This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A Neuroscientist says religious fundamentalism maybe a treatable mental illness.

#41kts123Posted 6/12/2013 11:25:33 AM
bratt100 posted...
Have you noticed that what your religion says and what your bible says are two very different things?

And out of left field here but about the gay scout leader thing. Your children are more likely to be abused by a person who is straight then gay. In most cases it isn't about the sex of the child. So I guess the only thing left to say is "more gays in scouts"



Where are you getting that statistic from?
#42bratt100Posted 6/12/2013 4:04:35 PM
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

"Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.


Typologies of
Offenders The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children boys, girls, or children of both sexes."

While not a tell all most child molesters describe themselves as straight.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#43bsballa09Posted 6/12/2013 5:54:32 PM(edited)
And then pretty much the greatest scientist of all time (Einstein) developed the weapon that ended the war that Hitler started.

He didn't develop it. He advocated for it. And then after the war ended, he regretted it. And it didn't end the war Hitler started, it ended the war the Japanese started. Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.
---
Diet Coke does not taste like regular Coke. If they did, there wouldn't be a Diet Coke.
#44Julian_CaesarPosted 6/14/2013 6:37:22 PM
bratt100 posted...
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html


Typologies of
Offenders The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children boys, girls, or children of both sexes."

While not a tell all most child molesters describe themselves as straight.


Is there an actual number, though? And more importantly, how does it compare to the estimated overall homosexual population of the area (be it U.S., or specific state, or specific region)? Because the statement "your children are more likely to be abused by a straight person than a gay person" can easily be due to the fact that there are simply more straight people in America.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#45bratt100Posted 6/15/2013 4:14:28 AM
Julian_Caesar posted...
bratt100 posted...
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html


Typologies of
Offenders The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children boys, girls, or children of both sexes."

While not a tell all most child molesters describe themselves as straight.


Is there an actual number, though? And more importantly, how does it compare to the estimated overall homosexual population of the area (be it U.S., or specific state, or specific region)? Because the statement "your children are more likely to be abused by a straight person than a gay person" can easily be due to the fact that there are simply more straight people in America.


Mainly from the fact that not only do most describe themselves as straight but gay and straight don't really apply when being attracted to children. I cringe to say it but it's almost it's own sexual orientation. If you give me a bit of time I'll get you proper sources...just a bit busy at work at the moment.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#46DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 6/17/2013 7:15:29 AM
The same amount as the religious community at the time supported their actions...namely, enough that the actions actually occurred.

I think most people would be shocked at how much of the scientific community accepted eugenics in the pre-WWII years. It was not entirely universal but it was almost certainly a worldwide majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics


Fair enough, I learned something new.

And you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that any religiously-motivated mass immoralities were actually supported by a worldwide religious community...the Crusades, for example, were certainly opposed by the Muslims. It's almost Western-centric to suggest that the "religious community" supported the Crusades when an equally advanced/numerous religion was on the receiving end of the invasion.


Oh please, don't bore me with semantics when you know damn well what I mean. The Catholic community was of course in great support of the Crusades. It's mainly... confounded to treat the multiple mutually exclusive religions and ideologies as one agreeing entity. Surely you didn't think I was trying to claim the non-Christians used the Bible to justify the Crusades? (Not that it is entirely impossible, since if Hitler was an atheist, then he effectively manipulated religion as a tool to get people to do what he wanted.)

Also, the greatest Christian figure of all time (Jesus) only had disparaging words for a single group: those who would use religion to further their own personal gains. You know, the moniker that describes every abuse of religious power in recorded history? If Einstein's noble discovery somehow "cancels out" the fact that the majority of pre-WWII scientists supported eugenics then Jesus' teaching pretty emphatically cancels out any atrocities committed by religious figureheads.


But how much of these theists are convinced they are in it for personal gain? Quite frankly I doubt the martyrs of theism are killing themselves with the goal of personal gain and are dubiously using religion as a blanket. Same with the bombing of abortion clinics, or the Uganda death penalty for homosexuals.

Give me 5 scientists. I ask them whether a fetus is a separate genetic individual from its mother in the womb and if homosexual behavior is a choice. Give me 5 Christians. I ask them the same things.


And one the side of the 5 scientists, you will have peer reviewed fact backing up the claims, where as with Christians you will have religious dogma.

BTW I fully accept that the parasite that is a fetus is a separate genetic individual. It, however, does not have any type of sentience or feeling until the development of the brain in the 2nd trimester, has no ability to contribute to society at its conception, zero feeling, zero awareness, and even if it were aware it would not have any type of memory formation or relation or a central nervous system to identify any type of pain whatsoever caused by an abortion. I recently posted all sorts of peer reviewed data of homosexuality being determined; after many people posted their rationalized, unbacked up opinions on what sexuality it is, the topic quickly ended with the multiple studies and empirical datas I linked to. Would you like to revisit the subject again? Of course what you and I both know is that no one today would be trying to claim the case of homosexuality being a choice or of it being inherently evil would never be made if not for the blank check of morality that religion offers.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#47DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 6/17/2013 7:29:56 AM
Every action that benefits society that religion offers us can be wholly produced in secularism; no altruism, no respect or humility, no condolences are exclusive to a religion. Secularism is capable of producing every single one of these. Furthermore, there are many goods that secularism produces that does not find any basis in any of the monotheistic religions; where as a secular approach to society endorses the fair treatment of man, the idea that religion must be tolerated but not prioritized or endorsed in any public or legal venue, and of course the ultimate humility; the humble altruism that seeks nothing to impress its Creator or to conform with the rules of religion, but a genuine care offered to the poor. Where as, as we've already explored in Old Testament ethics debates, the Christian solution is that we shouldn't argue with God. You cannot give me a basis based on any of the holy books to simply care for a man because it is better that he be cared for than he suffer.

And of course we all know about the burning of witches, an OT verse written in a time of pretty much complete ignorance on pretty much anything that even todays leads to the murder of "witches".

In what secular society does the atrocity that occurred merely less than 2 months ago of a 3 day old infant being burned alive because of the fear that he would bring doom to this world exist? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314866/Baby-burned-death-bonfire-Chile-cult-leader-decided-antichrist.html

I recall when I read your response the other day but didn't have time to respond you also had a post responding to the things about slavery and homosexuality I mentioned but I don't see it anymore. Help me find it, please? Or am I insane?
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#48Julian_CaesarPosted 6/19/2013 8:06:01 PM
DarkContractor posted...
Oh please, don't bore me with semantics when you know damn well what I mean. The Catholic community was of course in great support of the Crusades. It's mainly... confounded to treat the multiple mutually exclusive religions and ideologies as one agreeing entity. Surely you didn't think I was trying to claim the non-Christians used the Bible to justify the Crusades?


No, but you definitely appealed to the "scientific majority" as part of an argument claiming that religion as a concept is more inherently harmful to society than science. Perhaps you see the issue with saying that the worldwide scientific community's viewpoint is how science-based atrocities should be judged, but that religious-based atrocities should be judged solely on the viewpoint of the particular religious group that perpetrated them.

But how much of these theists are convinced they are in it for personal gain? Quite frankly I doubt the martyrs of theism are killing themselves with the goal of personal gain and are dubiously using religion as a blanket. Same with the bombing of abortion clinics, or the Uganda death penalty for homosexuals.


How is that relevant at all? I never said that religious martyrs don't exist; I was making a comparison to show how absurd it is to say that Einstein being good "cancels out" anything.

BTW I fully accept that the parasite that is a fetus is a separate genetic individual. It, however, does not have any type of sentience or feeling until the development of the brain in the 2nd trimester, has no ability to contribute to society at its conception, zero feeling, zero awareness, and even if it were aware it would not have any type of memory formation or relation or a central nervous system to identify any type of pain whatsoever caused by an abortion.


The appeal to "time" is a piss-poor argument to support the morality of abortion (or rather, to subvert the responsibility of deciding whether a baby lives or dies by calling it "tissue"). We can keep babies alive outside of the womb far earlier in pregnancy than was possible even 15 years ago; in 100 years when we have the technology to bring a baby to term outside the mother's womb, where will the "not a baby yet" argument be?

I don't oppose abortion whatsoever. What I oppose is the ever-present undercurrent of avoided responsibility that pervades the vast majority of pro-choice political camps: I'm not really deciding life or death of a person, I'm just scraping out some tissue. If a woman (or couple) makes the informed, rational, responsible decision that her (their) baby is better off having not been born, then by all means feel free to have an abortion. Be an adult and deal with the reality that you were responsible for a burgeoning human life, and you made the decision that such life should not come to fruition. Do NOT use the spineless justification that what you did was "removing tissue", as if it were impossible for that tissue to develop into a human life.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#49Julian_CaesarPosted 6/19/2013 8:06:08 PM
I recently posted all sorts of peer reviewed data of homosexuality being determined; after many people posted their rationalized, unbacked up opinions on what sexuality it is, the topic quickly ended with the multiple studies and empirical datas I linked to. Would you like to revisit the subject again? Of course what you and I both know is that no one today would be trying to claim the case of homosexuality being a choice or of it being inherently evil would never be made if not for the blank check of morality that religion offers.


Read more closely next time. I said homosexual behavior, not "homosexuality" (which is an abhorrent blanket term whose ambiguity makes intelligent conversation about homosexual behavior/temptation nearly impossible). Regardless of what has been proven about homosexual attraction, it is a simple fact that it is a choice to engage in homosexual behavior, just as it is a choice to engage in heterosexual behavior.

So yeah, let's revisit the subject. You ridiculed one of my points earlier as "semantics," and yet it was your argument that contained the double standard in its ambiguity concerning what a "consensus" entails. There's a difference between using semantics to argue about minutiae, and using semantics to attack ambiguity in important terminology.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#50Julian_CaesarPosted 6/19/2013 8:19:01 PM
DarkContractor posted...
Every action that benefits society that religion offers us can be wholly produced in secularism; no altruism, no respect or humility, no condolences are exclusive to a religion. Secularism is capable of producing every single one of these. Furthermore, there are many goods that secularism produces that does not find any basis in any of the monotheistic religions; where as a secular approach to society endorses the fair treatment of man, the idea that religion must be tolerated but not prioritized or endorsed in any public or legal venue, and of course the ultimate humility; the humble altruism that seeks nothing to impress its Creator or to conform with the rules of religion, but a genuine care offered to the poor.


This is all quite lovely. And yet I can't recall when I ever said that secularity/science was incapable of achieving the same social "goodness" as religion, so...two thumbs up?

There's quite a difference between saying "science can be just as bad as religion" and "science can't be as good as religion." QUITE a difference.

Where as, as we've already explored in Old Testament ethics debates, the Christian solution is that we shouldn't argue with God. You cannot give me a basis based on any of the holy books to simply care for a man because it is better that he be cared for than he suffer.


I can't? Really?

You have actually read the Gospels, right? Because that's not just blatantly stated by the Golden Rule, that's the entire focus of several encounters that Jesus had with the Pharisees.

In what secular society does the atrocity that occurred merely less than 2 months ago of a 3 day old infant being burned alive because of the fear that he would bring doom to this world exist? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314866/Baby-burned-death-bonfire-Chile-cult-leader-decided-antichrist.html


You mean, "in what modern and highly visible secular society would such a thing occur due to a religious-based belief?" And of course the answer to your question is negative, because you asked me whether an apple tree or an orange tree is more likely to produce rotten oranges. Why don't we instead ask whether an apple tree can produce rotten apples, too?

In which case I've already provided examples. And let's add a secular institution that not only produced incredible atrocities, but had the amazing secular foresight to outlaw all religions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge#The_Khmer_Rouge_regime

I recall when I read your response the other day but didn't have time to respond you also had a post responding to the things about slavery and homosexuality I mentioned but I don't see it anymore. Help me find it, please? Or am I insane?


Nope, not insane.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/66352945/747432486
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.