Topic: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God - page 29. (Read 37219 times)

I reckon most blokes would prefer the idea of banging their neighbours wife, than their neighbour banging his wife.
There are exceptions of course, I'm just speaking generally.

I share your disdain of institutionalised religion Beliathon. But that aside, with regards the individuals religious experience, I am more than tolerant of it so long as it isn't rammed down my throat. (FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience opened my eyes in this regard)

I reckon thats the mistake the Bolsheviks made TBH - tried to erase it from the face of the Earth - counter productive in my view. Tolerate it - as the Chinese tolerate/turn a blind eye to Buddhism/Confucianism etc

Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics, while gender refers to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society.

Sex refers to male or female, while gender refers to masculine or feminine.

The differences in the sexes do not vary throughout the world, but differences in gender do.

Here are some examples of characteristics related to sex:
-Females have a vagina, men don't
-Males have a penis, women don't
-Male newborns tend to weigh more than female newborns
-Females can breastfeed their babies, males can't
-Males have deeper voices than females
-Females can get pregnant, males can't
-Males have testicles and females have ovaries

Here are some examples of characteristics related to gender:
-Women tend to do more of the housework than their spouses do
-A higher percentage of US doctors are women, compared to Egypt
-Nursing is often seen as a woman's job, although many men enter the profession
-In some countries women have to cover their heads when they go outside the house
-120 years ago women were not allowed to vote in elections

Another way of putting it is:
-Sex refers to a natural or biological feature.
-Gender refers to cultural or learned significance of sex.

"Modern science" should take a look at that thing between their legs. That's flesh and blood reality. Of course you can modify the configuration, but that's still a physical alteration. I guess someone here is mixing gender with gender roles...

Again, you completely ignored my question and pretended as if my sources don't exist, therefore they need not be addressed of course.

As far as your books, books aren't scientific studies. Any idiot can string together a bunch of concepts and just pretend as if they are fact, or simply use persuasive language with no scientific backing whatsoever. I also noticed not one of the authors are Doctors or have a masters degree. I am curious what scientific authority they have to make such claims.
 
CITE STUDIES SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT.

If you are incapable of condensing your ideas into simple descriptions with links to sources of science based studies, either you don't have any knowledge of the information you claim expertise on, or the studies don't exist.
Just because it is in a book does not give it scientific value. Return here when you are capable of debating.

Again...

My sources begin with the books in the OP of this thread. I didn't put them there so you could enjoy the pretty pictures.

Read at least two or three of those books, at the very least read Sex at Dawn (also consider checking out some of this book's many excellent cited sources), and then return here when you're worthy of debate.

So what your saying is your single source from 60 years ago is more accurate than all of the modern studies I sourced, and you are just going to pretend they don't exist?  BTW, where does one get a degree in sexology? Also you never answered my question. What gives you the right to be intolerant and destroy the gender norms of the vast majority of the population while hiding behind a veil of tolerance?

And then this new A.I. will be worshiped by people like the OP...

While it's true that human beings generally are polygamous sexually(Yes, arousal to others other than your partner and the desire to have sex with others adds to this), I don't believe "sex will kill god". The end of religion based primarily on faith without conclusive evidence(99% of all religions out there) would likely occur at the spark of something absolutely, astoundingly, revolutionary such as the creation of a "human-level" artifical intelligence and/or more.

What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

Your attitude reminds me of the "progressive mentality" of "scientific liberals around 1900-1920, which led to the "modern Science understanding" promoting Eugenics.

Actually, modern Science has understood gender to be a social construct since sexologist John Money's pioneering work on sex and gender distinction in 1955.

Of course, with all the racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and homophobia on this forum, it's clear half the fuckwits here are operating as if we're still in the late 40's.

Russians oppose homosexuality due to cultural reasons, and not because of religious reasons. Less than half of the Russians are religious. Historically, Russia was opposed to sodomy. During the Imperial period, gays were sentenced to death or were sent to mental asylums. When the Communists came to power, they followed the same policy, by making homosexuality a crime punishable by death. Compared to those times, homosexuals are very much better off now in Russia.

Psalm 2

1 Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.
3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.”

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.”

7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Too bad after your wanton destruction of social structures in #1 and #2, #3 is impossible, because science has already proven gender is not just a social construct. You claim to have the backing of science, but you just use the word science as a cudgel to beat your destructive socialist ideals into people while having no actual scientific data to support your harebrained theories. It is funny how you claim to stand on the side of protecting people's freedom to be free with their own sexuality, but you at the same time have declared war on the sexual identities of regular people who are perfectly comfortable with their own gender. Not at all hypocritical.

In short you are promoting the destruction of societal structures millions rely upon in order to promote your ideals which have little to no scientific reasoning behind them. Good ideas supplant the bad ideas. The fact that you have to actively destroy the work of others shows to me very clearly how misguided and dangerous your socialist poison is. What gives you the right to destroy the gender norms of others?




Is being gay a choice? Most people would say no. If being gay is at least partly result of biology, why is it that other gender roles are not? Is this just a simple excuse to destroy the gender identities of gender normal people in the name of "tolerance"?
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/homosexuality

The Gender Equality Paradox
(In Norway, arguably considered one of the most "progressive" countries as far as "gender equality" have all kinds of programs to give people freedom to join workplaces often dominated by the opposite sex. The results showed even more segregation of gender when people had more choice, clearly indicating that people choose these jobs, not that they are discriminated against or excluded.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/2349

Nature v Nurture (innate gender roles in primates)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvZ4EbPbME

Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of (human) children
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

Evolutionary Psychology and the challenge of adaptive explanation.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ldc/GrayEP.pdf



Real science says you are wrong, but feel free to shit all over society, tearing it apart, then just slap a sticker on it that says "Science". Ever notice how if you ever dare to bring up evolutionary biology to some one who self identifies as a "feminist" they tend to lose their shit pretty quickly and start throwing accusations of sexism at you? I wonder why that is... could it be that biology totally contradicts the bullshit narrative that these groups are trying to force upon the rest of the world under the guise of tolerance?

"Democracies are the blossoming of the aloe, the sudden squandering of the vital force which has accumulated in the long years when it was contented to be healthy and did not aspire after a vain display. The aloe is glorious for a single season. It progresses as it never progressed before. It admires its own excellence, looks back with pity on its earlier and humbler condition, which it attributes only to the unjust restraints in which it was held. It conceives that it has discovered the true secret of being 'beautiful for ever,' and in the midst of the discovery it dies."

--James Anthony Froude 1886

Um, actually Russia is high on Orthodox churchie stuff, and also Muslim.  And China is not due for another revolution in the least.

All true, but the middle east (including Pakistan) is currently about 400 years behind the western world (and Russia) in terms of social progress, so I leave them out. I call out Russia because they don't have the valid excuse of being hyper-religious nutjobs there.

China is a due for another revolution any time now, and I think they will come out very progressive, even by western standards, after this next one.

The fallacy, my dear sir, is the basic idea of comparing murders based on religion, against those committed devoid of such a basis.  

You're presuming atheist atrocities "out-perform" atrocities based on religion, when the simple fact is an atrocity needs neither basis - instead, only that of the twisted (or 'anti-social', if such fallacious logic still rules this discussion) individual's (and those he/she have brainwashed) personal beliefs to cause such suffering.

Religion, sex, death, genocide, etc. etc. etc. - ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL.  No one has any right whatsoever placing blame on a reason that can be used universally.


Investing some time in reading the book, 'A Brief History of the Paradox', may serve many here as good reference material when dealing with similarly pointless banter.

A homo will be more safe in Russia, then he is in Africa, China, India, Pakistan, Middle East, Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), and Indonesia. Russia doesn't give out death penalty for sodomy, unlike the industrialized nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, and Egypt.

People that refused religion have killed more people than all religions have so I think your the one with the fallacy dumbass.