And none of these require a god. Not to kill of steal or being respectful to others (not just parents), etc. is logical if one wants to live in a stable society. No god needed at all for any of those. If god is all that is keeping you from killing someone then you are one scary/twisted/sick person.

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
Isaac Asimov formulated the Three Laws of Robotics for the absolute good of man and robot

Have you ever READ Isaac Asimov? I doubt it. Most all of his robot stories (17 or so) deal with ways how the three laws can be circumvented, perverted, or turned into the opposite of what they were intended to do - while sticking with the letter of the law.

the three laws of robotics (and the zeroth law which he came up with in the 'Foundation' series) are story elements/plot devices - nothing more. If you take them seriously, then...wow...just...wow.
roboferret
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2012
There is a very interesting article about applying game theory to ethics and morals here: http://plato.stan...-ethics/
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 25, 2012


"So it appears that it wasnt only the monks excellent abilities to e.g. use watermills that have been passed on to posterity. Rather, it was something more inherent and fundamental.

We are cementing that the monks passed on their cultural values by showing based on the European Values Study that European regions with several Cistercian monasteries still to this day value diligence and moderation more than other regions, says Bentzen.

Our study of monks shows that societies that had a culture where diligence and moderation were highly valued had an advantage when the Industrial Revolution started. All else being equal, countries with high levels of work ethic will, historically speaking, achieve greater prosperity."
http://www.realcl...333.html

Another example of how Catholic monks helped the West to advance.

Compare Greek and German diligence and moderation, for example.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
And given that all unverifiable god claims are equally likely...


So it's your position that it is equally likely that a non-interventionist god exists as a giant ice cream cone lives under the antarctic ice with chocolate sprinkles and gummy bears sitting and pondering the nature of the universe and the wisdom that it shan't shower it's fellow beings with gifts of frozen yogurt lest it eschew it's horribly inefficient and brutal system of evolution?
roboferret
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2012
And given that all unverifiable god claims are equally likely...


So it's your position that it is equally likely that a non-interventionist god exists as a giant ice cream cone lives under the antarctic ice with chocolate sprinkles and gummy bears sitting and pondering the nature of the universe and the wisdom that it shan't shower it's fellow beings with gifts of frozen yogurt lest it eschew it's horribly inefficient and brutal system of evolution?


Well that would be theoretically verifiable, but in essence, yes.
It's certainly as reasonable as omnipotent deity who became his own son and temporarily died in order to redeem his creation from a hereditary thoughtcrime that he convicted them of himself.

The reason it seems more ridiculous is simply cultural bias.
Given that no supernatural event has ever been verified to happen, and that there are no constraints on the supernatural, all unobservable supernatural events have an equal likelihood of being true.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2012
The reason it seems more ridiculous is simply cultural bias. Given that no supernatural event has ever been verified to happen, and that there are no constraints on the supernatural, all unobservable supernatural events have an equal likelihood of being true.


It's not just culture, it's less likely because men make ice cream cones and they don't make them under the ice of Antarctica, or with self awareness or with omnipotence.

I agree that we're just as unlikely to ever verify one unverifiable concept as another, I totally reject that they're all equally likely.

For instance I think it's far more likely that there are a race of aliens that have evolved by purely natural means and left the observable universe forever taking all evidence that they were here with them than it is that there is a non-interventionist superman with a grey beard on a throne in some extra-dimensional fairy land.
roboferret
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2012

It's not just culture, it's less likely because men make ice cream cones and they don't make them under the ice of Antarctica, or with self awareness or with omnipotence.


I did add the caveat that your first example is theoretically falsifiable. if this ice-cream God was said to be in another dimension then I hold to what I said originally.

Your second example does initially have more plausibility, in so far that the first part takes place in the natural world, but the concept of them leaving the universe for a spurious supernatural realm is less plausible than them turning themselves into powerful sentient ice-creams here on the mortal plane. Maybe ice-cream is of special religious or cultural significance to them because of a bizarre twist of history, but I defer to your knowledge as high priest of the ice-cream people.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
Your second example does initially have more plausibility, in so far that the first part takes place in the natural world,


Indeed, which is the crux of my point.

but the concept of them leaving the universe for a spurious supernatural realm is less plausible than them turning themselves into powerful sentient ice-creams here on the mortal plane.


Why so? Should I defer to your knowledge of super intelligent aliens and their affinity for being ice cream rather than transcending the universe?

In any even my point still stands, ad homs aside that is.

Equally unverifiable doesn't mean equally likely...

Plausibility and observability are two ENTIRELY different concepts.
roboferret
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2012

Why so? Should I defer to your knowledge of super intelligent aliens and their affinity for being ice cream rather than transcending the universe?


Because the former doesn't extend beyond that which we know is possible. Intelligent, physical beings exist. Ice-cream exists. A supernatural realm, by definition defies everything we know about physics and as such, is as implausible and improbable as anything you can postulate.

My last sentence was an attempt at humour, and I am sorry if it offended. It was not an ad-hominem - to be that, i would have had to have said your argument was invalid because of an unrelated facet of your person instead of criticizing the argument itself. I respect your position even as I disagree with it.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
Because the former doesn't extend beyond that which we know is possible. Intelligent, physical beings exist. Ice-cream exists. A supernatural realm, by definition defies everything we know about physics and as such, is as implausible and improbable as anything you can postulate.


If you read what I wrote carefully you'll see I proposed no such thing (at least in my first post, my second was a little vague and wishy washy). There are natural phenomena we can't observe either (light cones). They (the aliens) simply could make themselves unobservable and be just as plausible...

I respect your position even as I disagree with it.


Apologies at my offense. I had my coffee this morning, but I'm not sure my body observed it :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 25, 2012
to exercising of our free will, making mistakes, and realizing our mistakes and fixing them. God obviously doesn't want us to remain as children
-Nor want those of us who post gay porn links here, around children. Because they are scum?
http://phys.org/n...rth.html
Doing good and/or being good is an absolute in itself and is quite logical.
So it must be logically good to post gay porn lonks where children might click on them? Only a truly demented, lying sicko would do such a thing.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2012
@roboferret
Having no God at all doesn't seem to be a problem for atheists, but the concept of a God that is worshipped by Christians IS a problem to them. Actually, the difference between us believers and you non-, dis- or unbelievers is that WE have made the CHOICE due to the "free will" that we exercise as to our worship and/or faith in God the Creator. YOU ALSO have made your "choice" and have exercised your "free will" to un-believe or dis-believe in the same Creator. None of us have "seen" God or Yeshua, so we rely on our faith alone. For us, the only distinguishing marks for our faith is found in the New Testament of the Bible and, for some of us, the Book of Enoch which is not included in the Old Testament.

PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
(contd)
Your analogy of a firefighter is poor. The firefighter saves lives by legal intervention to prevent the destruction of a life or its property. It's rare that someone tells the firefighter to go away and let him burn. Firefighters are paid to do their work, God is not paid. He might even save your life without being paid.
As for God's intervention in the affairs of man, how do you know that He has not done so, either currently or in the past? It's a great mystery even to us. God doesn't make his intentions known by prior announcement except in the case of Judgement Day. Everything else is left pretty much up to mankind, except maybe for a slight tweak now and then.
Murders, theft, bad environmental conditions, etcthese are all man's doing. God didn't do it to mankind. We've done it all to ourselves and each other. WE are all guilty in one way or another. Some by commission, and some by omission.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2012
(contd)
God doesn't intervene and interrupt our actions because he gave us free will, and what we DO with that free will tells Him a lot about each one of us. He knows and WE are well aware that we're all here on only a temporary basis. If you are evil and you are not penitent, then you're dead already even though you're walking, talking, laughing, thinking, etc.

I think that you are saying that whether or not God the Creator exists is indistinguishable for either situation due to His non-intervention policy, and because He doesn't intervene in a physical way, neither side can provide the proof of His existence.
But while it's OK with us who have faith, it's NOT OK with you atheists because you're looking for the PHYSICAL proof.
God is NOT a physical flesh and blood being. Look at it this way, ferret. God is PURE ENERGY with intelligence and power. And, as you know, energy transforms into matter and back again into energy. The Soul is also pure energy, but to a lot lesser degree.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2012
@ferret
Take the topic of religion and homosexuality. The homosexual act is physical, not spiritual, although some may claim that it is. ALL sex is simply the stimulation of nerve endings which transmits the emotion of pleasure to the brain. If those same nerve endings transmitted horrible pain, you can be certain that gay sex would cease to exist, unless they're also sadomasochists.
God allows these people to live their lives in whichever choice they take...also free will. However, there are repercussions to such choices. They are already dead, even though living, breathing, yakking, etc. God doesn't choose to intervene in their sexual choices either because, in the final analysis, they will get what's coming to them. They claim that it's a genetic thing so who's to argue? As long as they don't impact my life adversely, they can do it all they want.
We are not here to judge them. We can discriminate and refuse any closeness, but only God gets to judge the actions of these people.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2012
Doing good and/or being good is an absolute in itself

Drivel. For any good dead or good person I can show you how they could, potentially, be better.

Belief in or faith in God provides us with that critical thinking

Oh....Wow...Words...Fail...me. What you have just said is "Blind acceptance of X supports critical thinking of Y". If you don't see the blatant problem with this then you may have to look up the word 'logical' before you use it again. Because I'm quite sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.

consider certain moral precepts, without which we would revert to a less civilized state.

And none of these require a god. Not to kill of steal or being respectful to others (not just parents), etc. is logical if one wants to live in a stable society. No god needed at all for any of those. If god is all that is keeping you from killing someone then you are one scary/twisted/sick person.

antialias
Everything and everyone has potential. (contd)
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2012
(contd)
I have never said that you can't be a good person without faith in God. You misquoted me. I said that the believer, while dying, most often wonders if he could have done or said something more to make someone else's life better. I also said that atheists also have free will and they can be good one day and evil the next and to them, it's just a way to express himself and influence others.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jul 25, 2012
Actually, the difference between us believers and you non-, dis- or unbelievers is that WE have made the CHOICE
-to post gay porn links on family-oriented websites?
http://phys.org/n...rth.html

-What kind of godlover would do such a thing?
and, for some of us, the Book of Enoch which is not included in the Old Testament.
Thats funny pirouette was a big fan of enoch. It must be true then that this poster is the deviant lying multi-sockpuppet pirouette/ritchieguy/russkiye et al.

-Your god frowns on lying smut-peddlers who enjoy describing their carnal activity on family-oriented websites, as I understand it.
I have never said that you can't be a good person without faith in God.
Nor, apparently, a lying smut-peddler. Interesting.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2012
Oh, you mean like THIS one?
http://medicalxpr...ous.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 25, 2012
Oh, you mean like THIS one?
http://medicalxpr...ous.html
You mean this post?
I can think of other equally dangerous activities....like standing naked over a hot stove...
Yeah thats the one. One of many. Just the thing for kids who might want to learn a little physics.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2012
The Book of Enoch happens to be popular in many Christian groups, but not so much with Jews or Muslims. Blotto himself posted the link to The Book of Enoch in one of the threads, either that Gaia thread or the Poplawski thread where I spoke to Russkiy. That's where I got it from.
Too bad that Blotto thinks that sex between a man and a woman is smutty....even when it's consistent with a science topic. LOL
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 25, 2012
The Book of Enoch happens to be popular in many Christian groups, but not so much with Jews or Muslims. Blotto himself posted the link to The Book of Enoch in one of the threads, either that Gaia thread or the Poplawski thread where I spoke to Russkiy. That's where I got it from.
Sure you did. The trouble with compulsive liars is that their artifice becomes thinner and thinner to the point where it is very clear to anyone that they are liars. The more you post, the clearer this becomes.
Too bad that Blotto thinks that sex between a man and a woman is smutty....even when it's consistent with a science topic. LOL
Some people think it is ok to describe their sexual activities in great detail on open websites such as this. There is obviously something seriously WRONG with these people. http://en.wikiped...nography

-I think you just may have committed a crime or 2 with your links.
http://www.fbi.go...onville/
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
Isaac Asimov formulated the Three Laws of Robotics for the absolute good of man and robot

Have you ever READ Isaac Asimov? I doubt it. Most all of his robot stories (17 or so) deal with ways how the three laws can be circumvented, perverted, or turned into the opposite of what they were intended to do - while sticking with the letter of the law.

the three laws of robotics (and the zeroth law which he came up with in the 'Foundation' series) are story elements/plot devices - nothing more. If you take them seriously, then...wow...just...wow.
- antialias

ALL laws can be circumvented and perverted. It's called a "loophole".
But the 3 Laws of Robotics by Asimov was the start of a particular way of preventing the robots from hurting humans as they learned more from their makers or creators. The robotics scientists know that someday it will come to some kind of showdown if they're not diligent in what information they allow in robot programming (brains).
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
Let's see.the title of this thread is:yes, it look like it says: "College Students likely to disagree with Religious Teachings that Homosexuality is a Sin"

Oh my!!! How terrible. Children might come to Phys.org for learning Physics from the great teacher, Blotto, and see the word "homosexuality" and be frightenedjust because Blotto says so.
Of course, since TheGhostofOtto1923 talks like a sexually inadequate woman-hater who wants me to be his RitchieGuy, it's not so surprising that he would carry on about 2 gay porn links I provided for him so that he could pretend RitchieGuy in in the pictures. Obviously, Blotto doesn't care for Penthouse or Hustler, but maybe he's into gay porn instead.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 25, 2012
Here is an interesting version of pathological liar:
http://rarediseas...1402.htm

-Ring any bells? Many of these people are very religious.
Of course, since TheGhostofOtto1923 talks like a sexually inadequate woman-hater
Perhaps you might identify with this?

"sex addicts who recover need three to five years, and a lot of support to restore healthy intimacy to their lives. In contrast, the majority of our visitors recover, even from severe symptoms like porn-induced IMPOTENCE, in a matter of two to four months."
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
Nope, no crime has been committed. This is a SCIENCE website, Thus, even naked men and women are used for scientific study...and I recently posted a link to a website showing a reconstructed foreskin. That was also science.
Obviously, TheGhostofOtto1923 hasn't been getting his share of attention from the commenters as he believes he should be getting. Thus, his apparent way to get that attention which he craves is by reposting the porn websites which he has thoroughly enjoyed before reposting them here and in other threads.
What a wackjob.....LOL
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 25, 2012
Nope, no crime has been committed. This is a SCIENCE website, Thus, even naked men and women are used for scientific study...
Well then perhaps you might want to post your gay porn links here?
http://www.scienc...ids.org/
PussyCat_Eyes
Jul 25, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 25, 2012
Anybody else think that this person shouldn't be posting on this website? You religionists want to support this behavior do you?

-And thanks Ritchie - but I will continue to reference this every time you post. As evidence of the kind of person you are.
ACW
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2012
The article and some of the discussion that I read (if one could call it that), just goes to show that religious enthusiasts will have an even tougher time trying to sell their non-existent product.
roboferret
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2012
Your analogy of a firefighter is poor. The firefighter saves lives by legal intervention to prevent the destruction of a life or its property. It's rare that someone tells the firefighter to go away and let him burn.

And the same applies to an interventionist god. It would not be a breach of free will for him to save your life

Firefighters are paid to do their work, God is not paid. He might even save your life without being paid.

Except you said he wouldn't intervene

As for God's intervention in the affairs of man, how do you know that He has not done so, either currently or in the past?

That's what you said, not me. If you've changed your mind and are now saying god is interventionist, then his existence IS open to science and is falsifiable.

It's a great mystery even to us. .

It always makes me laugh when people go on about how mysterious and ineffable god is, then straightaway claim they know what he wants us to with our genitalia in private.
roboferret
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2012
(contd)
God doesn't intervene and interrupt our actions because he gave us free will, and what we DO with that free will tells Him a lot about each one of us


You have severe issues. God does intervene? God doesn't intervene? You are changing your mind in every post!


God is NOT a physical flesh and blood being. Look at it this way, ferret. God is PURE ENERGY

You seem to know a lot about this mysterious god. Energy is the potential do do work. There is no such thing as "Pure Energy" - energy is a measurable property of physical systems. You need to stop getting you science from comic books.

And, as you know, energy transforms into matter and back again into energy. The Soul is also pure energy, but to a lot lesser degree.


*Facepalm* How may joules in a soul then? How is it stored? And why can't we measure it? again Mass and energy are PHYSICAL properties.
roboferret
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2012
@ferret
Take the topic of religion and homosexuality. The homosexual act is physical, not spiritual, although some may claim that it is. ALL sex is simply the stimulation of nerve endings which transmits the emotion of pleasure to the brain. If those same nerve endings transmitted horrible pain, you can be certain that gay sex would cease to exist, unless they're also sadomasochists.


That also applies to hetero sex. You have failed to make any point.


God allows these people to live their lives in whichever choice they take...also free will. However, there are repercussions to such choices.

Like?

They are already dead, even though living, breathing, yakking, etc.

Gay people are zombies? WTF is wrong with you?


they will get what's coming to them.

Let me guess. Enternal torture for their private, consensual behaviour?
It's sad your religion has poisoned you to the point you cannot see how completely unfair and immoral that view is.
roboferret
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2012

We are not here to judge them. We can discriminate and refuse any closeness, but only God gets to judge the actions of these people



Given that you think that they have judgement "coming to them" for the crime of being attracted to the same sex, You HAVE made your judgement. Your honest admission of discrimination is a judgement, and is abhorrent to anyone with a functional concience. You are immoral and disgusting.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2012
The point of having agod seems to be just to have an excuse for being a moral monster - snice "god did it, and god willed it, and god made me this way" it's not your own fault.

so either the godders are the monsters or their god is the monster (which makes them alos monsters for following him)

Either way: they don't come out of this looking like decent human beings.
Just calling yourself a 'decent human being' doesn't make it so. Actions speak louder than words.
dogbert
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 26, 2012
antialias_physorg,
The point of having agod seems to be just to have an excuse for being a moral monster - snice "god did it, and god willed it, and god made me this way" it's not your own fault.


Not a Christian position. A straw man argument.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 26, 2012
Just calling yourself a 'decent human being' doesn't make it so.

So true.
First what is 'decent'? Some think being vegan is 'decent' and to be 'decent' is to force others to be vegan.
Is joining a gang to plunder the wealth of others 'decent'? Or is is such plunder only 'decent' if you redistribute to others to make them dependent upon your gang and recruit more members for your gang?
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (14) Jul 26, 2012
antialias_physorg,
The point of having agod seems to be just to have an excuse for being a moral monster - snice "god did it, and god willed it, and god made me this way" it's not your own fault.


Not a Christian position. A straw man argument.

The anti-Christians here never address the fundamental basis of the faith and always attack what men have perverted to their interests.
Socialists assert their 'faith' is 'good' but keeps getting perverted by 'bad' leaders. But their 'faith' at its core demands coerced redistribution of wealth. So assert that's what Christ demanded, but I can find no instance where Christ supported plunder. He did support and encourage an individual GIVING of themselves and their wealth, but not the forced 'giving' of other people's time, talent and wealth like the socialist do.
And the socialists perverted Christ's Words to support their plunder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 26, 2012
so either the godders are the monsters or their god is the monster (which makes them alos monsters for following him)
-Monsters only from the perspective of their enemies (the other tribe).
Either way: they don't come out of this looking like decent human beings.
It is indecent from a biological perspective to let your enemies gain a reproductive advantage.
Just calling yourself a 'decent human being' doesn't make it so. Actions speak louder than words.
Your perception stems from the western idea of the 'universal tribe' but it fails in considering what the west is prepared to do to stop aggression of Islamist 'tribes' struggling to extend their reproductive rights at the expense of ours.

Morality is inextricably tribe-oriented. Religion is it's convenient and very effective vehicle.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 26, 2012
And the socialists perverted Christ's Words to support their plunder
I think you have it exactly backwards. Your godman was pretty unequivocally socialist. You know, rich men and camels and needles?

Acts 2:4247, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] "
http://en.m.wikip...ection_3

Christ valued 'souls' above 'things'.
roboferret
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2012
Ryg seems to think there is some dichotomy between socialism and Christianity, when it just ain't so. Christian Socialism can be traced back to the 19th century. The political left/right divide along religious lines is pretty much an American peculiarity, as is the association with conservatism and libertarianism. This may be due to the two party system preventing more diverse political views. Coupled with some residual McCarthyism, this leads to any mildy egalitarian view being labeled as socialist, and its proponents godless communists.
It needn't be so. Universal healthcare is considered a basic human right in much of Europe, regardless of political views, even the most extreme right wing parties in the UK wouldn't dare suggest disbanding the NHS. Democracy itself is an egalitarian ideal. The American right has hijacked Christianity for political reasons, and gets lots of faithful votes, but right-of-center views are not a natural product of Christianity.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2012
The point of having agod seems to be just to have an excuse for being a moral monster - snice "god did it, and god willed it, and god made me this way" it's not your own fault.

Not a Christian position.

It's not? You can go to confession and basically get freed of any guilt that you may feel (up to - and including - mass murder).
then you can be a complete moral monster and just turn 'goddy-good-christian' on your deathbed to get into heaven.

How exactly are those not "get out of jail free" cards that allow you to be moral monsters for your entire lives if you want to?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 26, 2012
just turn 'goddy-good-christian' on your deathbed to get into heaven.

Only you and God know if you truly repent.
It doesn't matter what a priest, pastor or fellow Christians think, only you and God.
I think this is where the socialists really have problems with God. Your relationship with God is more important than your relationship with 'society'.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 26, 2012
Universal healthcare is considered a basic human right i

How can this be a right when it must violate a right to property?
If you have a right to take the service of a doctor a nurse or the right to take the money to pay a doctor or nurse then you have violated someone else's right to their property.
Eventually everyone will have a 'right' to claim the property and labor of anyone leaving NO one with any rights.
This is not Christian in any way. Charity is voluntary, not compulsory.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2012
Only you and God know if you truly repent.

That doesn't really help all the millions you may have slaughtered (which may have not gotten the time to repent depending on the method you used)

Your relationship with God is more important than your relationship with 'society'.

No problem there. You should just be man enough to follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion and go live with god and get the hell out of (any) society. Instead you try to influence society (which isn't as important to you as god, as you just said).

So leave those that want to better society to do their thing and you can continue to grovel on your knees. Everybody is happy. Fair deal all around - don't you think?
roboferret
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2012

How can this be a right when it must violate a right to property?

It doesn't, any more so than insurance. If you claim off insurance more than you have contributed to date, are you violating the property rights of the other contributors? Its a way of distributing risk. Everyone will get sick at some point, so its fair to ask that everyone contributes.
What is immoral is people suffering and dying from treatable conditions because they can't afford treatment. And I can guarantee I pay far less for healthcare than you would for the same coverage - the economies of scale that a national system brings, plus no huge profit margin brings costs down. It's not a perfect system, but the rest of the civilised world, of whatever political or religious persuasion, thinks your system is unfair and backward.
Christianity versus socialism is a false dichotomy, so please stop using it. Plenty of people are both. I am neither.

dogbert
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 26, 2012
antialias_physorg,
It's not? You can go to confession and basically get freed of any guilt that you may feel (up to - and including - mass murder). then you can be a complete moral monster and just turn 'goddy-good-christian' on your deathbed to get into heaven.


Nope. You are not even close. It doesn't work that way. Forgiveness is predicated on repentance which works to change behavior.

BTW, I was talking about biblical Christianity, not denominational fallacy.

ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 26, 2012
It doesn't, any more so than insurance.

Real insurance is voluntary.

Christianity versus socialism is a false dichotomy,

No, it is not.
What is immoral is people suffering and dying from treatable conditions because they can't afford treatment.


Why don't you pay for them?

brings costs down

No, it does not. It rations care when the taxes run thin. How far does the 'right' go? Who decides when to discontinue care for the 'good' of the rest?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jul 26, 2012
Ryg seems to think there is some dichotomy between socialism and Christianity, when it just ain't so. Christian Socialism can be traced back to the 19th century.
Well if you believe what the bible says, Jesus invented it.

But actually, any of the surviving religions promote the support of families which grow beyond their means to support themselves. Charity. It is the 3rd pillar in Islam. Xians call it the tithe. Jesus did not put a limit on it. He said 'share everything'; and 'wealth is a sin'. ALL resources go into growing the flock; and of course, buying swords.
Nope. You are not even close. It doesn't work that way. Forgiveness is predicated on repentance which works to change behavior.
Actually it is based on how many hail marys you have to say. And other meaningless ritual which you perform; THEN you are absolved. Until next time.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 26, 2012
There is no place in the Bible where Jesus promotes the use of govt power to redistribute wealth.
God warned His people what a govt would do TO them in 1 Samuel 8: 11-20. God was not very sympathetic to those who wanted a king/govt to rule over them.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 26, 2012
BTW, why does Auto care about what he considers fiction unless he wants to use it as a tool to persuade Christians to be socialists?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 26, 2012
There is no place in the Bible where Jesus promotes the use of govt power to redistribute wealth.
God warned His people what a govt would do TO them in 1 Samuel 8: 11-20. God was not very sympathetic to those who wanted a king/govt to rule over them.
Indeed. But then Jesus is the rightful king of the jews because he SAID so. And he also said that in order to get into heaven you must give up everything (to the church/govt) and follow your king. Him.

The queen of England is the head of the church and the rightful heir of the throne of David. AND a direct descendent of Charlemagne, who founded the holy roman empire. See how it all ties together?

Your religion is steeped in govt. It was adopted by Rome in order to promote what you call roman socialism. No wonder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jul 26, 2012
Real insurance is voluntary.
Medicare/Medicaid are not voluntary. Your standing army is a form of insurance and the taxes to support it are NOT voluntary. And no, it is not there to protect your stuff, but to protect YOU. As is obamacare, whether you like it or not.

And when the first of the designer pandemics hits and you are lying under a big tent somewhere in intensive care, or being inoculated against the airborne strain of HIV, you will appreciate the Foresight of Those in power for nationalizing the insurance industry, which would have otherwise collapsed under such Inevitable burdens.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 26, 2012
Medicare/Medicaid are not voluntary.

...and is not insurance.
They are taxes.

Jesus is the rightful king of the jews

But NOT an earthly king.

Just because Constantine or any other self proclaimed king or queen asserted they were the 'head' of their church is just another attempt by tyrants to control their people.
Christianity, a grass roots movement among the people, like the tea parties, became so popular the leaders needed to assert themselves to keep in control.
Being a king is not as easy as you may think. Takes a lot of finesse and balance not piss off the wrong people who would kill you.
TheGhostofOtto_Loves_RitchieGuy
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 26, 2012
Ryg is correct. Leaders always need to maintain control, lest things get out of hand.
Christianity was the basis for the freedom movement against the oppressors (Romans) and their Jewish counterparts. Christ was the embodiment of the messiah who had been promised to the Jewish people and to all those in the region who were monotheistic. However, his words fell on deaf ears other than those who believed in him that he was the son of God.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 26, 2012
Just because Constantine or any other self proclaimed king or queen asserted they were the 'head' of their church is just another attempt by tyrants to control their people.
Except when religions are concocted specifically to legitimize these tyrants.
Christianity, a grass roots movement among the people, like the tea parties, became so popular the leaders needed to assert themselves to keep in control.
Uh no, if there was any grassroots movement (doubtful mythology) it was about a wholly-human guru. The state-sponsored religion needed a resurrected godman who could promise the people immortality and grant wishes in return for martyrdom.
Being a king is not as easy as you may think. Takes a lot of finesse and balance not piss off the wrong people who would kill you.
It takes a way of having the people blame their hardship on whoever is best suited; Jews, Saracens, or even the people themselves (Xian guilt). Anyone but the king. The surviving religions are good at this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 26, 2012
...and is not insurance.
They are taxes.
??So are taxes. What's your point? A standing army is there in case you need it. So is health insurance. Taxes are going to pay for both, as they pay for Medicare. Or your auto insurance I suppose.

When potholes need fixing the govt doesn't come around asking for donations. It has already gathered the money to do this. Insurance. So that free market entrepreneurs have roads to transport their goods over, c/o their partners the socialist taxpayer.

When Joseph and pharaoh realized that pop growth would cause famine to inevitably follow feast, they decided to start storing grain. And, like insurance companies today, they ended up owning all of value in Egypt. Because the people NEVER save for hard times, so the govt MUST, if it wants to prevent complete collapse.

Needless to say this can be a very lucrative Endeavor, especially when you can Machinate exactly when and how famine will Occur. Because there is no god to tell you this, right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 26, 2012
But NOT an earthly king.
Well he was for awhile wasn't he? But then he screwed up - he rode into the holy city on the holiest of days and proclaimed to the priests that he was not only their king but their GOD. What an idiot.

But it all worked out. Millions of idiots just like him got the idea that this was somehow the way to live forever, and began martyring themselves in droves. The world got smarter as a result. The Process continues to this day. Allahu ackbar! (Jesus saves!)
TheGhostofOtto_Loves_RitchieGuy
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2012
"In other words, if someone belongs to a church that teaches being gay is a sin, the effect of those teachings on the person's endorsement of same-sex marriage depends on how consistent his personal beliefs are with those teachings." article

In most Christian churches, the gayness of an individual is not the sin in and of itself. It is the homosexual ACT itself that is the sin. Indulging in gay or lesbian sex is what is considered an unnatural sexual act due to the human physiology where a man's genitalia is designed for sex with the female genitalia, where there may or may not be the beginning of reproduction taking place.
Because God through nature designed it so, any deviation from this normal process is a sin in the eyes of God and the homosexual act itself is upheld by most Christian churches as a sin.
TheGhostofOtto_Loves_RitchieGuy
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2012
Of course, in the secular world now, natural and normal human sexuality is laughed at and derided as archaic and obtrusive and designed to limit the feelings of lust for one man with another man, or several, and one woman for another woman, or several, through feelings of guilt that the male homosexual has no sexual thoughts for a female and thus desires another man.
But religious dogma does not remove the understanding that there are "others" whose nature it is is deviant from normal sexual acts, and cannot remove their thoughts from the homosexual act and the desire for the bodies of their own gender. Christianity struggles to include these gays and lesbians, but does not break faith with the original precepts for the sake of inclusion of the homosexual act as desired by such communities.
TheGhostofOtto_Loves_RitchieGuy
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2012
Certain Christian churches do embrace the homosexual as well as his/her sexual acts as normal and good. They are not true Christians and are considered as fringe and outsiders. The true Christian church does not vary in its teachings. If it did, then it is no longer the church of Jesus Christ and HIS teachings.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2012
What this means is that those who believe that practicing homosexual acts is not a sin simply do not believe the bible.
What THIS means is, self-righteous bigots don't know The Bible.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2012
For us, the only distinguishing marks for our faith is found in the New Testament of the Bible

Have you even READ the new testament, yet? Do you know what kind of bizarre stuff is in there? Or are you just a salad-bar type chritian who takes what he likes (i.e. what he agrees with anyhow) and leaves the rest? (or more likely: who has never read the Bible at all and just regurgitates what others tell you about it).

because thTa#s how it works: you interpret stuff until you like it. God didn't make you in his image. You're making him in yours.
'Delusions of grandeur' and magalomania are not enouugh to describe that kind of attitude - but you get the drift.
roboferret
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
Jesus seemed to think paying taxes was lawful.

Mark 12 v 14-17
And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
religions are concocted specifically to legitimize these tyrants.

Abraham was a tyrant?
Egyptians, who held Jews in servitude, had their own religion which the Jews did not partake even though it may have helped their situation. Jews kept their faith and did not request a tyrant until Saul
So it seems like the tyrants usurped an existing religion to bolster their influence among the faithful.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
"But when Christ said: Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsars, and unto God the things that are Gods, those words, spoken on His last visit to the Temple, three days before His death, gave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a sacredness it had never enjoyed, and bounds it had never acknowledged; and they were the repudiation of absolutism and the inauguration of freedom. For our Lord not only delivered the precept, but created the force to execute it. To maintain the necessary immunity in one supreme sphere, to reduce all political authority within defined limits, ceased to be an aspiration of patient reasoners, and was made the perpetual charge and care of the most energetic institution and the most universal association in the world."
http://www.acton....ntiquity
This why socialists oppose Christ's teachings. It limits the power of the state. The state is under God's rule as well.
roboferret
5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2012
This why socialists oppose Christ's teachings

http://en.wikiped..._parties

False dicotomy again. Some Christians are socialist and some atheists are libertarian (Ayan Rand being a notable example). Leo Tolstoy was a Christian Anarchist.

I'm all for limiting the power of the state. What I'm objecting to is your inability to distinguish your market economics from your religion. It is a small, exclusive subset of the American Right which conflates the two, Christianity existed perfectly well centuries before both democracy and market economics.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2012
What I'm objecting to is your inability to distinguish your market economics from your religion.

Why?
Free market economics IS the economic system most aligned with Christian principles.
Socialism demands coercion which violates Christian principles.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 27, 2012
those who believe that practicing homosexual acts is not a sin simply do not believe the bible.
What THIS means is, self-righteous bigots don't know The Bible.
No, most xians dont know their bible though which is obvious.

Religions which have survived to the present routinely reject any sexual practices which do not lead to conception and thus increasing the flock. Obviously. This is HOW they have prevailed.
Abraham was a tyrant?
Who said he was? He was a prophet.
Egyptians, who held Jews in servitude, had their own religion which the Jews did not partake even though it may have helped their situation.
-According to the bible. But according to archeology, jews were never in egypt, and those in canaan worshipped canaanite tribal gods. Including the wife of jehovah, ashterah.
Jews kept their faith and did not request a tyrant until Saul
-According to the bible. But according to archeology neither saul nor david nor solomon never existed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 27, 2012
-According to the bible. But according to archeology, jews were never in egypt
Actually this is not technically true. During the purported time of the exodus and joshua, canaan was a part of egypt. Canaan was full of egyptian soldiers in well-fortified garrisons the whole time.

Good thing the 'hebrews' were in canaan the whole time isnt it? Because they were canaanites. And they never could have made it out of goshen.
http://www.youtub...e=relmfu

-Science- the art of destroying superstitious myth through actual work.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 27, 2012
So it seems like the tyrants usurped an existing religion to bolster their influence among the faithful.
Are you saying all kings are tyrants? This is not true. THESE guys are tyrants:

"The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan...About 20 million people died, mainly civilians, in one of the deadliest military conflicts in history."

Queen Victoria (free trader with gunboats, head of church of england, pope-like) "The Opium Wars, also known as the Anglo-Chinese Wars, divided into the First Opium War from 1839 to 1842 and the Second Opium War from 1856 to 1860...The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong..."

"The role of the emperor as head of the Shinto religion was exploited during the war, creating an Imperial cult that led to kamikaze bombers and other fanaticism." -and millions of dead orientals.

Etc.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2012
Are you saying all kings are tyrants? This is not true. THESE guys are tyrants: "The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan.


Mao showed Hong how it should be done.

"II. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
8. The People's Republic of China: Overview
9. 8,427,000 Victims: The Totalization Period
10.7,474,000 Victims: Collectivization and "The Great Leap Forward"
11. 10,729,000 Victims: The Great Famine and Retrenchment Period
12. 7,731,000 Victims: The "Cultural Revolution"
13. 874,000 Victims: Liberalization "
Total 35 million
http://www.hawaii...OTE2.HTM
"n the eight years that the Han Dynasty was being replaced by the Qin Dynasty 221-207B.C., the population of China decreased from 20 million to 10 million. "
http://www.hawaii...HAP3.HTM
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2012
Socialism demands coercion which violates Christian principles.


Yahweh ordered mass murderer and was quite fond of genocide when people didn't dance to his tune exactly. Christ himself used violence to expel money changers from the temple.

So your statement is patently false if the Bible is correct.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
Socialism demands coercion which violates Christian principles.


Yahweh ordered mass murderer and was quite fond of genocide when people didn't dance to his tune exactly. Christ himself used violence to expel money changers from the temple.

So your statement is patently false if the Bible is correct.

Of course you know what the 'money changers' were doing and why Jesus ejected them from His Father's house?
They had a govt protected monopoly and were able to coerce their 'customers'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 27, 2012
The tyrants of precommunist china were ALL religionists. Including the mongols. Funny how little difference there is between religious and non-religious despots? Especially the xian ones?
They had a govt protected monopoly and were able to coerce their 'customers'.
Yes, the govt in that case being a religionist one.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2012
Of course you know what the 'money changers' were doing and why Jesus ejected them from His Father's house? They had a govt protected monopoly and were able to coerce their 'customers'.


Several things here...

First of all Jesus merely claimed it was his fathers house, this was never determined in any legalistic sense, so he's no different (from a legal standpoint) than the occupy wall street folks.

Secondly, your statement was that coercion was against Christian principles. Since you made no qualifiers at all, this means all coercion...so you need to re-phrase or retract.

Thirdly you never addressed Yahweh's blatant and unqualified coercion which is rampant in the old testament. Unless of course you're not going to include the OT in your Bible as a Christian.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
your statement was that coercion was against Christian principles

It is.
Self-defense is not coercion.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2012
"The issue most pertinent to this choice is not so much which definition of freedom, positive or negative, ought to be accepted as closer to the Christian ideal, but which definition in practice establishes the necessary though insufficient conditions for spiritual freedom that the state can uphold in the material world. Of the two definitions of freedom, only negative freedom establishes such practicable conditions since only freedom understood as the absence of coercion, the absence of fraud or force, can be proven by material standards and deterred or punished by material means. "
"Christians who have abandoned the classical liberalism of Grotius and Tocqueville will return only when they are convinced that neo-liberalism's promise of positive freedom, like spiritual freedom, is something that only God and not government can guarantee. "
http://www.acton....-defined
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2012
your statement was that coercion was against Christian principles

It is.
Self-defense is not coercion.


Webster disagrees:

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

Christ used force to obtain compliance. Moreover you haven't established that Christ owned the temple. Go fish.

Also you still haven't answered the charges against Yahweh.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 27, 2012
positive freedom, like spiritual freedom, is something that only God and not government can guarantee.
Funny all religions say this. But they mean it in regard to their religion only.

"Coercion the Xian way:

"18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." john3

-And as god cannot be relied upon to expunge evildoers, it is up to gods children to set them straight. With extreme prejudice.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2012
MM, if you defend yourself or others from theft, fraud, murder, socialism, etc, is that coercion?
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2012
MM, if you defend yourself or others from theft, fraud, murder, socialism, etc, is that coercion?


You don't like to answer direct, tough, honest questions do you?

I'll ask you another. If you destroyed nearly all the human race because they didn't worship you with a flood, would that be coercion?

I will do you the courtesy of answering your question even though you never answer mine.

Yes, I would be using coercion and force to defend myself. Coercion itself isn't the problem, the problem is how do you use it. Adherents of Ayn Rand have made the term coercion into a bugbear, a strawman, a false concept. You actually have to think for yourself if you want honesty.
dogbert
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
Modernmystic,
I'll ask you another. If you destroyed nearly all the human race because they didn't worship you with a flood, would that be coercion?


Atheists always erect straw men to knock down. For what it is worth, God destroyed most of the human race with the flood because of their wickedness. Worship had nothing at all to do with it.

Note also that destroying someone does not coerce them into doing anything at all.

Atheists really like Ayn Rand too. Talk about her all the time. I don't know why.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2012
That's a silly question, MM. The "flood" didn't happen because the people didn't bow down and worship God. He destroyed them because they were sinning so much. Murder, rape, you name it and they did it, and they were not remorseful and change their ways. No, they continued on and on. They were no longer God's people except for the few that God saved to repopulate the Earth.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
Coercion is a false concept?
That not what you said a few posts ago.
After reading Atlas Shrugged, I think one motivation for Rand to be atheist was the result of socialists who called themselves Christian.
The socialists in Atlas.. used guilt to coerce individuals to support wealth redistribution. People who created, who produced were condemned for being selfish.
Sounds just like the Obama and his fellow socialist travelers today. Those who create, who produce, who earn wealth are attacked as selfish. Some acquiesce, others don't.
Those who don't, those who are keeping their cash, are attacked as 'selfish'. They have gone on strike, just as the producers in Atlas did.
Rand was quite a prophet.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
see...dogbert agrees with me too.
There are far greater things for atheists to be concerned about than who and why Christians are getting down on their knees to pray to an unseen entity.
In all the years I have been reading about atheists and their strong dislike or hatred for believers in God, I have noticed one recurring problem for atheists.
That problem is their need for almost continual reaffirmation from other atheists and from themselves, that they have not made a huge mistake in their hatred of the concept and worship of God as the Creator of everything. and their dis or unbelief in God the Creator
Reaffirmation of their belief that God does not and cannot exist ensures the atheists' sanity and satisfaction in his choice.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2012
Reaffirmation of their belief that God does not and cannot exist ensures the atheists' sanity and satisfaction in his choice. Without that continual reaffirmation, and if there is even a small amount of doubt in his mind that he or she was wrong and God just might really exist even if not in the physical sense, the atheist mind becomes very troubled and doubts begin to form and even a kind of panic begins.
When an atheist dies, he or she is just a piece of meat that only becomes worm food, no matter what he did in his lifetime, good or evil, it's all the same. But when a Christian dies, the physical results are the same, but his or her life is celebrated with the knowledge that his spirit or Soul continues after leaving the physical body and his works are remembered in the afterlife, whether good or evil. It is for this reason that Christians are encouraged to be good and do good works and avoid evil things and evil people.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2012
Atheists always erect straw men to knock down.


It wasn't a strawman according to the bible Yahweh used coercion to achieve his ends. The assertion was made that violence is against Christian principles. I was speaking to that, and my point was factual, correct and still stands.

For what it is worth, God destroyed most of the human race with the flood because of their wickedness. Worship had nothing at all to do with it.


According to the bible it said the hearts of humans were evil all the time. I'm assuming you'd agree if they worshiped god then that would nullify the previous assertion. So, yes, worship did indeed have something to do with it. Moreover it helps to justify your position if you (god) define what is wicked and then proceed to prosecute it. Kind of a circular morality play....

In any event genocide is an improper use of force.

cont.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 28, 2012
Atheists have no such limits, believing that whether they were good or evil in life, it amounts to nothing in death because they don't believe they will have to face punishment for the evil they had done. They are worm food and nothing more.

But atheists are also unhappy that Christians believe that they are not merely worm food, but actually continue in a spiritual sense. Atheists complain about Christian beliefs and try to find ways to convert Christians to atheism by incessant asking for evidence even though evidence cannot be found for existence or non-existence of God at this time.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2012
Note also that destroying someone does not coerce them into doing anything at all.


Destroying people tends to make other people "behave" though.

Coercion is a false concept?


Well, yes when used in the context Rand liked to use the concept. Like I said.

obama socks,

I can't speak for all atheists, but most of what you wrote doesn't apply to me.

I will say that it's possible to do the right thing without the threat of punishment. We just do it for the sake of being moral. In fact it's only the freedom of choice in the matter, without the threat of death, hell, or whatever that even allows for the proper concept of morality to play out. You're not really being good if you only do the right thing because someone made you....
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2012
Oh, and ryg...you still haven't answered a question yet...just FTR.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (13) Jul 28, 2012
your statement was that coercion was against Christian principles

It is.
Self-defense is not coercion.


Webster disagrees:

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

Christ used force to obtain compliance. Moreover you haven't established that Christ owned the temple. Go fish.

Also you still haven't answered the charges against Yahweh.
MM

The ancient Hebrews carried the Ark of the Covenant with them everywhere they went. When they set up the tent and placed the Ark within it and the tent was purified. The priests also had to be purified before entering the tent. The tent was the Temple and was holy. Only certain people who were purified were allowed entrance. Segue to Christ approaching the Temple. Commerce and money lending is going on in the Temple even on the Sabbath. The Pharisees don't care and the Jews have fallen away from God. This angers the Christ and gives them the bums' rush. Was Christ wrong to do it?
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2012
Here is a church for the atheists:

"For many years, the United Church was a pillar of Canadian society. Its leaders were respected public figures. It was and remains the biggest Protestant denomination in a country that, outside Quebec, has been largely shaped by centuries of Protestant tradition.

But today, the church is literally dying. The average age of its members is 65. They believe in many things, but they do not necessarily believe in God. Some congregations proudly describe themselves as post-theistic, which is a good thing because, as one church elder said, it shows the church is not stuck in the past. Besides, who needs God when youve got Israel to kick around?"
http://www.theglo...4443228/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (21) Jul 28, 2012
That's a silly question, MM. The "flood" didn't happen because the people didn't bow down and worship God. He destroyed them because they were sinning so much. Murder, rape, you name it and they did it, and they were not remorseful and change their ways.
Well, the flood never happened because a great deal of evidence tells us this. So we can conclude that the myth is allegory.
No, they continued on and on. They were no longer God's people except for the few that God saved to repopulate the Earth.
No he was upset because they weren't murdering and raping gods enemies like Joshua and his hordes did. This is the tribal dynamic - internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity. The bible is an instruction manual on how to apply this to large and disparate populations.

Yes, it is about world conquest. And yes, lots of people have to die. Both OT and NT succinctly describe how to accomplish these things. Conquest and revolution. Jesus was the consummate revolutionary.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2012
Reaffirmation of their belief that God does not and cannot exist ensures the atheists' sanity and satisfaction in his choice.

Easily disproven: Atheists do not believe that there is no god, because if no one had come up with the concept of god then we all would be atheists - but none of us would actively BELIEVE there is no god.

Godders create a false dichotomy by stating: "you have to believe in a god or believe that there is no god". But the reality is: to atheists gods aren't an issue at all. Just like to you froodlefrums aren't an issue.

Atheism is the absence of a stance, not an active belief in the absence of a thing (a god or gods). As such there is no 'satisfaction in a choice' because a choice was never made.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 28, 2012
Atheism is the absence of a stance, not an active belief in the absence of a thing (a god or gods). As such there is no 'satisfaction in a choice' because a choice was never made.
Right. And antireligionism IS a stance, that religions are evil. This is demonstrated empirically. The issue of gods tangible existence is irrelevant to this stance.

We CAN conclude that god does indeed exist as a very real and dangerous and virulent meme, and as such we can expose it for what it is, and we can thus fight it.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2012
Atheism is the absence of a stance

No, this is agnosticism.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 28, 2012
Reaffirmation of their belief that God does not and cannot exist ensures the atheists' sanity and satisfaction in his choice.

Easily disproven: Atheists do not believe that there is no god, because if no one had come up with the concept of god then we all would be atheists - but none of us would actively BELIEVE there is no god.

Godders create a false dichotomy by stating: "you have to believe in a god or believe that there is no god". But the reality is: to atheists gods aren't an issue at all. Just like to you froodlefrums aren't an issue.

Atheism is the absence of a stance, not an active belief in the absence of a thing (a god or gods). As such there is no 'satisfaction in a choice' because a choice was never made.
a_p

So you are saying that atheists don't believe that there is NO God and whether or not God exists is a non-issue, is that correct? You are neutraI. If that is the case, then why all the hostility toward those who do believe or who have faith in God?
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2012
Nope. I'm not neutral. As an atheists I just think anyone who does believe in a god (or who even thinks it's an issue) is stone cold crazy.
It's like people walking around believing in unicorns, and ordering their entire life according to that delusion. Craziness at it's most pure and obvious.

As for hostility: At home your allowed to be as crazy as you like. No problem. Build churches. Be as crazy as you like there. No problem.

But make life for everyone else hard by trying to shove these crazy idea(l)s into society, morals, and politics? You've gotta be out of your mind if I shouldn't fight such madness to the limit.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2012
Atheism is the absence of a stance

No, this is agnosticism.
Ryggesogn2

Yes, agnostics are unsure and wait for more evidence as to the existence of God. I strongly favor that most scientists who seek the evidence of God's existence are not atheists, because they are aware of possibilities and do not rule out those possibilities, no matter how improbable due to lack of solid evidence. Their agnosticism also reflects on their scientific work as to not ruling out all possibilities while seeking their evidences.

With so many religions and factions, it is tempting to condemn ALL religions as being evil even when beneficent and just. A better avenue to pursue is to weigh each religion by its merits and to condemn only those that advocate murder, rape and plunder and that have a hatred for individual rights and property. Some religions are a deterrent to doing evil, such as Christianity. The God of the Old Testament is not necessarily the God of Christianity.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2012
Nope. I'm not neutral. As an atheists I just think anyone who does believe in a god (or who even thinks it's an issue) is stone cold crazy.
It's like people walking around believing in unicorns, and ordering their entire life according to that delusion. Craziness at it's most pure and obvious.

As for hostility: At home your allowed to be as crazy as you like. No problem. Build churches. Be as crazy as you like there. No problem.

But make life for everyone else hard by trying to shove these crazy idea(l)s into society, morals, and politics? You've gotta be out of your mind if I shouldn't fight such madness to the limit.
a_p

Your thoughts on belief in God by others is completely irrelevant. You cannot change them and they are not concerned with changing your thoughts whatsoever. You yourself are exhibiting craziness by your lack of tolerance and understanding of diversity in mankind. It's YOUR will against theirs and you waste your time and passion being a religion-Nazi.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jul 28, 2012
With so many religions and factions, it is tempting to condemn ALL religions as being evil even when beneficent and just. A better avenue to pursue is to weigh each religion by its merits and to condemn only those that advocate murder, rape and plunder and that have a hatred for individual rights and property. Some religions are a deterrent to doing evil, such as Christianity. The God of the Old Testament is not necessarily the God of Christianity.
How long before this flooding sockpuppet gets banned as well I wonder?

RIP pirouette/Ritchieguy/russkiye/pussy/etc. Sockpuppets are temporary but stupid is forever.
obama_socks
1.1 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2012
"I've never heard of any Ammish terror plots or other aggression against the U.S. or state or world governments " Lurker

"Not yet. They are human, and they read the same holy book they did back in 1525, which tells them to martyr themselves as needed. And they have pitchforks." Ghostofotto1923

In the above exchange it appears the TheGhostoftheDead is projecting a future in which the Amish will become violent and suicidal because they are human and because of their holy book.
This is a good example of why the world is so screwed up when such people as TheGhost spew their negativity and hatred around as though he were the authority on the future of mankind, and thus, the future and destiny of the good people of the Amish communities. Theghostofotto1923 is one fucked up dude and everyone needs to know that.

FTR, I have been posting my comments on Physorg since 2004 and never had any problems with any other posters. But of course we all know that Theghostofotto1923 is a bloody asshole.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2012
@ antialias_physorg
I find it surprising that someone like you who is knowledgable about the sciences and is tolerant of racial diversity, empathic of socioeconomic inequality, and homosexuality is not an issue for you, yet you are extremely intolerant as to the beliefs and faith in God of people whom you have never met and never will.
When did the religion of strangers become such a hot issue for you and for which you developed such an intense hatred?
For one thing, the vast majority of Christians do not wear their faith and belief on their forehead for all to see. Religion is necessarily a private way of life for most people, simply because one's interaction with his God is very personal. Those creationists who advertise their beliefs have an agenda and are not mainstream Christians.

But in your fervor to expose and publicly reject those who adhere to their faith in God, you have become the new Grand Inquisitor; not to torture Jews, but to take your malevolence to a new avenue.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2012
is tolerant of racial diversity, empathic of socioeconomic inequality, and homosexuality is not an issue for you, yet you are extremely intolerant as to the beliefs and faith in God

Why would that surprise you? The first few aren't trying to tell anyone how to lead their lives. They are issues that deal with equality and fairness (something I think is of value). They are also issues where people are working on reality and are putting fellow humans first.

People who believe in god, on the other hand, are the antithesis of all that. To boot they are down right illogical in how they act. And THAT goes counter to my love for science. If you want to be evil then at least be consistent (and stand by it). THAT I could respect.

But the hypocrisy and bigotry that goes on in the name of an invisible rabbit? No. I cannot respect that one bit.

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2012
When did the religion of strangers become such a hot issue

About the age of six (though I was actively involved in church/youth activities until I was 19...but not on a religious level, but just because we had an awesome pastor who was very much into community activities and never, ever quoted the bible or talked about god-given morals. A very political guy - which earned him some criticism from his superiors- but outspoken, egalitarian and critical against himself and the church)

But from the age of 6 I knew that the whole scripture and god thing were deeply, deeply inconsistent and illogical.

Religion is necessarily a private way of life for most people

And as I said: keep it there and everything is hunky dory (though I would prefer it that people would grow up instead of sticking to nursery rhymes - but at that point it's a matter of tolerance: do what you want to do at home). Schizophrenia that doesn't hurt anyone does not need to be treated.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2012
do what you want to do at home

If only the socialists would do the same.

And of course EVERYTHING an atheist does is ALWAYS 100% rational. (At least in his own mind.)
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2012
How irrational!

"These ten powerful life changing books will make a real impact on how you look at the world, how you understand life and also help you to see yourself in a completely different way."

Invisible Man
By Ralph Ellison (fiction, lies)

Think and Grow Rich
By Napoleon Hill (20 yr study of how the successful became so)

Brave New World
By Aldous Huxley (fiction, lies)

The Hobbit
By J.R.R. Tolkien (fiction, lies)

1984
By George Orwell (fiction, lies)

The Stand
By Stephen King (fiction, lies)

The Hundred Year Lie
By Randall Fitzgerald (non-fiction, maybe lies)

The Holy Bible
Written By God's Hand (fiction and lies according to some)

Eat Right 4 Your Type
By Peter J. D'Adamo (non-fiction, maybe lies, peer reviewed, FDA approved?)

http://www.squido...ng-books

Here is list of the top 100 books of lies taught in schools:

http://www.perfec...t-titles

Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2012
I can't discern any type of point or reason in your last post rygg... are you saying you don't like fiction books? So what? What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2012
I can't discern any type of point or reason in your last post rygg... are you saying you don't like fiction books? So what? What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about?


Just wondering if atheists who claim to be 'rational' reject other books people say help them or teach them something about the human condition.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2012
"At its core, secularism is deeply suspicious of any entanglement between government and religion.

Secularism needs to be disarticulated from atheism for a variety of reasons. "
"the secular vision was birthed by religious thinkers, such as Martin Luther, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the last two, admittedly were idiosyncratic believers, but believers nonetheless). "
"secularism is a proponent of religious freedom and freedom from religion. It sees the "Church" as a legitimate component of the American polity. It doesn't view religion as "poison" (to quote Christopher Hitchens) or hope for an "end of faith.""
"as long as some celebrities of nonbelief continue to espouse radical anti-theism (in the name of "secularism," no less) the future of secularism is imperiled.
" http://www.huffin...588.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (21) Jul 29, 2012
FTR, I have been posting my comments on Physorg since 2004 and never had any problems with any other posters. But of course we all know that Theghostofotto1923 is a bloody asshole.
And yet you post
have a hatred for individual rights and property
...which smells like pussy to me. You are merely the same liar under multiple sickpuppets.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2012
"If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then dont tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all thats good and decent, and that youre going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will. "
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1

Reminds me of the US socialist state in Atlas Shrugged. They claimed they don't want to nationalize Rearden Steel and they supported free markets, but they had to make it 'fair'.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2012
And of course EVERYTHING an atheist does is ALWAYS 100% rational.

This is a pretty meaningless statement since there is neither an atheist agenda, nor an atheist organization nor an atheist dogma.

The day that believers in gods go away is the very same day that there are no more atheists. So really, making such a statement grouping people by a NON-definition (i.e about the NON-issue they have) is really, really, stupid.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2012
And of course EVERYTHING an atheist does is ALWAYS 100% rational.

And on a related note: If you're defense for being WILLFULLY illogical is that you see other people do things you think are illogical, then that's got to be the dumbest defense in human history

"I'm evil because that other guy is also evil - so that means I'm OK"...is that REALLY how you want to argue?

I've seen you make a lot of inane statements on politics and economy in other threads, but...just just ADMITTED to the world that you KNOW how dumb you're life's foundations are - and that you're PROUD of that.

How can you live with yourself?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2012
WILLFULLY illogical

But from the age of 6 I knew that the whole scripture and god thing were deeply, deeply inconsistent and illogical.


So you accept NOTHING that is illogical?

obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2012
@a_p
Your "awesome" pastor was no Christian. He served as an entertainer and community organizer, very similar to Obama who may be Christian in name only. Most entertainers and organizers are very outspoken against Christianity and normal Christians who are true believers.

Atheists are driven by irrationality when they believe themselves to be rational without evidence of it. Right here in this thread, Theghostofotto1923 talks about smelling pussy. He is trying to give the impression that he is a carpet muncher, which I highly doubt.

But in any case, your waste of your energy means nothing to the rest of us, and you can hate all you want. As long as you don't attempt to physically retaliate against Christians, rave and rage all days and night if you wish. You will never change anything.
I've been posting on this site for 8 years now and I have spoken to a_p and others who started here with me, but I always made a point of avoiding religion discussions. But I see now that a_p is nuts
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2012
@a_p
Intolerance of religion and the religious belies your diminished or nonexistent capacity for real empathy for all humanity. If you poured as much energy in the apprehension and incarceration of criminals, including those guilty of espionage, you might have proven yourself as an uber mensch, as the Jews say. But your cup is empty if you cannot embrace all people as your brothers and sisters, the way you do the homosexuals and their acts and Socialists.
You are only one among many atheists and you say that there is no atheist agenda. This is a lie. However loosely knit the atheist community exists, they will eventually wind up with legislation to dissolve religious groups because they will go through legal means and coercion if they cannot have their way. Under Socialism and then communism, as I have read in these threads, the destruction of the Church will be carried out by those who falsely profess their tolerance for everyone. I question what will replace religious belief
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2012
So you accept NOTHING that is illogical?

If it's willfully illogical - no.
There's plenty of things one can be wrong about (i.e. being illogical by accident) but if you see that what you profess to believe in and reality are at odds with one another then that has to be resolved one way or another.

One way: give up on an illogical belief (changing reality isn't an option)
Another: Become schizoid.

Religious people have chosen the latter - selectively ignoring reality whenever it clashes with their beliefs.

Your "awesome" pastor was no Christian

That doesn't mean anything since you didn't know him. He lived much more according to social the teachings of Jesus (which aren't half bad - by the way) than any self professed 'christian' I have ever met.

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2012
Atheists are driven by irrationality when they believe themselves to be rational without evidence of it.

You're doing the same insane defense that rygg did: "They are irrational, so it's OK to be irrational for me". You're as stone cold crazy as he is.

Right here in this thread, Theghostofotto1923 talks about smelling pussy.

No, he just is very good at seeing the obvious: That you have shifted to a new sockpuppet.

Intolerance of religion and the religious belies your diminished or nonexistent capacity for real empathy for all humanity.

As noted: as long as they don't get political about it( i.e. trying to shove their god and morality down everyone's throat) everyone is free to do what they want in their own homes. Even believe in ghosts, unicorns and gods.

Tolerance just ends where they tell me to act as if their delusions are real and stick to dogma based on those delusions.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2012
However loosely knit the atheist community exists, they will eventually wind up with legislation to dissolve religious groups

I think you're being massively paranoid, here. No one wants this (at least I have never met an atheist whoc professed to want this - we'd all be happy if religion didn't exist. But having secular states are perfectly acceptable).
Be in religious groups all you like. Atheism is about NOT telling people what to do. The reasons why atheists are so riled up against believers is that they want the same courtesy extended to them.

Under Socialism and then communism...the destruction of the Church will be carried out

Learn to distinguish them. Then learn to distinguish them from Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism. THEN come back and state your case about the 'destruction of the church'.
The way you write it you just make yourself look like an uneducated fool.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2012
Atheists are driven by irrationality when they believe themselves to be rational without evidence of it.

You're doing the same insane defense that rygg did: "They are irrational, so it's OK to be irrational for me". You're as stone cold crazy as he is.

Right here in this thread, Theghostofotto1923 talks about smelling pussy.

No, he just is very good at seeing the obvious: That you have shifted to a new sockpuppet.

Intolerance of religion and the religious belies your diminished or nonexistent capacity for real empathy for all humanity.
Tolerance just ends where they tell me to act as if their delusions are real and stick to dogma based on those delusions.
a_p

Your defense of your friend, Ghostofotto1923 displays your irrationality as well as his. He got rid of the pregnant bitch and now you and he will find a new victim, anyone who is a conservative and is a Christian becomes fair game. The only thing that is obvious is that you are both insane.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2012
It is also obvious that you are paranoid about Christians proclaiming their religion and why they believe in God in this and other websites, and in other venues which you might happen to notice. This tells us that you are insecure in your non-belief or whatever it is, and your insecurity drives you to imaginings of Christians telling you to act as if their "delusions" are real.
That is as far from the truth as is possible. You and other atheists are a non-issue to us. It is only when you attack what you call "religionists" that we return in kind. Perhaps you expect us to "turn the other cheek" for your benefit while you flail us with words laden with complete intolerance, as we stand defenseless before your rage at our "delusion"? If this is your wet dream, then you are as mentally ill as your Oddo friend. Christians could not care any less even if you howl at the moon in your despair at Christians celebrating their holidays or holy days.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2012
Even when Oddo was Otto1882, all of us on Physorg knew that he was creating sock puppets and using them against those whose posts he did not like. We already knew that he was creepy and said so to each other in PMs. Obviously, you have pretended for years that you were operating completely unawares of Oddo's sock puppets, and because of your own delusion, you absolve him (or is it yourself) of all irrationality. Because of your negative reaction to my own defense, I can only assume that you and he have close ties since I have never seen such a closeness between other people on this website no matter how much in agreement they were. You have known me in the original name that I started with in 2004. Your inability to accept that as truth speaks volumes as to your irrational thought patterns. You create a bugbear in your own mind that has been transferred to you from Oddo. Or vice versa.

Atheists have raged at seeing a creche in a public place and moved to have them abolished by law.
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2012
The only thing that is obvious is that you are both insane.

and why they believe in God in this and other websites

I'm here to discuss science (so is he, I think). You (and they) are here to discuss religion. This is physorg. Draw your own conclusions on who is insane.

It is only when you attack what you call "religionists" that we return in kind.

If you think we attack out of nowhere then think again: Would atheists attack if religionists didn't exist? No - because atheists wouldn't exist then, either. Therefore it's quite obvious who threw the first stone. You can't have the effect before the cause.

Obviously, you have pretended for years that you were operating completely unawares of Oddo's sock puppets

AFAIK I have never said anything about Otto's sockpuppets (whether he has any or doesn't). I think he might have. But honestly: he's not my problem (neither are you). Your sockpuppetry is just funny to watch in how pathetic it is.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2012
When I return to my primary user name after the November elections, I am certain that Oddo will go berserk if he cannot find some new victims, and you will nod approvingly due to the fact that you are complicit in his mental illness, and your own.
You may vow to have Christians and their comments removed from Physorg and others banned because you feel that you own this website. We have come to a determination that there are only two people who do this, and that is antialias_physorg and theghostofotto1923 and the sock puppets who are many.
In the years I have been commenting on physorg, I have learned much about other commenters but I ignored their idiosyncracies for the most part. And now that I have had the displeasure to experience Oddo's insanity first hand, I can understand his past and future victims as they have tried to enjoy a science website but thwarted from doing so.
Your opinions and excuses are of no importance to me because you are unimportant except to yourself.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2012
This tells us that you are insecure in your non-belief or whatever it is, and your insecurity drives

If you want to talk insecurity then you might think about this:

What screams more of insecurity than to create sockpuppets to upvote, downvote or post 'corroboating views'? And that since 2004?
If your opinion has merit it will stand on its own.
If you need a virtual swarm to lend it weight (or even think that it will lend it weight) then you have already lost.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
I must congratulate you on your perfect English for a German allegedly living in Germany. In my visits to different regions of Germany while I was stationed there in the U.S. Army, I have never met a native German who could speak or write English as well as an educated American. I believe you to be an American pretending to be a German national.
Your arguments are poor and your instincts are to attack. And then you say "If you think we attack out of nowhere then think again: Would atheists attack if religionists didn't exist? No - because atheists wouldn't exist then, either. Therefore it's quite obvious who threw the first stone. You can't have the effect before the cause."

Religionists of all kinds have existed long before atheists. The nature of your disbelief (or whatever it is) does not give you rights against those who do believe.
Your intolerance cleaves your intelligence and forces you to resort to an astonishingly unorthodox ideology of hatred and putrescence of mind.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
This tells us that you are insecure in your non-belief or whatever it is, and your insecurity drives

If you want to talk insecurity then you might think about this:

What screams more of insecurity than to create sockpuppets to upvote, downvote or post 'corroboating views'? And that since 2004?
If your opinion has merit it will stand on its own.
If you need a virtual swarm to lend it weight (or even think that it will lend it weight) then you have already lost.


You are certainly going mad. In spite of all I have said previously, you choose to ignore the glaring fact that this name is only the second name I have ever had. My primary name was signed on 8 years ago and I have only decided to create this name to see what happens if I go into a thread with the word "religion" in the title. As usual, and which I had suspected would happen, all of you atheists FLOCK to such threads to argue with religionists who have legitimate right to be in a thread about religion.

obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
Apparently, you also cannot believe that some people exist who don't like you or your ideas. Therefore, you must have your scapegoat since you cannot find or know who the actual culprits are. You put the onus on me and expect me to twist and turn in the wind or dance for you in the fear and awe of your self importance. I would tell you to go to hell, but that is inappropriate for this occasion. Your prejudice and hatred against creationists is of no real consequence because you are not in charge of the world except in your own hovel.
Whether or not you and other atheists would not attack creationists if they did not exist is irrelevant and simply a part of your tomfoolery. Your sock puppet Oddo exhibits himself as buffoon extraordinaire whether you have created him or not.
You have made your decision to play the fool against all people of religion, mainly Christians.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
As there are thousands of religions on this planet, you may want to visit Iran or any other Muslim country and expound on your hatred of THEIR religion, no matter which sect. Then you can go to India and smash all their idols for them while extolling the virtues of your atheistic views.
You have chosen Christianity to pester simply because you can and not be killed for your troubles. You and your fellow atheists may find out differently one day. Not every Christian is pious and will turn the other cheek for you to slap.
dogbert
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
You bring up a good point obama_socks. Atheists contiually attack Christianity. Seldom do they attack the Jewish faith and almost never Muslim faith.

They know that if they attack Islam, someone is likely to show up to kill them.

The other major religions of the world are seldom even mentioned by atheists.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
They know that if they attack Islam, someone is likely to show up to kill them.

In addition to fear of death, those atheists who are socialists and anti-Semite don't attack Islam because it is a govt system near and dear to their heart.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2012
I have never met a native German who could speak or write English as well as an educated American.

I've lived for 2 years in the states (1984-1986). I
went to highschol there. My english was atrocious when I arrived. But going to school is a "do-or-die" scenario.

I still try to get all movies in english (I hate the dubbed versions) and all the books I read for leisure are in english (and so are all the papers I read for work). When I was still publishing my own research papers those had to be in english and most collaborations in science these days are international (so english is needed for communication, presentations, technical reports, etc. )

And yes: My french-class teacher at the time couldn't believe it, either, when I told him I was going 'back to germany'. He thought I was american, too - which was pretty funny (how I didn't participate in the pledge of allegiance might have given him a clue, though)
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2012
I would tell you to go to hell, but that is inappropriate

You may. Since I don't believe in hell such a statement would only serve to give you some internal satisfaction, I suppose. To me it's meaningless. It would be like me telling you that you will go to Niflheim or Utgard or Nirvana or whatever. Would you feel affected by such a statement? Hardly.

You have made your decision to play the fool against all people of religion, mainly Christians.

Believe me: As soon as I meet a muslim or hindu or buddhist who behaves as you and your kind do, here - they will get the same treatment from me. I play no favorites.

Religionists of all kinds have existed long before atheists.

Unless you believe in Adam and Eve that is patently false (and if you do: Boy, are you ever on the wrong website)

Your intolerance cleaves your intelligence

Tolerance doesn't mean that "anything goes by anybody". Stupidity must be fought.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2012
You and your fellow atheists may find out differently one day. Not every Christian is pious and will turn the other cheek for you to slap.

Which pretty much makes my point. Thank you.
Such a person would certainly not be a christian (at least he certainly wouldn't take Christ as his role model...which is pretty much what being 'christian' is all about, no?)
It is EXACTLY those christians which I take umbrage to. The "take it on the other cheeck" kind - no problem there. But the latter aren't the ones pushing their agenda, are they now?

Seldom do they attack the Jewish faith and almost never Muslim faith.

Show me a muslim or a jew making quite so much a fool of himself here and I'll happily tear into them with the same vengeance.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2012
Commerce and money lending is going on in the Temple even on the Sabbath. The Pharisees don't care and the Jews have fallen away from God. This angers the Christ and gives them the bums' rush. Was Christ wrong to do it?


I've found it's not helpful to talk about "right" or "wrong" in these instances. It would be better to say that what he did was very immature. I can think of very few, if any, instances I'd actually pick up a bullwhip and use it on fellow human beings. Lending money to people on the weekend certainly isn't one of them...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2012
I've been posting on this site for 8 years now and I have spoken to a_p and others who started here with me, but I always made a point of avoiding religion discussions.
Uh huh. Under what name did you post here for 8 years? And why did you create a new sockpuppet? If you're not a lying flooding sickpuppet you should have no qualms about divulging this info.
otto1882
Sorry that wasn't me. But it is possible that you are a vandal who thinks they are being clever by pretending to be a multi-sockpuppet ignoramus, and HAVE been around for 8 years, and were both dick_wolf and otto1882.

This would be the same sort of mental dirtpile as someone who would consider shooting up a movie theater. Same profound level of disconnect. Or you are just some ignorant hick is my guess.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 30, 2012
Show me a muslim or a jew making quite so much a fool of himself here and I'll happily tear into them with the same vengeance.
Yeah you're a real avenger. And yet you coddle this imbecile?
I've lived for 2 years in the states (1984-1986). I
went to highschol there. My english was atrocious when I arrived. But going to school is a "do-or-die" scenario.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2012
You bring up a good point obama_socks. Atheists contiually attack Christianity. Seldom do they attack the Jewish faith and almost never Muslim faith.
And it's funny how religionists without integrity will uprate sickpuppets even when it is obvious they are only pretending to be religious. Suckups will say anything in order to make allies don't you know that dog?

Show some backbone. Ignore this troll.

By the by, in the Amish thread I rail against hasidim, islamists, and Mormons as well as xians because they are all the same thing. Like this troll they are lying, earth-flooding, selfish, and deranged. Their sockpuppet denominations, sects, cults and covens abound.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
Lending money to people on the weekend certainly isn't one of them...

You don't understand the story.
They were money 'changers'. The temple accepted only ONE kind of money and the money changers had a monopoly and charged high rates of exchange.
It was like the USSR. The official exchange rate in '83 was 1.5 USD per ruble. In country unofficial rates were 1USD bought 100 rubles. But they could not be converted back to USD without going to jail. You had to spend them in country or risk going to jail smuggling anything of value, like amber, out.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2012
You don't understand the story.
They were money 'changers'. The temple accepted only ONE kind of money and the money changers had a monopoly and charged high rates of exchange.
It was like the USSR. The official exchange rate in '83 was 1.5 USD per ruble. In country unofficial rates were 1USD bought 100 rubles. But they could not be converted back to USD without going to jail. You had to spend them in country or risk going to jail smuggling anything of value, like amber, out.


OK, I'll amend. Yes, it was extremely immature to whip people over exchange rates, lending money in the temple, government monopolies, and even rygs dubious attempt to connect this well known biblical story to Soviet Russia. No matter if it was on Saturday, Sunday, or even the 4th of July. As I said in my previous post, I'd have a hard time thinking of anything I would actually LASH another human being over...but that's just me.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
I'd have a hard time thinking of anything I would actually LASH another human being over...but that's just me.


Socialists are quite happy and eager to punish anyone they believe is taking economic advantage.
Unless, of course, they are the ones rigging the game to their advantage.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2012
Speaking of smelly pussy and other 'less evolved' religions, here is some pussy in russia who face 7 years in gaol for hooliganism (blasphemy)
http://www.dw.de/...,00.html
http://www.youtub...ure=plcp

-My my my look at all that iconography. According to moslems these guys are the blasphemers. They are currently fighting and dying over this distinction in chechnya.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2012
Socialists are quite happy and eager to punish anyone they believe is taking economic advantage.


Next time I meet one I'll keep that in mind...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2012
They were money 'changers'. The temple accepted only ONE kind of money and the money changers had a monopoly and charged high rates of exchange.
No YOU dont understand the story. As you freemarketeers always say, location location location. These entrepreneurs were clever enough to wrangle a spot in the temple. So what?
Socialists are quite happy and eager to punish anyone they believe is taking economic advantage.
EXACTLY. This is why jebus was whipping the freemarketeers in the temple. He was a socialist.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
They were money 'changers'. The temple accepted only ONE kind of money and the money changers had a monopoly and charged high rates of exchange.
No YOU dont understand the story. As you freemarketeers always say, location location location. These entrepreneurs were clever enough to wrangle a spot in the temple. So what?
Socialists are quite happy and eager to punish anyone they believe is taking economic advantage.
EXACTLY. This is why jebus was whipping the freemarketeers in the temple. He was a socialist.

It wasn't a free market.
But you don't believe it anyway.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2012
They were money 'changers'. The temple accepted only ONE kind of money and the money changers had a monopoly and charged high rates of exchange.

It wasn't a free market.
I dont understand. I believe you have this ALL WRONG.

"But he said to those who sold doves, Get these out of here! Do not make My Fathers house a house of trade!"

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who SOLD AND BOUGHT in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

-It wasnt just money markets. It was ALL markets. Jesus was saying in effect that all commerce is unclean.

"According to Mark 11:16, Jesus then put an embargo on people carrying any merchandise through the temple - a sanction that would have disrupted all commerce."

He was anti-capitalist; ie, socialist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2012
But you don't believe it anyway.
I believe it means what it SAYS, not what you godders WANT it to say.

And as usual it is a shameless copy of an earlier story. How can you take this stuff seriously?

"An incident where provocation took place in the Temple can be found in the time of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah overturned the furniture of Tobiah the Ammonite who had, with the cooperation of Eliashib the High Priest, leased the storerooms of the temple, depriving the Levites of their rations from the offerings, and drove out Eliashib's grandson who had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite."

-Interesting twist though. The OT version seems to be condemning corruption; the NT version seems to be condemning free trade in general because it LEADS to corruption.

Jesus was a socialist dude.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
Commerce and money lending is going on in the Temple even on the Sabbath. The Pharisees don't care and the Jews have fallen away from God. This angers the Christ and gives them the bums' rush. Was Christ wrong to do it?


I've found it's not helpful to talk about "right" or "wrong" in these instances. It would be better to say that what he did was very immature. I can think of very few, if any, instances I'd actually pick up a bullwhip and use it on fellow human beings. Lending money to people on the weekend certainly isn't one of them...
Modernmystic

There was nothing "immature" about clearing out a religious Temple, whether on the Sabbath or not. When commerce is being carried out in a house of God, those who were in there had given up their rights as God's chosen people and were trespassing on the premises, not to mention that they were preventing worshippers from coming inside to worship their God.
Your excuse that there is no right or wrong is false. - contd

obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2012
- contd
It is not even the fact that Christ proclaimed Himself as the son of God. As was already said, the Temple is regarded as a holy place in which to worship. The money lenders/changers showed no respect for the Temple and what it represented. A child could have driven them out and shamed them for desecrating a holy place and the results would have been the same.
If you saw the White House or the U.S. Capitol being desecrated by a defecating OWS bum, that MIGHT give you a feeling of disgust and rage at the perpetrator and, if you had been witness to it, you most likely would have given him the bum's rush likewise.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2012
If you saw the White House or the U.S. Capitol being desecrated by a defecating OWS bum, that MIGHT give you a feeling of disgust and rage at the perpetrator and, if you had been witness to it, you most likely would have given him the bum's rush likewise.
Not unlike your defecating here by posting phony opinions under phony sickpuppets. You can understand our rage.

So what is your original nick that you plan to return to after obama gets reelected? Honesty is next to godesty. This is the only way to prove that you are sincere about your faith.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
@ModernUnmystic

But you vehemently argue that the Christ was violent for throwing out the human garbage from a house of worship, and yet you would probably be very angry if a government building in Washington DC would also be desecrated with a large group of OWS bums defecating and using drugs and needles within those hallowed halls. You would be displaying a double standard of honoring one but dishonoring the other because of your atheist sense of values.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 30, 2012
f you saw the White House or the U.S. Capitol being desecrated by a defecating OWS bum, that MIGHT give you a feeling of disgust and rage at the perpetrator and, if you had been witness to it, you most likely would have given him the bum's rush likewise.
Not unlike the bums rush you got from disgusted and enraged moderators for posting those turdish links to gay porn sites. I guess pirouette/bitchieguy/russkiye/pusskiye/you was just another OWS bum eh?
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
I will not argue with an obviously mentally ill person who craves massive amounts of attention and a cadre of "Yes-men" who will approve and applaud his every word. He wants MY primary name so that he can follow me around to talk dirty just as he has done with others whom he chose to victimize, obviously with the approval of antialias_physorg.
This website has gone from good to bad since I first signed on along with my fellow commenters 8 years ago. And the reason it has gone bad is because theghostofotto1923 and his great number of sock puppets, old and new continue to roam the threads in search of new victims. His new sock puppets, lite and pluton, among others, have been rating me ones as though that were a deterrent for not speaking out my opinions.
Theghostofotto1923 hates opinions unless they agree with his own opinions. The rating is used for intimidation purposes, so I have been told. If the rating system were eliminated, this crazy person would go absolutely nuts even worse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2012
This website has gone from good to bad since I first signed on along with my fellow commenters 8 years ago. And the reason it has gone bad is because
-you showed up a year ago and started posting ignorant nonsense about 900 ft-tall glassy-headed martians and metal boomerangs cast in wax molds and bloodletting to treat leukemia and I wish I had kept a list.

Your latest bullshit - you pretended to misread a crater photo as convex instead of concave. As nobody is this stupid I think it is fair to assume you did this ON PURPOSE because you are a TROLL who is just playing games.

And so you will continue to be identified every time you post, and your bullshit exposed. Fair enough? You want a chatroom discussion? Try facebook or 4chan.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
The only thing that theghostofotto1923 has left is to remove all doubt of his insanity by continuing his irrelevant and self-destructive claims. Anytime he finds someone who is a Christian, who is Conservative and who speaks out against socialism and other issues and is well spoken, he will claim that they are his pussyrichie and the others from which his current mental illness has been stepped up to greater heights.
Physorg moderators will not remove his account(s) from this website because he obviously draws a crowd of onlookers and gawkers to see the crazy person talk, and it adds somewhat to the site's popularity and notoriety. This website has become a laughing stock as more and more new people observe theghostofotto1923 do his "One-Trick-Pony" act. He is a source of great amusement for me, dogbert, and hundreds of others who comment in these threads. Nowhere else on the internet is such a clown found. I do not concern myself with being rated ones as he thinks. It means nothing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2012
Physorg moderators will not remove his account(s) from this website
But they will ban every iteration of yours because you enjoy flooding with nonsense, profanity, racial slurs and posting links to gay porn websites. Yes?

No wait - that wasnt you that was your bf who was posting while 'slamming' you into your kitchen appliances, or so you claim.
This website has become a laughing stock as more and more new people observe theghostofotto1923 do his "One-Trick-Pony" act.
Naw people read your stuff and get disgusted and leave. One post here and there would be a curiosity but dozens of posts a day under multiple sockpuppets and each one a 'kick-me' sign... You are a vandal and a TROLL.
I do not concern myself with being rated ones as he thinks. It means nothing.
-which is why you create sickpuppets solely to uprate yourself and downrate others?
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2012
When commerce is being carried out in a house of God, those who were in there had given up their rights as God's chosen people and were trespassing on the premises, not to mention that they were preventing worshippers from coming inside to worship their God.


Not that I agree with any of your premises, but for the sake of argument let's say I do. How about ASKING them to leave...

When you disagree with someone how do you handle it? Bullwhip them or engage in discourse?

But you vehemently argue that the Christ was violent for throwing out the human garbage from a house of worship,


Human garbage...how un-christian of you...nice.

Moreover I'm not vehemently arguing anything. I'm stating my opinions, nothing more.

Where does it say they were barring the entrances to the temple btw?

(cont)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2012
Not that I agree with any of your premises, but for the sake of argument let's say I do. How about ASKING them to leave...
Dude - pussys premises are all MADE UP just to get a rise out of you. This freak is pure phony.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2012
You bring up a good point obama_socks. Atheists contiually attack Christianity. Seldom do they attack the Jewish faith and almost never Muslim faith.

They know that if they attack Islam, someone is likely to show up to kill them.

The other major religions of the world are seldom even mentioned by atheists.
dogbert

Excellent observation, dogbert. Antialias claims that he would also attack (in so many words) Muslims if he came upon them. Yes, he might attack peace-loving Muslims who mind their own business, but he will never attack the Taliban or Al Quada in person and put his life in danger, otherwise he will say something against the muslim religion... and they, in turn, would attack HIM with a dull knife going back and forth across his neck as was done to the Jewish guy by Al Kazowie or whatever his name is. Christians don't behead their enemies and are fair game for the atheists. And if a Christian retaliates, then they claim he is no Christian. Atheists are frauds.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2012
and yet you would probably be very angry if a government building in Washington DC would also be desecrated with a large group of OWS bums defecating and using drugs and needles within those hallowed halls.


No, not really...

Even if I was I certainly wouldn't whip them.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
When commerce is being carried out in a house of God, those who were in there had given up their rights as God's chosen people and were trespassing on the premises, not to mention that they were preventing worshippers from coming inside to worship their God.


Not that I agree with any of your premises, but for the sake of argument let's say I do. How about ASKING them to leave...

When you disagree with someone how do you handle it? Bullwhip them or engage in discourse?

But you vehemently argue that the Christ was violent for throwing out the human garbage from a house of worship,


Human garbage...how un-christian of you...nice.

Moreover I'm not vehemently arguing anything. I'm stating my opinions, nothing more.

Where does it say they were barring the entrances to the temple btw?

(cont)
ModernM

Human garbage is human garbage no matter how you look at it. Take theghostofotto1923. A classic example.
But Christ was only one in a Temple of many.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2012
Human garbage is human garbage no matter how you look at it.


Well that's certainly not how I look at it. Your comparisons do say something about you however.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2012
- contd
You concentrate on ONE aspect of the life of the Christ, the punishing of those who desecrated a HOLY TEMPLE. If He had been a Roman centurion who did it, you would have no problem with that. It is only because of your rejection of the Christ as the son of God and the Messiah that you believe His whipping of those who had no business being in a Temple in the first place to be an act of violence done by a man of peace.
You are very mistaken, MM. Two slaps to the face might be tolerated, but the THIRD slap will get a punch in the nose as the answer to violence from the slapper.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that commerce in the Temple was carried on, but I had said earlier about the Ark of the Covenant being in the purified tent, and only those who had been purified were allowed entrance to the tent.
If you think that the money-changers/lenders were purified, you would be very wrong.
You could even say that the Christ was making a "citizen's arrest" in a way.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2012
Wow jumping through hoops to justify an obviously violent and uncalled for action. I'm not focusing on ONE aspect of the life of Christ. I was answering a charge that coercion is against Christian principles. I think I've proved that false. It seems you would agree.

All this "holy temple" stuff and the law of the bible is your problem. You can say it all you want to me, but it's not going to have the least effect on my opinion...I'm just saying in case you want to save some time and typing space...
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2012
Human garbage is human garbage no matter how you look at it.


Well that's certainly not how I look at it. Your comparisons do say something about you however.
ModernMystic

Well, whatever it says about me is irrelevant and not part of our discussion, MM
My opinions are my own. although perhaps hundreds share them in just this website alone, and I have plenty of motivation for those opinions, as you have read already. As we are concentrating on one event in a holy man's life, it behooves me to reveal as much as I can remember about Him and His good works.
By the way, I would prefer all the readers of my posts who agree with me and disagree with my opposition, to NOT downvote these atheists such as antialias. I detect angst in his words at getting lower grades than five. Please comply. Thank you.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2012
Wow jumping through hoops to justify an obviously violent and uncalled for action. I'm not focusing on ONE aspect of the life of Christ. I was answering a charge that coercion is against Christian principles. I think I've proved that false. It seems you would agree.

All this "holy temple" stuff and the law of the bible is your problem. You can say it all you want to me, but it's not going to have the least effect on my opinion...I'm just saying in case you want to save some time and typing space...
MM

nonono...you have got it all wrong, MM. None of us care enough to convert you to Christianity. You have choices and you have "free will" given to you by God. Each of us make our own choices, that is what makes us human. There are different levels of "coercion". Gov't coercion threatens you with jail. I prefer to call what the Christ did in the Temple as "friendly persuasion". There is nothing in NT that says they came back to the Temple to do it all over again. Persuasion works.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2012
nonono...you have got it all wrong,


nononono....you have it all wrong. I mean the fact that it was a "holy temple" as some kind of rationalization or justification for whipping people.

I wasn't thinking you were trying to convert me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2012
Well, whatever it says about me is irrelevant and not part of our discussion, MM My opinions are my own. although perhaps hundreds share them in just this website alone
Either the dweeb believes their are throngs or he/she/it is just slinging shit again. Either way they are one real sicko.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
coercion is against Christian principles.

It is.
Christ was stopping the coercive acts of thieves just as Luther opposed the sale of indulgences.

"The high priest ordered that only Tyrian shekels would be accepted for the annual half-shekel Temple tax because they contained a higher percentage of silver, so the money changers exchanged unacceptable coins for these shekels. Of course, they extracted a profit, sometimes much more than the law allowed.

Jesus was so filled with anger at the desecration of the holy place that he took some cords and wove them into a small whip. He ran about, knocking over the tables of the money changers, spilling coins on the ground. He drove the exchangers out of the area, along with the men selling pigeons and cattle. He also prevented people from using the court as a shortcut. "
http://christiani...gers.htm
I never saw anything about a bull whip. Jesus was a rabbi and this was a Jewish temple.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2012
from the King James Bible (Cambridge ed.)
"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"

Apparently, the "scourge of small cords" or whip, was used on the sheep and oxen, and not on the money changers. When he overturned the tables and scattered their money, they knew it was time for them to leave along with their livestock.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2012
I call that "friendly persuasion". Isn't that so, Ryg? With sheep and cattle, you would need a whip or a long prod.
:)
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2012
Another way to put it...if the Christ had used a whip on all those men in the Temple, they would have "laid hands" on him and subdued him, maybe have him arrested for assault. He was not arrested, therefore, he did not beat them, but used the whip to chase the animals out. No coercion...and no violence. He was a man of peace.
I'll be back later.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2012
Pussy thinks the bible says:

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, AND the sheep, and the oxen"

-Another translation:

"15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, WITH the sheep and oxen."

-Either way, same thing. He was whipping animals AND people.

Read much? Of course not. Much more important just to post.