why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

You, personally, have done no such thing, so please don't try claiming credit. As for how I guessed you were American, let's just say there were one or two clues.

The atheist mindset in full effect. Have no way to know God does not exist yet claim he doesn't. Have no way to know what I have proven or not yet claim to? You produce Jimmy Hoffa and you will have some kind of unholy trinity thing going on. I gave hundreds of stats that left no doubt we are far far worse off that in the 40's and 50's in several threads and links to thousands. I have also mentioned some examples that were ignored fast as I typed them and not even the attempt to refute a single was attempted.

Is that what you call "history"? How fantastically self-serving. Why do you not point out that almost every slave-owner was a Christian, too? But this is totally irrelevant: does your religious posturing not mean that you quite happily admit that mankind (including Christian mankind) traded slaves for a large part of history, and only relatively recently was slavery considered abhorrent?

I not only pointed it out I volunteered that information several times. You are very very late with these typical claims and I have exhaustively covered the talking points historical ignorance constantly regurgitates. There were 1000 or more Christians that fought to end slavery than owned slaves. However even if they were remotely equal only a person with an agenda judges a teacher by the students who do not obey his lessons and ignores the ones who are obedient which I guess explains why it occurred here. I dare you to contend with me on military and especially American civil war history. Let's make it the sole issue if you feel qualified.

er, wut? Would you mind rephrasing that in English, please.

I can't ever spell prostitution correctly nor much of anything else. You know what I meant.

Speak for yourself. Though I think you're insulting the majority of the world's population with that statement.

Only a raving lunatic would think we are not riddled with mistakes and moral deficiencies and have been since we existed and not a single mortal that has ever breathed is innocent. My God what part of truth will not be sacrificed to maintain the delusion. I just do not know what to say now. Apparently the most reliable reality is no longer common ground. History is one long sad tale of man's inhumanly towards other men.

"Demonstrated"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. You making an unevidenced assertion is no more "demonstrated" than anything anyone else has said.

Did you watch princess bride last night? Demonstrated does not necessarily imply to you.

Grow up - "since secularism tainted the well"??? As an amateur historian, you're not a very good one. Unless you actually mean for the entire existence of the United States, as the constitution is a most explicitly secular document.

The Washington monument has a Bible in it's corner stone. The capitol has scripture carved into it's walls. Most of the founding fathers were Christians and almost all were deists or theists. If you removed Christian writing from Washington architecture you would have to start over from scratch. Our first president suggested it was impossible to govern without the Bible and our greatest mentioned God in most speeches. The government was designed to operate without preference to religion not absence from it. For the love, Congress has had official chaplains and prayers for much of its history. The nation it self is 80% Christian. Our leaders swear in on Bible's in almost every single case. Who's history are you talking about?

I don't think I've ever met anyone who managed to be so fractally wrong and so blindly arrogant to go with it.. though maybe those two things pretty much have to go together, as with a bit more honesty and humility, you might have a chance of realizing just how wrong you are.

That is usually just about what the loser of every debate has ever said. If you do not mind get back to some semblance of facts and evidence and quit using sarcasm to claim how petty I am and then to top it off complain of hypocrisy. I see a debating punt very soon in your case. Many open up with a flourish, then when it is spent, it devolves into denial, then sarcasm, and finally surrender that is blamed on the incompetence of the other. I have posted far more than enough info in every category you brought up. I will debate any to a conclusion if you can even think of a category which you wish to let settle the issue. You choice but sarcasm is not a valid option.

 

[1robin]

Then why did you ask?

There is always that hope that some day non-theists will decide that facts go real good with assertions. However it is a long shot in your case.

Any time you decide to offer evidence for you position that God hates homosexuality, please do so.

I and many others have.

And any time you'd like to address my evidence that God approves of homosexuality, you are welcome to try.

I saw no evidence to examine. I saw a lot of assertions but not a single attempt at evidence. I seriously doubt that you even believe it.

 

[1robin]

I don't. I tell it like it is. I find intellectual dishonesty used as a shield for someone's true bigoted motivations to be morally and intellectually reprehensible.

Then I would have thought you would have supplied a logical basis for morality instead of condemning something that can't possibly exist if God doesn't. Prove any act whatever is actually wrong unless God exists. Most professional atheist debaters conceded the point and deny the question. I know of only one that insists objective moral truth exists if God does not and he admits he assumes it. (Harris neuroscientists). Good luck.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Then I would have thought you would have supplied a logical basis for morality instead of condemning something that can't possibly exist if God doesn't.

And I would have expected you to engage in a transparent display of semantic gymnastics, misdirection, and obfuscation in an attempt to cloud my point and ignore the fact that people who attempt to use "rationality" to disguise their bigotry are not only dishonest, but immoral. And you didn't disappoint.

 

[philbo]

I not only pointed it out I volunteered that information several times. You are very very late with these typical claims and I have exhaustively covered the talking points historical ignorance constantly regurgitates. There were 1000 or more Christians that fought to end slavery than owned slaves.

Rubbish. Total and utter, self-serving twaddle. If that were true, there would never have been a slave trade at all.

However even if they were remotely equal only a person with an agenda judges a teacher by the students who do not obey his lessons and ignores the ones who are obedient which I guess explains why it occurred here. I dare you to contend with me on military and especially American civil war history. Let's make it the sole issue if you feel qualified.

You're getting incoherent and wandering off the point.
OK, so you've got a specialty that encompasses a fraction of a percent of history and you want to limit it to that? Is that another way of saying that's the only bit of history you know anything about?

I can't ever spell prostitution correctly nor much of anything else. You know what I meant.

I guessed you meant prostitution, but still couldn't work out any meaning from the rest of the sentence.

Apparently the most reliable reality is no longer common ground. History is one long sad tale of man's inhumanly towards other men.

Thank you. Yes, it is. And most of history has been considerably worse than it is now. And you're a fool to argue otherwise.

Did you watch princess bride last night?

No, I've just got most of it memorized When it came out, I had more than a passing resemblance to Inigo, the biggest difference being that I am left-handed.

By some strange coincidence, Dread Pirate Roberts has just been arrested.

The Washington monument has a Bible in it's corner stone. The capitol has scripture carved into it's walls. Most of the founding fathers were Christians and almost all were deists or theists. If you removed Christian writing from Washington architecture you would have to start over from scratch. Our first president suggested it was impossible to govern without the Bible and our greatest mentioned God in most speeches. The government was designed to operate without preference to religion not absence from it. For the love, Congress has had official chaplains and prayers for much of its history. The nation it self is 80% Christian. Our leaders swear in on Bible's in almost every single case. Who's history are you talking about?

Maybe you ought to look up the definition of "secular", then, and read your consitution.

That is usually just about what the loser of every debate has ever said. If you do not mind get back to some semblance of facts and evidence and quit using sarcasm to claim how petty I am and then to top it off complain of hypocrisy. I see a debating punt very soon in your case. Many open up with a flourish, then when it is spent, it devolves into denial, then sarcasm, and finally surrender that is blamed on the incompetence of the other. I have posted far more than enough info in every category you brought up. I will debate any to a conclusion if you can even think of a category which you wish to let settle the issue. You choice but sarcasm is not a valid option.

I see someone who blusters, claims to have said and proved things they have not, falls back on claims to biblical or deific authority from a book that they ought to realize carries no weight whatsoever with the person to whom they're speaking and heads off on tangents, just to muddy the waters.

It seems that's your tactic: keep being ever more obtuse until you find something you can take as an insult, then use that to claim victory.

 

[1robin]

And I would have expected you to engage in a transparent display of semantic gymnastics, misdirection, and obfuscation in an attempt to cloud my point and ignore the fact that people who attempt to use "rationality" to disguise their bigotry are not only dishonest, but immoral. And you didn't disappoint.

I guess getting a moral foundation out of atheism was just to much to ask. A bridge to far I see. However I expected at least an attempt. Maybe I should have asked for constant sarcasm and assertion and hypocritical claims of bigotry without even an attempt to provide evidence for. I would have been a rich man in that case. I give it up as hopeless. Rant away as you wish.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I guess getting a moral foundation out of atheism was just to much to ask.

Just as I guess getting honest acknowledgement of bigotry out of a bigots is just too much to ask.

 

[1robin]

Rubbish. Total and utter, self-serving twaddle. If that were true, there would never have been a slave trade at all.

Again not even an attempt at evidence. Very very few people had enough money to own slaves. One family may have hundreds. What the Holy heck are you talking about?

You're getting incoherent and wandering off the point.
OK, so you've got a specialty that encompasses a fraction of a percent of history and you want to limit it to that? Is that another way of saying that's the only bit of history you know anything about?

You brought up slavery and I think the time period. I have a math degree, work in military technology, am an amateur historian, theologian, and interested in philosophy. I unlike many tend to stick to things I know about. You happen to wander in that area. Maybe you wish to discuss pop culture. I know squat about it.

I guessed you meant prostitution, but still couldn't work out any meaning from the rest of the sentence.

I swear you can't make this stuff up. You asked about prostitution being right or wrong. I said I do not think protestation (prostitution) would ever be right. You could not put that puzzle together but are certain a belief held by billions is crap?

No, I've just got most of it memorized When it came out, I had more than a passing resemblance to Inigo, the biggest difference being that I am left-handed.

Great movie, questionable debate strategy.

By some strange coincidence, Dread Pirate Roberts has just been arrested.

What do you mean?

Maybe you ought to look up the definition of "secular", then, and read your consitution.

That word does not appear in any founding document. However creator does.

I see someone who blusters, claims to have said and proved things they have not, falls back on claims to biblical or deific authority from a book that they ought to realize carries no weight whatsoever with the person to whom they're speaking and heads off on tangents, just to muddy the waters.

Ok prove I have never proved what I claimed. Good luck.

It seems that's your tactic: keep being ever more obtuse until you find something you can take as an insult, then use that to claim victory.

That is not even coherent and I notice you did not provide a single scrap of evidence nor even select a category to resolve. There was better evidence for the six fingered man in the first half of that movie than for a single claim you made. Come on pick a category or an argument and we will fight it out on that line.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess getting a moral foundation out of atheism was just to much to ask. A bridge to far I see. However I expected at least an attempt. Maybe I should have asked for constant sarcasm and assertion and hypocritical claims of bigotry without even an attempt to provide evidence for. I would have been a rich man in that case. I give it up as hopeless. Rant away as you wish.

I'll be happy to join you in a one-on-one debate about morality and its basis.

You're simply wrong that 'God' is required.

How about it? Wanna rumble?

 

[1robin]

I'll be happy to join you in a one-on-one debate about morality and its basis.

You're simply wrong that 'God' is required.

How about it? Wanna rumble?

Fine. However you must be willing to provide sufficient evidence and justification. You have devolved into almost a troll lately that seems only interested in provocation. I will assume that I have misjudged but if I do not get sincere debate I will not make that mistake again. It will be a short debate as this is one of the easiest claims to justify I know of but if you wish create a thread and give me the link.

 

[philbo]

Again not even an attempt at evidence. Very very few people had enough money to own slaves. One family may have hundreds. What the Holy heck are you talking about?

You brought up slavery and I think the time period. I have a math degree, work in military technology, am an amateur historian, theologian, and interested in philosophy. I unlike many tend to stick to things I know about. You happen to wander in that area. Maybe you wish to discuss pop culture. I know squat about it.

Oh, FFS - I brought up slavery, but slavery didn't only exist in the US: there is a world outside the place. You're the one trying to nail it down to one small part of the world in one narrow timespan. However, Wiki suggests that 25% of families in the slave-owning states (8% of total US population) owned slaves - that's more than "very, very few"; obviously not a majority, but how many of the 400,000 families who owned slaves in the early 19th century would you estimate weren't Christian?

I've just realized that you actually wrote "There were 1000 or more Christians that fought to end slavery than owned slaves." which I misread: I thought you were meaning 1000 times as many - which would obviously have been utterly ridiculous as there were not 400,000,000 people in the US at that time. So did you mean 401,000 people (except, that wouldn't be right, either: because wiki quotes that many "families" owning slaves, not that many people)?

I swear you can't make this stuff up. You asked about prostitution being right or wrong. I said I do not think protestation (prostitution) would ever be right. You could not put that puzzle together but are certain a belief held by billions is crap?

You said "would I think never be right with God nor ever actually be wrong without him."
..I'm sorry, I didn't think anybody would be so crass and stupid as to suggest that child prostitution wouldn't be wrong without God. So that was what you were trying to say? I apologise, for a while I actually thought you had some humanity. I realize now I was wrong.

That word does not appear in any founding document. However creator does.

Do I have to teach you about your own country, even with you being such a heavily-decorated scholar? The specific word "secular" as defined by a separation of church and state may well not have been used, but the definition of that separation most certainly is. Please don't tell me I have to go looking for the precise wording just to prove to you your own country is and always has been officially a secular state.

Ok prove I have never proved what I claimed. Good luck.

Never? No, I didn't say that. Please learn to read. On occasion you do, but it's a small minority of cases. So far not in any replies addressed to me, as far as I can remember.

That is not even coherent and I notice you did not provide a single scrap of evidence nor even select a category to resolve. There was better evidence for the six fingered man in the first half of that movie than for a single claim you made. Come on pick a category or an argument and we will fight it out on that line.

What was not coherent about it?

 

[1robin]

Just as I guess getting honest acknowledgement of bigotry out of a bigots is just too much to ask.

I had a flash back to a 5th grade I know your are but what am I contest. If you discount provocation or ranting what would you say the purpose of anything you have posted lately was? I actually asking. It could never have been thought to be persuasive or meaningful I can't imagine. You flat refused or ignored every request for foundations and without them there is no debate possible.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You flat refused or ignored every request for foundations and without them there is no debate possible.

It's adorable that you think my experience with, and observation of, bigots and their dishonesty is somehow a debate. I don't attempt to engage in debate with people whose tactics consist only of obfuscation, empty verbosity, intellectual dishonesty, and argumentative fallacies. I don't waste my time engaging in fruitless endeavors. It's called applied wisdom.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Fine. However you must be willing to provide sufficient evidence and justification.

As always. And you will be forced to actually address that evidence and justification. You'll also be faced with attempting to provide some of your own.

You have devolved into almost a troll lately that seems only interested in provocation.

Sure, man. The problem with that is that we'll have an audience. They'll get to make up their own minds about who is who in our debate.

I will assume that I have misjudged but if I do not get sincere debate I will not make that mistake again.

Yet I continue to debate you even though I consider you one of the most insincere debaters in this place. I do it because I love God and can't stand by and watch Him being disrespected.

Yeah, I'm an actual holy guy.

It will be a short debate as this is one of the easiest claims to justify I know of but if you wish create a thread and give me the link.

Your claim about the necessity of God for morality is unjustifiable, which is why you've never been able to justify it. But let's save that for the one-on-one. I'll write something up as soon as possible.

 

[1robin]

Oh, FFS - I brought up slavery, but slavery didn't only exist in the US: there is a world outside the place. You're the one trying to nail it down to one small part of the world in one narrow timespan. However, Wiki suggests that 25% of families in the slave-owning states (8% of total US population) owned slaves - that's more than "very, very few"; obviously not a majority, but how many of the 400,000 families who owned slaves in the early 19th century would you estimate weren't Christian?

You picked slavery as a criteria so I picked it's worst form to give you a chance. Now how is that invalid?

I've just realized that you actually wrote "There were 1000 or more Christians that fought to end slavery than owned slaves." which I misread: I thought you were meaning 1000 times as many - which would obviously have been utterly ridiculous as there were not 400,000,000 people in the US at that time. So did you mean 401,000 people (except, that wouldn't be right, either: because wiki quotes that many "families" owning slaves, not that many people)?

I have gone through these numbers many times. I will find them and post tem again. I have had this entire debate in depth several times. Any chance you could search for it?

You said "would I think never be right with God nor ever actually be wrong without him."
..I'm sorry, I didn't think anybody would be so crass and stupid as to suggest that child prostitution wouldn't be wrong without God. So that was what you were trying to say? I apologise, for a while I actually thought you had some humanity. I realize now I was wrong.

Then prove it actually is wrong without him. In fact prove anything is. I can't take any more sarcasm for one day. If you got rid of it there would little left. Your own atheistic scholars admit this time and again. Many even deny truth exists at all. I at least find their honesty refreshing if not bone chilling. Let me ask you something since I already know you can't do what I requested as it is impossible. What is wrong with terminating every biological anomaly that has ever existed? Is it most atheists or most Christians that deny the right to life in the womb? Is it atheist utopias like the USSR or 80% Christian nations that are responsible for almost all major genocides in the millions? Who lacks decency again? I will get to the al the problems with your "facts" as soon as I can. I have had it with this crap for today.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence ahs proven health risks. Consider the following:

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. Consider the following:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence. There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).

Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.

The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......

Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.

Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[philbo]

You picked slavery as a criteria so I picked it's worst form to give you a chance. Now how is that invalid?

No, you picked the bit you thought you knew something about, even though it looks rather like you don't.

I have gone through these numbers many times. I will find them and post tem again. I have had this entire debate in depth several times. Any chance you could search for it?

I don't know if you realized but in that bit you quoted I linked to that information (at least, numbers of families holding slaves). Does that mean you believe (contrary to all the evidence) that my initial misreading was correct and there were a thousand times as many Christians against slavery as there were holding slaves? You'd better find some decent evidence for your numbers, because they sound like utter twaddle to me.

Then prove it actually is wrong without him. In fact prove anything is.

Things are wrong because society as a whole decides things are wrong. No god of any kind has ever had anything to do with it. Strangely enough, I've never pimped out my children, however tight money has been; nor have any other atheists in my circle of friends. Why is this, I wonder? I find your insinuation objectionable (not to mention overweeningly arrogant and almost infinitely stupid), that your particular petty, vengeful made-up god has anything to do with moral behaviour at all. And then you ask me to prove the reverse - obviously because you (as with so many of your other assertions) are unable to prove your contention. However, the evidence is undeniable: atheists are no worse behaved than Christians (if one goes by the prison population alone, they're considerably better-behaved, but that sort of reasoning is flawed). So take your claim and stick it where it'll do most good.

I can't take any more sarcasm for one day. If you got rid of it there would little left. Your own atheistic scholars admit this time and again.

..that there would be little left after sarcasm? I'd have thought that scholars, atheistic or not, would have better things to do with their time.

Let me ask you something since I already know you can't do what I requested as it is impossible. What is wrong with terminating every biological anomaly that has ever existed?

Why "biological anomaly"? Why not "person"? Why don't I go round killing everyone I don't like? Because I have a moral sense, a sense of right and wrong that has nothing to do with being scared of eternal punishment.

Mankind is a social animal: social mores have evolved over the generations, too.

Is it most atheists or most Christians that deny the right to life in the womb? Is it atheist utopias like the USSR or 80% Christian nations that are responsible for almost all major genocides in the millions?

I think you'll find it doesn't make any real difference whether the person in charge is atheist or Christian. People are people, some good, some bad, some downright nasty whatever their beliefs. If you were honest, you'd see that it gives the lie to your claim that god has something to do with morals.

Who lacks decency again?

The person who, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, accuses the non-believing section of the population as being incapable of having morals.

 

[1robin]

Oh, FFS - I brought up slavery, but slavery didn't only exist in the US: there is a world outside the place. You're the one trying to nail it down to one small part of the world in one narrow timespan. However, Wiki suggests that 25% of families in the slave-owning states (8% of total US population) owned slaves - that's more than "very, very few"; obviously not a majority, but how many of the 400,000 families who owned slaves in the early 19th century would you estimate weren't Christian?

I've just realized that you actually wrote "There were 1000 or more Christians that fought to end slavery than owned slaves." which I misread: I thought you were meaning 1000 times as many - which would obviously have been utterly ridiculous as there were not 400,000,000 people in the US at that time. So did you mean 401,000 people (except, that wouldn't be right, either: because wiki quotes that many "families" owning slaves, not that many people)?


You said "would I think never be right with God nor ever actually be wrong without him."
..I'm sorry, I didn't think anybody would be so crass and stupid as to suggest that child prostitution wouldn't be wrong without God. So that was what you were trying to say? I apologise, for a while I actually thought you had some humanity. I realize now I was wrong.



Do I have to teach you about your own country, even with you being such a heavily-decorated scholar? The specific word "secular" as defined by a separation of church and state may well not have been used, but the definition of that separation most certainly is. Please don't tell me I have to go looking for the precise wording just to prove to you your own country is and always has been officially a secular state.



Never? No, I didn't say that. Please learn to read. On occasion you do, but it's a small minority of cases. So far not in any replies addressed to me, as far as I can remember.


What was not coherent about it?

I will be tied up trying to make things science has created actually work most of the day but I do not intend to let this slavery crap go without challenge. If you wish you can use US slavery as the issue to settle this. You could not pick a better target if you hate Christianity. I will make it even easier (unless you want the info why they were wrong) and simply use the numbers you posted for a challenge, but they are wrong. I want only to stick to that issue and only that one. It takes a while. I will even create a one on one thread and we can debate whether Christianity and Christians were more consistent with slavery during that period or abolition of it. Deal? Use your numbers or do you want me to fix them, I does not matter to me? I can't examine that and anything else at the same time. It is too complex.

 

[Agnostic75]

I did not fault a specific person but a behavior that more than deserves it.

You cannot provide any reliable evidence that shows that healthy homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years have medical problems that can probably be corrected by practicing long term abstinence, and will not become medically worse off by trying long term abstinence. That argument is much more valid regarding homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least twenty years.

None of the research that you have mentioned has been done on monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years. In my opinion, that is your biggest secular problem by far in this thread. Homosexuals who have proven for many years that they strongly prefer monogamy have earned the right to enjoy the significant pleasures of sharing a sexual relationship with each other. I am referring to people who practice same-sex behavior who do not experiment with bisexuality, and there are plenty of them.

Regarding the very few monogamous homosexuals who have tried abstinence for two years, or for five years if you wish, if they end up much worse off medically than they were, which would increase insurance, and medical costs for themselves, and for other people, it would certainly be reasonable for them to go back to having sex.

What exactly happens to them?

I showed some of the health risks of long term abstinence in my post #1396. Research shows that many homosexuals who tried abstinence, and/or tried to change their sexual identity, ended up much worse off than they were before. Quite obviously, if something does not work, you need to try something else.

You have spent a good deal of time in this thread, and in some other threads, making secular arguments about physical suffering, and medical costs that are caused by homosexuality, but heart disease, cancer, and obesity are far bigger problems, and those problems increase the high costs of medical care for everyone. The world is headed for disaster regarding heart disease, cancer, and obesity, and homosexuals have very little to do with it. Actually, current health care costs for those problems are already a disaster, and a much bigger disaster than homosexuality has caused. Two wrongs to do not make a right, but all parties should share the amount of blame that they deserve, and homosexuality is far less harmful than heart disease, cancer, and obesity are.

In some countries, overpopulation is a serious problem. The earth is running out of resources at a rapid rate. There are serious medical risks for women of that age who have children. Women who want children have the options of adoption, and of housing foster children.

Then move to China and join the proletariat so you can choose who may reproduce.

Moving to China would do very little to reduce the rapid loss of resources in the world. Disaster is approaching regarding large decreases of resources, and is already here in many ways, and large populations of people are primarily responsible for it.

Are you admitting that heterosexuals in overpopulated countries should practice abstinence?

In the U.S., women of 45 years of age and over do not need to have sex in order to maintain the population, and in order to raise children. In addition, few women of that age want to have children, so most of them have sex only for pleasure.

.......my two main claims are standing as tall as ever. It increases suffering without compensating gains.

On the contrary, I adequately refuted those claims. You have not provided any valid evidence at all that homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years increase suffering any more than a large percentage of heterosexuals do, and any qualified expert knows that homosexuals having safe sex provides numerous important compensatory gains without harming anyone.

How in the world do lesbians increase suffering since they have less STD risks than heterosexual men, and women do?