Reality

[hrmwrm]

When the brain 'dies' your 'essence' is simply going to God (or the devil). Not to nothingness.

i'd have to ask for proof of that. but, for the sake of creating arguement.
so, the soul passes on when the brain dies, not the body?
then, what of those who have woken from an extended seemingly brain dead coma after a long duration?
and then, there are those of little essence left. you're trying to tell me these mostly memoryless folk have already passed on?
your statement makes no sense. maybe elaborate a little more.

 

[hrmwrm]

I don't have to prove anything for materialism to be false. However, anyone who assumes materialism to be true has to prove it to be so or they are taking it on faith.

Or are you attempting to assert that the absence of proof is the proof of absence?

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.​

Anyway, I have pointed to different things that are not material in nature in this forum numerous times. You know this. To deny it is to engage in myth-making.

The mind, sensations (like pain), ideas, emotions, etc all counter the notion of materialism. I know you want to dismiss this fact and bury your head in the sand on this, but in doing so you are engaging in the same simple thinking you like to claim people of faith do.

arguement of ignorance? you mean what you keep doing in that ghosts ghouls and goblins and imaginary friend creators can't be disproven?
and your shifting of the burden of proof?
you'd have to prove your ghosts/spirits for materialism to be wrong.
but i know that will never happen.
but, good luck trying.
as for sensations, etc. they are CREATED by something material. without the material, they DON"T EXIST. much like the imaginary friend.
but you keep trying. and failing.

 

[04SCTLS]

A difference of opinion is not a "lie". Your claim hinges on confusing the two.

You are backpedaling here.

Christian teaching regards homosexuality as a sin and IMO that is a lie of weakness and opportunistic convenience to justify fear and loathing of the sex curse (added by God for us to wallow in and find pleasure in filth as punishment after being made mortal and kicked out of the Garden of Eden for original sin according to their contradicted view) of strong natural urges.

Women and homosexuals are strikingly similarly regarded by religion and moral activists with suspicion due to the fear and loathing of sexuality, especially recreational sex where people actually enjoy and celebrate this horrible dirty filthy (homosexuals extra filthy) cursed thing

 

[shagdrum]

Christian teaching regards homosexuality as a sin and IMO that is a lie of weakness and opportunistic convenience to justify fear and loathing of the sex curse (added by God for us to wallow in and find pleasure in filth as punishment after being made mortal and kicked out of the Garden of Eden for original sin according to their contradicted view) of strong natural urges.

I'm backpedaling but you are now saying it is your opinion?!

Dissembling and attributing false motives only shows that you have a low opinion of people of faith and certain views on homosexuality.

Tell, me how can you conclusively know that homosexuality is not a sin? Put more broadly, how can you conclusively know what actions, thoughts, etc are a sin? Without that answer, you are mistaking a difference of opinion for a difference of fact.

While I don't feel like rehashing the whole homosexuality issue (it has been done to death on this forum already) it is hardly an indefensible position to view homosexuality as unnatural and sinful. If it were truly genetic, it would be an evolutionary dead end. Also considering the track record of marriage in countries with gay marriage concerning things like illegitimacy rates, views on marriage, etc. it is not hard to see that it works against the natural order. Add in the basic premise of God creating that natural order and it is easy to reach the conclusion that homosexuality is sinful, scripture and personal "fear and loathing" aside.

It seems more than a little opportunistic to insinuate that a position you oppose (or don't understand) is mere opinion based on dogma while a position you agree with (and may also not fully understand) is self-evident truth. Kinda hard to have any productive dialog when you are approaching it from that viewpoint, don't you think?

 

[04SCTLS]

So God created homosexuals as a cruel joke?

Your argument sounds like Cognitive Dissonance to me.

You still haven't addressed my comparison of homosexuals to handicapped disabled or differently abled people and the huge contradiction there in what's considered despicable behavior.

My opinion is only low of those who thrust themselves into politics where IMO they don't belong

 

[shagdrum]

So God created homosexuals as a joke?

Sure. I bet he is laughing it up as we speak.

There are alternative explainations, like lifstyle choice, etc. The cause(s) of homosexuality may be more psychological than biological. It is worth remembering that the activist gay community (which is not necessarily the same as the larger gay community) used to avoid any explanation of homosexuality as being genetic/biologically caused (early '80's) because that would suggest it could be "cured". Basically, they were going with the argument that best fit the agenda and have since changed their preference.

As with most radical political agendas, a lot of the "science" is post hoc rationalizations for emotionally appealing positions.

 

[04SCTLS]

Sure. I bet he is laughing it up as we speak.

There are alternative explainations, like lifstyle choice, etc. The cause(s) of homosexuality may be more psychological than genetic. It is worth remembering that that the activist gay community (which is not necessarily the same as the larger gay community) used to avoid any explanation of homosexuality as being genetic/biologically caused (early '80's) because that would suggest it could be "cured". Basically, they were going with the argument that best fit the agenda and have since changed their preference.

As with most radical political agendas, a lot of the "science" is post hoc rationalizations for emotionally appealing positions.

Who would willingly be a homosexual male in this society with all the disadvantages.
People don't choose something that is deemed irrational and contradictory to making more life which seems to be one of the evident meanings of life.
But the meaning beyond that logistical meaning to make more life is still a mystery.

Homosexuality has been around forever since the dawn of man despite natural selection and lack of gay reproduction but if ever a gay "gene" is discovered then many of those pregnancies shown to be gay will be terminated as Ann Coulter said.
An interesting paradox of Cognitive Dissonance should the opportunity present itself to rid mankind of homosexuals while still honoring the sanctity of all life.

 

[shagdrum]

My opinion is only low of those who thrust themselves into politics where IMO they don't belong

I have already said I have no interest rehashing the homosexuality issue again. You can read those previous threads and find more than enough information and contention to satisfy anyone.

One of the most accurate statements I ever read concerning the difference between the political Left and Right was this:

The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan
​

When it comes to the Culture War, the aggressor is almost always the political Left. It might do well to keep that in mind when complaining about one side, "thrust[ing] themselves into politics where...they don't belong."

Only that side of the political isle has been looking to change culture toward a more egalitarian ideal for centuries. In fact, since Herbert Marcuse, there has been a strong push to tear down the family unit in this country from the radical Left. Radical feminism and the radical gay agenda are at the forefront of this push.

 

[shagdrum]

Who would willingly be a homosexual male in this society with all the disadvantages.

Again, go back and read those threads (especially the 2008 thread). This question of yours was already confronted there as well as most any other question you may have. I have debated this issue enough in the past and researched it enough (my political science stats project was on gay marriage, requiring familiarizing myself with the relevant arguments and studies on the issue) that I am tired of it. It is a issue were there is no middle ground and gets very contentious very quickly.

 

[04SCTLS]

I see, so for you faith is not so much about the afterlife and creation but merely a handy tool to maintain what you assert to be proper culture and control of society.

It seems we may have some agreement there.

 

[04SCTLS]

Again, go back and read those threads (especially the 2008 thread). This question of yours was already confronted there as well as most any other question you may have. I have debated this issue enough in the past and researched it enough (my political science stats project was on gay marriage, requiring familiarizing myself with the relevant arguments and studies on the issue) that I am tired of it. It is a issue were there is no middle ground and gets very contentious very quickly.

This thread was named Reality and homosexuality is the most glaring example of contradiction in religion.
Just because you covered this all 4 years ago in some sophistry of denial of the natural order does not make using it in a supporting role for current arguments where it is germane to the topic off limits.

Religion is totally hung up about all sex as dirty punishment for sin as I have said but homosexuality is strictly for pleasure and that puts a huge weed up some peoples a sses.

 

[shagdrum]

...so for you faith is not so much about the afterlife and creation but merely a handy tool to maintain what you assert to be proper culture and control of society.

???

Where are you getting that?

There was never anything about "control" involved in any of this.

As alluded to earlier, the conservative perspective is about maintaining and protecting common culture. Libertarians focus on the individual. Leftists focus on identity and society in general. conservatives focus on family and local community. As a consequence, Libertarians are largely absent from the issue of culture, Leftists are hostile to traditional common culture and conservatives are the only ones defending it.

If, as many conservatives believe, culture is what determines society's success, than it is very important to protect that and not disregard the combined experiential wisdom of countless generations that makes up tradition and culture in favor of abstract moral ideals that have little to no basis in reality.

 

[shagdrum]

Religion is totally hung up about all sex as dirty punishment for sin

Religion is, or you are?

I don't know any Christian teachings that view sex as punishment for sin. Most that I know view per-marital sex, adultery and homosexuality as sinful but, in the confines of marriage, it is meant to bring pleasure, increase intimacy between spouses and for procreation; all as part of God's design. In this view, sex, in the confines of marriage, is a gift from God. Not a punishment or inherently sinful.

 

[04SCTLS]

???

Where are you getting that?

There was never anything about "control" involved in any of this.

The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society.

 

[shagdrum]

This thread was named Reality and homosexuality is the most glaring example of contradiction in religion.
Just because you covered this all 4 years ago in some sophistry of denial of the natural order does not make using it in a supporting role for current arguments where it is germane to the topic off limits.

Even if I unquestionably accept your assertions about religion and homosexuality, it doesn't really disprove the point being raised in the original post. It's a red herring at best.

The issue you cite could just as easily be an exercise of conservatives falling to the, "very muddy, shallow thinking" alluded to in the first post. but it is only one issue.

The bigger picture is not, in any way, effected by it. Whether or not accepting that there is a greater metaphysical order gives you a baseline to judge reality does not hinge on if Christians are simply rationalizing their "fear of the gays" or not.

that one issue you keep harping on could just as easily be an example of, "such people...describing themselves, when they speak of God." But the main point of the piece which I was pointing at doesn't have anything to do with that.

 

[04SCTLS]

Religion is, or you are?

I don't know any Christian teachings that view sex as punishment for sin. Most that I know view per-marital sex, adultery and homosexuality as sinful but, in the confines of marriage, it is meant to bring pleasure, increase intimacy between spouses and for procreation; all as part of God's design. In this view, sex, in the confines of marriage, is a gift from God. Not a punishment or inherently sinful.

They can't get around the reproduction reason for sex so they restrict it to a narrow permissibility.

The whole point of Abstinence Sex education is based on the sex is sinful view and unwanted pregnancy is punishment for moral turpitude.

Why keep people ignorant of birth control and sex education when it beats abstinence with results.

Even married couples in a monogamous relationships are told by the "Pastors"
(flocks of sheep?) that birth control is sinful even if the sex is supposed to be pleasant and to only use the natural rhythm method.
Sensibly, people ignore this advice and choose to "sin"

 

[shagdrum]

Again, were are you getting "control" from? That implies someone specifically directing moral activity. There is nothing I have said that suggests any such thing.

When social norms and traditions guide such activity no one is directing it. In fact, no one can. As the old saying goes, "you can't legislate morality". However, you can deconstruct it through legislation.

You can not artificially design a moral order. The ONLY end of the political spectrum aspiring to do that is the Left. Any real moral order has to evolve naturally. Attempts to destroy it are playing with fire. Attempts to protect it are generally noble though they can be misguided and heavy handed at times.

I will freely admit that some on the right are overzealous and reactionary in their attempts to counter Leftist assaults on culture. But that is usually nothing more that a poor choice in means or mistakenly identifying something as an attack on culture that isn't.

the big question is; do you think protecting common culture is a worthwhile endeavor or do you think a better culture can be specifically designed?

 

[shagdrum]

They can't get around the reproduction reason for sex so they restrict it to a narrow permissibility.

You CAN get around that?! You have been able to defy biology?

The whole point of Abstinence Sex education is based on the sex is sinful view and unwanted pregnancy is punishment for moral turpitude.

Consequences to actions are now punishments?!

Actually, the Abstinence education thing is a reaction to the unmitigated failure of sex education in schools and the loss of traditions in that area that did a better job. Again, it is defending common culture and tradition from agendas aimed at destroying and replacing it.

Abstinence education may be an over-reaction, but the historical truth is that we were better off without ANY sex ed in schools. illegitimacy rates were lower, teenage pregnancy was lower, STD rates were lower. In fact, EVERY factor that sex ed was the claimed "solution" for saw a increase after the introduction of sex ed.

Even married couples in a monogamous relationships are told by the "Pastors"
(flocks of sheep?) that birth control is sinful even if the sex is supposed to be pleasant and to only use the natural rhythm method.

You are making a HUGE generalization there that is false. SOME Churches and denominations teach that birth control is bad, not all (nor necessarily even most).

 

[shagdrum]

I know you have a huge problem with the church but you let that cloud your worldview too much. There is so much more than just that and you miss it by grinding that axe.

 

[04SCTLS]

Actually, the Abstinence education thing is a reaction to the unmitigated failure of sex education in schools and the loss of traditions in that area that did a better job. Again, it is defending common culture and tradition from agendas aimed at destroying and replacing it.

I think the facts totally contradict your assertion


Teen Pregnancy Rate Reaches 40 year low


Fewer teens are getting pregnant now, than at any point in the last 40 years, says a new report.
Researchers at the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive health think tank, say the pregnancy rate among teens is down 42%, from 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 women in 1990, to 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women in 2008. This means about 7% of young women between the ages of 15 to 19 became pregnant in the United States in 2008.
"The 30-plus years of rates that we have, have been showing a very steady decline," said Kathryn Kost, a senior research associate at Guttmacher, and the lead author on the paper. "Rates now, from 2008 are at the lowest levels we ever seen since we started reporting them."
Kost also says the teen birth rate – the number of actual babies born to teenage moms - was down 35% as well; and the abortion rate among teens dropped almost 60% from its peak in 1988.

"What seems pretty clear is that increasing use of contraception is preventing these kids from getting pregnant in the first place," said Kost.
The report did show that racial and ethnic disparities still exist among teenagers. Pregnancy rates among African-American and Hispanic teens were two to three times higher compared to white teens. Abortion rates among Hispanic teens were also twice the rate of abortions in whites, and abortion rates among black teens were four times higher compared to white teens.
"Providing contraception or at least being able to ensure that everybody has access to it may help to reduce these disparities," Kost says.
The researchers believe that although the number of teens having sex is not declining significantly, awareness about contraceptives has turned the tide in the teen pregnancy numbers.
"It's clear that the largest share of the decline was due contraceptive use," she said, "both an increase in use, and increase in use of the most effective methods."
________________________________________________________

In the face of this zealots continue to contradictorly press Abstinence Only education

 

[04SCTLS]

I know you have a huge problem with the church but you let that cloud your worldview too much. There is so much more than just that and you miss it by grinding that axe.

I have a problem with the church not observing it's proper place.
Religion is not going to go away as it is part of the human condition.

However political candidates should not be running for Jesus trying to roll back the social revolution that has already taken place with some end run around the Establishment Clause.

If people want to voluntarily subject themselves to religion and it's rules in their private lives for spiritual or community purposes because they find it uplifting or whatever that's none of my business.

I'm merely arguing the novel opposite view to yours that it is the religious zealots and activists (not the lay folks) who are the immoral ones who make trouble and have it all wrong and contradicted in the face of the natural order of things.

Are you running out of counter arguments.

 

[shagdrum]

I think the facts totally contradict your assertion

Not so much [sources cited in the article]

During the 1970s, pregnancies among fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds jumped 41 percent.[8] Between 1970 and 1984, abortions among unwed fifteen- to seventeen-year-olds more than doubled and birth rates jumped 29 percent.[9] By 1976, five years of data showed unmarried girls fifteen to nineteen having sex at increasing rates.[10] And not only did venereal disease not subside, but teen gonorrhea rates tripled between 1956 and 1975.[11]

In the 1950s, 13 percent of teen girls had been sexually active. By the late 90s, the figure had tripled. Premarital intercourse, approved by less than a third of women in the 1950s, was acceptable to 91 percent by the late 80s. By 2005, over two-thirds of Blacks and half of Latino high-schoolers were having intercourse, while over half of all teens fifteen to nineteen were performing oral sex. By 2006, babies born to unmarried women accounted for 37 percent of all births, [12] 70 percent among Blacks. The Black illegitimacy rate reflected a 218 percent explosion over forty-five years.​

[It is worth noting that one of the sources cited in the piece is the same sex ed advocacy group you cited.]

 

[shagdrum]

I have a problem with the church not observing it's proper place.

Who decides what is and is not the "proper place" of the church?

I'm merely arguing the novel opposite view to yours that it is the religious zealots and activists (not the lay folks) who are the immoral ones who have it all wrong and contradicted in the face of the natural order of things.

That is not the opposite view of what I was arguing.

Athiest (and secular Leftists) reject the very existence of any such natural order (at least operationally).

To argue the opposite is to argue that people of faith reject the existance any natural/moral order. Considering that faith is defined by a higher power creating that natural order, that would be a pretty absurd argument for you to make.

It all comes back to that question I asked which you have yet to answer;

Do you think protecting common culture is a worthwhile endeavor or do you think a better culture can be specifically designed?

long standing culture includes an observation of a natural/moral order through social norms, traditions and institutions.

More basically, do you believe that moral relativism is harmful to a society or not?

 

[04SCTLS]

Not so much [sources cited in the article]

During the 1970s, pregnancies among fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds jumped 41 percent.[8] Between 1970 and 1984, abortions among unwed fifteen- to seventeen-year-olds more than doubled and birth rates jumped 29 percent.[9] By 1976, five years of data showed unmarried girls fifteen to nineteen having sex at increasing rates.[10] And not only did venereal disease not subside, but teen gonorrhea rates tripled between 1956 and 1975.[11]

In the 1950s, 13 percent of teen girls had been sexually active. By the late 90s, the figure had tripled. Premarital intercourse, approved by less than a third of women in the 1950s, was acceptable to 91 percent by the late 80s. By 2005, over two-thirds of Blacks and half of Latino high-schoolers were having intercourse, while over half of all teens fifteen to nineteen were performing oral sex. By 2006, babies born to unmarried women accounted for 37 percent of all births, [12] 70 percent among Blacks. The Black illegitimacy rate reflected a 218 percent explosion over forty-five years.
​

[It is worth noting that one of the sources cited in the piece is the same sex ed advocacy group you cited.]

What this means is that they should have used more contraceptives then as it has now cut alot of these unmarried pregnancies you site as examples of failure of sex ed.

 

[04SCTLS]

Who decides what is and is not the "proper place" of the church?

I suppose it's the voters as states not subject to the Establishment Clause specifically and are allowed to have official religions unlike the Federal government.
However the states generally have decided to follow the federal seperation of not officially supporting a specific religion.

You don't hire a dentist give you advice on how to fix your car however so IMO church is for community and spirituality and the afterlife and politics is for secular things here on erth.