Draw up a list of perversions caused by religion:

Post Reply New Topic

Cool, and he certainly does "know his stuff"!


No problem.


With all due respect: There is one of today's "skewed perspectives" I have mentioned.


On the understanding Scripture does not represent "religion" at all: Good enough!

I am not aware of any such thing ever coming from Scripture, or even from any mere religion I happen to know about. Rather, I think people have not done well in hearing what either has actually said.


Same comment as just above.


In my own case, I once forced my first wife to have an abortion and nobody said a word to me about that. However, I do understand that might have not been the case if I had been a professed Catholic at the time.


I have made no such claim, and the only "forced marriage" I know about is one that takes place at the point of a shotgun.


I do understand what you are saying there, and there actually is a Scriptural "mandate" for same within the community of believers/followers/practitioners.


Religion does not cause unhappy marriage -- people cause their own marriages to be unhappy.


I doubt you could show any actual example/s of that.


Whew, I hardly know how to even respond there since no such thing is even Scripturally-possible.

Last edited by leejosepho on 22 May 2011, 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Say what you like about it, unwanted pregnancies were lower when religion and family were the sources of sex education. As to your idea of unwanted marriages.... well I rate a child right to have two parents higher than the desire of parents to avoid their responsibility for their actions.

I have to say, yours is an incoherent form of libertarianism. You advocate absolute freedom of the individual but make most of what they do wrong someone else's fault.

Yes, taking the bible to mean what it says is sooo unfortunately skewed. What a bunch of miscreants we are.

It prevents the mitigation of said consequences.

Last edited by LKL on 22 May 2011, 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I don't know about Vex, but my biological perspective is that human couples use sex as social bonding more than for procreation. I don't think that a husband and wife should have to stop having sex after they have the one or two (or no) children that they want.

the discussion was originally about consequences of the act, not the act itself. I know you like to twist words, but it gets tiresome.

'forcing' a woman to have an abortion is a sociopathic act, and if religion made you stop doing s**t like that then I guess it's good for the rest of us that you found religion. It doesn't mean that you're no longer a sociopath, though, nor does it mean that religion has anything to do with intrinsic decency. I strongly doubt that Vex or any of the atheists here would even consider 'forcing' a woman to have an abortion.

You are factually incorrect. Comprehensive sex ed prevents unwanted pregnancy; the reason one sees more single women with children these days is not that more single women are getting pregnant, but that they are no longer forced by their families into 'shotgun weddings' as a consequence.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-tee ... urope.html

Just be sure to know I have said no such thing. Rather, I am only saying it cannot be properly understood without one's first being aware of its setting and context and so on.


That is a different matter.


Self-restraint today keeps me from telling you to go f**k yourself. I do not twist words -- I am simply trying to help someone else see the irrationality of his own argument.


In my own case, it was nothing more than an act of desperation committed by a very confused Aspie. I already had two daughters at that time, and I already knew I did not have whatever was/is needed to be a good father.


It did not -- I went and had a vasectomy ... and then someone else eventually helped me see all of that for what it had been.


Please see one of my earlier comments ... and please know you are welcomed to make your own selection there.

BS. You are continually using words in non-standard ways and then chiding us for not knowing what you're talking about, and in this case you moved from one topic to another, using weasly framing, when you lost the point.


you said that you 'forced' a woman to have an abortion. The word 'force' implies significant coercion on your part. I don't give a damn why you did it; by your own admission, you forced a woman to undergo a surgical procedure that she would not have chosen to do on her own. That is vile.

For example?

In either case, can you not think outside your own box?


Nonsense. Show me even just one example of that!


Silliness.


Agreed.

No, really not. Citing teen pregnancy does not really rebut what I am saying. If you want to look at the real level of unwanted pregnancies look at the abortion rate. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html)

Premarital sex has increased by simply huge amounts.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4649

However, since you raised the issue of teen sexuality.

Your teen pregnancy statistics are irrelevant since it has little to do with my claim relating to unwanted pregnancy. FYI many studies hide the real rate of below legal age sex and pregnancy by labeling it 'teen'. They then include 18-20 year olds. Which in the 1940s includes a good deal of the solders coming home from WW2 who got married and had children (the baby boom). It is not that bracket of teens that worries me, a 19yr old husband and wife can raise a family quite well. In general religious teens are less likely to have sex (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475306,00.html). Such women are exposed to a large increase in intra-relationship violence (Jay G. Silverman, PhD, Anita Raj, PhD, and Karen Clements, MPH (2004). "Dating Violence and Associated Sexual Risk and Pregnancy Among Adolescent Girls in the United States"). The average boy will be exposed to pornography by the age of 11.

A December 1999 study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University noted that in the early 1970's, less than 5 percent of 15-year-old girls and 20 percent of 15-year-old boys had engaged in sexual intercourse. By 1997, the figures were 38 percent for girls, 45 percent for boys.(http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/02/style ... d=3&src=pm).

Please tell me I'm not seeing someone against abortion rights opining about unwanted pregnancy as if he doesn't get off on the idea.

Very disturbing, I agree. An orgasm is arguably the most powerful Pavlovian chemical mechanism and repeated neural pathway associations made between it and certain themes and images, let alone for a decade or more of one's formative years of brain development can result in some ideas about women and sex which are all but impossible to "deprogram", even with intensive therapy, and difficulty in relationships with women, sexual and otherwise.

You are not.

Wow, teen male boys getting turned on by women. That's terrible.

hahahaha

History is full of bastard children and that's only among famous entities. But we do not actually have any such stats that would actually accurately tell us what about it. I agree though that religion's influence would have forced people to hide the real data and lie their heads off to avoid social stigma which would actually make the statistics seem lower, if those statistics existed. People also had tons and tons of more children to the point of being completely unreasonable.

In the bright side though, it being so usual to have plenty of children probably made pregnancies outside of marriage easier to hide.

You mentioned pornography getting in 11 years olds minds and training them wrongly. Know the solution for it? Sex ed!

I can tell you for sure that no Church is going to stop any 11 year old from accessing pornography. The only reason they weren't exposed this early before was that it was hard to find. It is not anymore.

It is the end of the world!!!11

It doesn't matter. What matters is how much of that permarital sex is actually responsible sex. You could have completely irresponsible sex while married as well.

Unless the definition of "sex ed" is generally-considered to be "intensive and powerfully-chemically reinforced decade long teachings regarding relation to women as human beings worthy of empathy", it's really quite irrelevant to any comments that were made, at least by me.