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

(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

Sexual attitudes changing in South Korea

Citation: College students likely to disagree with religious teachings that homosexuality is a sin (2012, July 17) retrieved 21 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-07-college-students-religious-homosexuality.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

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.

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.

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.

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?




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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Jul 17, 2012
Religion makes no one a better person

History says otherwise.
Ever hear of John Newton?

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.

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?

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.

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>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jul 17, 2012
While college student are readily available for studies, the efficacy of any data collected is poor.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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/

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/

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
"

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?

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

Jul 18, 2012
You label me... I don't label myself. I think labels are for simpletons.

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.

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.

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 ?

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).

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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.


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
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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 ...

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...

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?

Jul 18, 2012
Are you arguing that misery might be good?

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

Jul 18, 2012
Death, you chose your name well.

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-

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.

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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jul 19, 2012
Only within the last few gens do we have Alternatives.


Abstinence was always an option...

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.

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.

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?

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.

Jul 19, 2012
No argument about any of that from me...

Jul 19, 2012
no one LIKES getting or giving abortions

That's what you would hear from Planned Parenthood.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Jul 19, 2012
I am not a moral relativist... see Sam Harris...

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.

Jul 20, 2012
"the tide will go in and out"

Tide goes in, tide goes out... CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT! /O'Reilly

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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>

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.

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?

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.

Jul 21, 2012
Ecclesiastes - 'for the Priests'. This is the kind of thing you learn in seminary school.

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

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.

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/

Jul 22, 2012
Rygg..

Having eyes you do not see, and having ears you do not hear. Has your heart been hardened?

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.

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".

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.

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...

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.

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/

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,"

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 "

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jul 23, 2012
Math can be perfect, but as with life, it all depends on what you've put into it.

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


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.

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

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.

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!"

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

Jul 24, 2012
But science CAN say things on morality,

Dr. Mengele had much to say.

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.

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.

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).

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...

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.

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.