patrick.net

Well, as everyone gets ready for Thanksgiving, remember that only mentally defective deviants eat turkey. In fact, a person cannot consent to eating turkey because anyone who would do so is obviously mentally ill in the first place. Such deviant behavior is also highly immoral for the same reasons that rape and murder are immoral. After all, there is no difference between eating a turkey and fucking it.

So to all you perverted turkey eaters out there who are going to get your jollies tomorrow, I say Jesus will smite you for your sins! And hell will run brown with your gravy.

Bap33 says

do the words on the page even matter to you?

Bap, here is the problem with your argument, and why you will find it very difficult to get anyone to buy into it.

Your argument paraphrased:
1. The mentally ill can not give sexual consent.
2. Unconsenting sexual contact is abuse and rape.
3. A desire for same sex sexual contact is a mental illness.

Therefor:
Homosexuals, being mentally ill, need to be prevented from having sex because it is abuse and rape.

In your mind this is very logical, and it is if someone is buying into your premises. The big problem is that to you premise #3 is a forgone conclusion, but to others it is not. You have not provided evidence other than "It is because I say so" to show that premise to be true. Without that evidence your whole argument falls apart.

Bap33 says

mell says

You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public.

no, you are 100% wrong, in spades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

leo707 says

mell says

I think you live in the wrong country, you must be looking for a communist dictatorship where a conglomerate of politicians and "scientists" define mental disorders and rule/oppress the masses at will.

I agree that Bap is probably in the wrong country, but he would need a theocracy that believes in the same things that he picks and chooses the from the bible. Of course Bap's interpretation would also need to be cannon.

Those are the same for me, communism is doing similar oppression as a theocracy just under the premise of science or economics, which is actually much harder to get people to buy into than by citing one of the religious books ;) I actually don't have much of a problem if somebody in the US is "close to the bible" in their views as long as they grant the freedom of association with a different religion or no religion at all and therefor different behavior/manners/rituals to others (as long a they don't infringe on other people's liberty).

Dan8267 says

Well, as everyone gets ready for Thanksgiving, remember that only mentally defective deviants eat turkey. In fact, a person cannot consent to eating turkey because anyone who would do so is obviously mentally ill in the first place. Such deviant behavior is also highly immoral for the same reasons that rape and murder are immoral. After all, there is no difference between eating a turkey and fucking it.

So to all you perverted turkey eaters out there who are going to get your jollies tomorrow, I say Jesus will smite you for your sins! And hell will run brown with your gravy.

funny. lol

roberto,
Don't hate me for making an effort to express my opinion.

Dan,
If my belief in God indicates inferior mental ability, shouldn't you be more kind and gentle with your approach to me? I mean, if conservative Christians are menatlly challenged, then we qualify for some type of Obama phone or somthing!! we must!!

mell says

Bap33 says

mell says

You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public.

no, you are 100% wrong, in spades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public. Secondly, Low-functioning (under 15 years functioning age) Downs people do not have freedom. Don't be silly, please.

Bap33 says

if conservative Christians are menatlly challenged, then we qualify for some type of Obama phone or somthing!!

You will qualify for mandatory insurance at the same premium as people who are less likely to injure themselves. But, if you believe in the Bible, then you believe in faith healing, so you won't be using any medical services anyway. And, as noted above, those happy pills on TV don't really work anyway, and are no substitute for a healthy sex life:

Find a suitable man, settle down, and quit insulting people who have never done you any harm and whom you haven't even met.

leo707 says

Your [Bap's] argument paraphrased:
1. The mentally ill can not give sexual consent.
2. Unconsenting sexual contact is abuse and rape.
3. A desire for same sex sexual contact is a mental illness.

Therefor:
Homosexuals, being mentally ill, need to be prevented from having sex because it is abuse and rape.

In your mind this is very logical, and it is if someone is buying into your premises. The big problem is that to you premise #3 is a forgone conclusion, but to others it is not.

Exactly. Although, I would put number 3 first for the sequence. And here's my counterargument.

1. The belief in a fictitious god and life eternal in heaven is a delusion.
2. Delusions are, by definition, mental illness. A socially acceptable delusion is still a delusion.
3. The mentally ill can not legally vote.
4. Therefore, Christians (and other religious) should not be allowed to vote.

Same logical sequence of A --> B --> C -->D. Except, that all of these points are far better justified. The only one that one could possibly argue with is #3, the mentally ill should not be allowed to vote. But that point is accepted by our current legal system.

Bap33 says

If my belief in God indicates inferior mental ability, shouldn't you be more kind and gentle with your approach to me?

In the same way that I should be kind and gentle to the homicidal maniac? Religion kills in mass. Gay orgies are safe as long as people use condoms. Perhaps one can make a case that unprotected sex is immoral in the current environment, but that's not an argument against gay sex.

Bap33 says

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public.

Damn, I'm surprised Bap said that. And it's right! Prisons are full of people who are not a threat to others. And that's immoral and unethical.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public.

Damn, I'm surprised Bap said that. And it's right! Prisons are full of people who are not a threat to others. And that's immoral and unethical.

I agree 100%. The very idea of creating prisons was (in my understanding) to keep the suspected away from harm until they can be tried. Prison is immoral, in my opinion. If a human is too dangerous to be free, then they should be hanged. If a person is not a danger to society, then they should be active members of society. That would mean "white collar" money crime and theft would only result is restitution. This means Bernie gets set free. And when he is no longer safe in prison, he will be hung by the public. What we end up with is legal and more justice. Maybe.

Dan, side bar question, at what point does self-inflected mutilation move from personal expression to mental illness that should be addressed? Serious question.

Bap33 says

If a human is too dangerous to be free, then they should be hanged.

I knew there had to be some way for you to screw up the one time we agree on something.

Bap33 says

Dan, side bar question, at what point does self-inflected mutilation move from personal expression to mental illness that should be addressed? Serious question.

Why are you asking me? I don't know anything about self-mutilation and damn little about psychology. Heck, what even counts as mutilation? Piercings, tattoos?

Dan8267 says

Yes, because it is only the religious who make the claim that gay sex is immoral. Naturally this forum is the place to question that assertion.

What a crap!

Homosexuality was iilegal and a criminal offence in Soviet Union, which was an atheist state. It was officially persecuted in Nazi Germany, that was practically an atheist state with very strong pagan sentiment.

If you research human history, you find out that any society that valued public (and state) unterests above private ones were strongly homophobic, any those, which preferred private interest were tolerant.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

Why would you care about what they think or say they think?

Because Mathew Shepard died.

What you say here is that the natural empathy mechanism of human mind develops some hormons in your body, which makes you feeling bad about Mathew Shepard death. Is that what you call moral? Your hormons driven feelings? But there are endless examples of such feelings that You would consider immoral.

A simple one: most adult men would feel attracted to a pretty 10yo. girl. But any one with a bit of morality would first consider the well being of that girl. Maybe he would write an "Alice in the wonderland" book for her, (and for us as well as the result) A completely immoral one would only be interested in his own "pursuit of happiness", damaging that girl's life and his own soul, see Humbert Humbert. (I just try to bring in some literary examples, because they are equally available to both of us.)

The bottom line is:
1. your hormons, your feelings, and your prejustices have nothing to do with morality. Moral or immoral may be only your choice.

2. Moral is sacrificing something of your own, while immoral is sacrificing others to your interests or whims.

3. The differences between moral and immoral we all can perceive is totally meaningless without absolute Truth and absolute Goodness.

Dan8267 says

Religion kills in mass.

Dan, you keep repeating this absolutely false statement.

In fact, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and Nazism were all atheist and each one broke records in mass murder.

Also as far as I know the absolute record in the percent of population killed in shortest period of time belongs to Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, which was an extream atheist regime.

michaelsch says

Nazism

Michael, Hitler was raised Catholic and believed that God had chosen him for his special destiny, especially after he survived an assassination attempt that killed almost everyone else in the room.

Your arguments do not really defend religion, nor do they answer the original question. They simply say that bad things can happen even without religion. That does not excuse religion from motivating otherwise good people to do bad things. To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

just don’t vote rethuglican. all log cabin boys and girls take heed: it’s not who you bed, but who you vote for.

curious2 says

Michael, Hitler was raised Catholic and believed that God had chosen him for his special destiny, especially after he survived an assassination attempt that killed almost everyone else in the room.

So what, he became a fierce anti-Catholic a social-democrat first and a National Socialist later on. BTW, many atheists beleave in luck, and many are extremely superstitious. Many were raised in religious surroundings, including our Dan. Jugashvili, aka Joseph Stalin was even a Church seminary student before he became a revolutioner.

curious2 says

To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

In a way I would agree with this, though with one clarification: in this sense the worst of all religions yet invented is atheism. No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism. Not yet as least.

Dan8267 says

1. The belief in a fictitious god and life eternal in heaven is a delusion.
2. Delusions are, by definition, mental illness. A socially acceptable delusion is still a delusion.
3. The mentally ill can not legally vote.
4. Therefore, Christians (and other religious) should not be allowed to vote.

That's great! Now, let's apply it to any belief. For example,
1. The belief in morality is a delusion.
The rest apply.

I suspect, Dan, you should not be allowed to vote.

michaelsch says

curious2 says

To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

In a way I would agree with this, though with one clarification: in this sense the worst of all religions yet invented is atheism. No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism. Not yet as least.

This is just bs semantics. Communism, national socialism, whatever you name work the same as religions, it is something people can believe so strongly in that they will take its orders to oppress - and in the worst case - kill those who don't "believe" in it and want to be free. It's how you apply religion and -isms is what counts. There are people who get great strength out of it and help others and those who kill in the name of it. Whether you believe in a theory to be infallible or a higher power so that you execute their demands/manifesto without questioning, it's all the same result. Dogmas are inherently problematic and nothing is absolute, from then on just proceed heeding the prime directive and you won't be dangerous to others ;)

michaelsch says

No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism.

That is totally false and has been discussed previously. Bottom line, Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with atheism; as you say, he happened to be a former seminary student, and he later happened to be an atheist. His actions can neither be blamed on the seminary nor on atheism.

The French revolution included a combination of good principles that are still celebrated and honored today, together with some bad results (e.g. the Terror and the mistreatment of Marie Antoinette and her children). Most of the bad resulted from the thirst for revenge and redistribution, and the quest for power. These are human tendencies, one wonders what the OWS movement would do if they actually got power, how would they contain the anarchists within the group, etc. To blame atheism for the actions of mostly Catholic French people is inaccurate and a distraction.

The Nazis however, whom you mentioned, were officially Christian. Their disagreement with the Vatican had to do with who would control Christianity, and is entirely predictable within the history of religious people fighting over who will control the "one true religion." It is best addressed in Dan's earlier thread about how monotheists come to believe that they are God, partly because God agrees with them about everything.

Atheism is irrational. Pascal's wager.

Peter P says

Pascal's wager

...doesn't really prove anything, and is best answered by Homer Simpson's decision to stop attending church: "What if we've chosen the wrong religion, and every Sunday we're making the real god angrier and angrier?" Remember the 10 Commandments, specifically the first two; you can have all the gay sex you want (so long as it isn't adultery) and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as going to the wrong church.

curious2 says

...doesn't really prove anything, and is best answered by Homer Simpson's decision to stop attending church: "What if we've chosen the wrong religion, and every Sunday we're making the real god angrier and angrier?"

LOL!

This is why people ought to believe in their own personal religions. There needs not be a middleman between me and my god.

curious2 says

you can have all the gay sex you want (so long as it isn't adultery) and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as going to the wrong church.

What about having gay sex IN the wrong church? Does that cancel each other out?

Peter P says

What about having gay sex IN the wrong church?

AF had a thread about sex in churches. He particularly recommended Catholic women on an altar.

mell says

This is just bs semantics. Communism, national socialism, whatever you name work the same as religions, it is something people can believe so strongly in that they will take its orders to oppress - and in the worst case - kill those who don't "believe" in it and want to be free.

That's right, but this includes believe in freedom, believe in science etc. French revolutioneries believed in "reason", for that believe they had murdered hundreds of tousands of their opponents, mostly Roman Catholic.

They even invented the barge sinking for the mass murder. Therefore, the religion of "reason", the religion of atheism, which Dan confesses is no better that any other religion and in any historic application is more cruel and more inclined to commit mass murder than others.

Please note: my whole argument is about Dan's statement: "Religion kills in mass.", which is absolutely false in the way Dan understands it.

There is a well known statement of 1940 attributed to Albert Einstein.

"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

It was broadcasted several times in USA and Einstein never denied it. In the context of German religious situation it's obvious he meant Catholic Church.

michaelsch says

There is a well known statement of 1940 attributed to Albert Einstein.

Actually it is a well-known abuse of his words, drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own, to enlist his name for a cause he did not support personally.

Michael, if you are going to invoke the memory of Albert Einstein on this thread you might point out that he was an advocate of gay rights, having been one of the most famous signers of Magnus Hirschfeld's petition on the subject. Also, Einstein was never Catholic; he was ethnically Jewish and is usually considered to have been an atheist or possibly a deist. [Updated - agnostic - thanks michael - see below.]

michaelsch says

That's right, but this includes believe in freedom, believe in science etc. French revolutioneries believed in "reason", for that believe they had murdered hundreds of tousands of their opponents, mostly Roman Catholic.

Sure, even science should never be left unquestioned. However in earlier days science was more like a believe system since we did not really have the technology to study the nature of things without a doubt, hence a lot of pseudo-science and witch-hunts. I think there is at least hope or even grounds for reasoning that we evolved to a point where science significantly harder to be falsified and abused ;)

BTW now that we've mentioned adultery and the 10 commandments, it may be worth remembering that Leviticus condemned bisexuality (possibly only threesomes), not homosexuality per se. An earlier comment mentioned the link between promiscuity and HIV. If you look at the statistics, a majority of people with HIV are women and children. The women tend to get it from their cheating husbands, and most of the children were born with it. If there is overlap between Biblical rules and disease (remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times), then disease might be one reason for the repeated prohibitions against adultery. There aren't any prohibitions against homosexuality per se until you get to Paul, who by his own account disagreed with nearly everybody, especially the early Christians. It is a sad irony that the Catholic church in particular seems to have become the church of Paul (e.g. no female priests), who persecuted the early Christians and disbelieved that Jesus was ever a living person; Paul's original mission of persecuting Christians seems to have been extended by those who preach in his name.

curious2 says

and is usually considered to have been an atheist or possibly a deist.

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism. Just search for "Albert Einstein atheism" or something.

curious2 says

(remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times),

lol .. go read Leviticus again, really close, and see what they are told to do when there is a sickness or a skin disorder to the clothes, bedding, and the bed. Remember a few other things about that silly old book of stories ... it got the ordering of creation correct, including life on this planet. And, oddly enough, did so before all the smart people were born and moved to Frisco.

Bap33 says

that silly old book of stories...got the ordering of creation correct, including life on this planet

LOL - how did they forget the giant ice dome in the sky?

curious2 says

Bottom line, Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with atheism

I wonder if this is opinion. Dan, would you mind?

michaelsch says

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism.

Fair enough, agnostic. He was very critical of religion, for example this: "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

curious2 says

Actually it is a well-known abuse of his words, drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own, to enlist his name for a cause he did not support personally.

Just read what this guy writes. He uses a textual analysis to claim these were not Einsteins words. At the same time he says it could mean lots of different things.
The whole argument sounds just like: "First I never took this pot from you, second, when I took it already had a crack in it, and third, I returned it intact."
He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement, which IMO means that even if the words were not exact the meaning was correct.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

it got the ordering of creation correct, including life on this planet

LOL - how did they forget the giant ice dome?

Well ... the details are not there for many things, like the gravity and energy that has made every atom, ever, keep "alive" with it's moving parts, all going light speed, missing each other, since day one. The Bible in not too into that stuff. lol

The ice, may be part of that "water were seperated from the waters" stuff, and the creation of the firmement, or some such thing. But, before you get all crazy, please make sure you do understand that all of the anti-God, super smart science guys say the fresh water on earth came from space. I know, huh!! go check and see.

This issue is not an arguing point for me. I really enjoy ancient stuff. Like, you know, pyramids, Mayans, Nazca lines, stuff like that.

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)