Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

We have volumes of evidence validating that homosexuality can be genetically driven where as pedophilia is typically driven by trauma and/or overt exposure to sexuality at a young developmental age.

Is there actually evidence for that? I'd always assumed that they came from the same basis. Can you point me to these volumes of evidence?

 

[huskeR32]

I just cannot subscribe to the theory. I mean that on a academic level

By "academic level," I assume you mean to say that, even with all current knowledge, you don't think that theory gets it right?

As Famine pointed out, it is currently the theory that best explains all of the knowledge we have. In any situation, the rational thing to do is to "subscribe" to whatever theory best explains all existing knowledge. So I find it odd that you claim to approach the topic academically, yet you discount the most robust theory we have. Why?

 

[Dobermann92]

I didn't say that it did. I simply pointed out that everything you said about paedophiles is also said by the more radical fringe of feminists about men. They literally think that "all men are rapists" (Google that phrase, if you want to be shocked) and men are simply waiting for the opportunity to rape a woman to present itself.

It is, of course, not true. Nor is it true that all paedophiles are simply waiting for the opportunity to have sex with a child. Like straight men, it's perfectly possible for someone sexually attracted to children (and let's separate out paedo, hebe and ephebophilias at this point) to not fulfill or attempt to fulfill the attraction.


Not that I'm sure what it has to do with belief in deities. Except for the prolific sexual abuse of children in religious institutions, of course.

I know that what a radical minority is saying, I consume a lot of anti-SJW and anti-feminist content. I still think they won't have the power if we counter their arguments with facts.

Maybe there are pedophiles who can keep themselves from fulfilling those desires, there are no statistics on it because those who doesn't commit crime doesn't get registered. In their case they can choose between medical treatment or reporting to a psychologist every week for example or any other method of their choice which can guarantee that they will behave according to our laws. I don't see them as evil people until they do harm to somebody, that is the line which they shouldn't step over and then they should loose the freedom to choose if they do.

I think the biggest problem with religious institutions that they are less likely to report sexual abuse because they will try to defend their ingroup, especially priest very strongly.

 

[Famine]

I know that what a radical minority is saying, I consume a lot of anti-SJW and anti-feminist content. I still think they won't have the power if we counter their arguments with facts.

I don't know what this actually means.

My point was that your comment about paedophiles was exactly the same sort of comment that some feminists make about men - and that it is not true in either case.

Maybe there are pedophiles who can keep themselves from fulfilling those desires, there are no statistics on it because those who doesn't commit crime doesn't get registered. In their case they can choose between medical treatment or reporting to a psychologist every week for example or any other method of their choice which can guarantee that they will behave according to our laws.

Your first sentence causes a major, major problem with the second one. Unless you can detect paedophiles who have no overt, outward expression of their desires, you won't be able to ensure that they report as required. And you can't... unless you take this* as indicative of intent:

... and "treat" 30% of the male population.


But I still don't see how this relates to deities and religion...


*This only gets worse when you use the search term map, where most of the states that don't go for "lesbian" go for "step sister" and "step mom".

 

[ryzno]

I don't know what this actually means.

My point was that your comment about paedophiles was exactly the same sort of comment that some feminists make about men - and that it is not true in either case.

Your first sentence causes a major, major problem with the second one. Unless you can detect paedophiles who have no overt, outward expression of their desires, you won't be able to ensure that they report as required. And you can't... unless you take this* as indicative of intent:

​

... and "treat" 30% of the male population.


But I still don't see how this relates to deities and religion...


*This only gets worse when you use the search term map, where most of the states that don't go for "lesbian" go for "step sister" and "step mom".

Is that from the site? I'm curious where latina ranks and other categories.

 

[Dobermann92]

I don't know what this actually means.

My point was that your comment about paedophiles was exactly the same sort of comment that some feminists make about men - and that it is not true in either case.

Your first sentence causes a major, major problem with the second one. Unless you can detect paedophiles who have no overt, outward expression of their desires, you won't be able to ensure that they report as required. And you can't... unless you take this* as indicative of intent:

​

... and "treat" 30% of the male population.


But I still don't see how this relates to deities and religion...


*This only gets worse when you use the search term map, where most of the states that don't go for "lesbian" go for "step sister" and "step mom".

Teens are considered legal in some states and in most of the european countries as well, so I don't see a problem there I mean we can explain that biologically, even though some might consider it morally wrong. If you are attracted to a woman by her primary sex characteristics then you are not a pedophile.
Which is more interesting to me is that in one of the most religious state, Texas, the term lesbian is the leading search result. It seems like you can cherry pick your beliefs as much as you want. This hypocrisy is one of the main reasons (for in my closest vicinity at least) to became an atheist.

 

[Famine]

Teens are considered legal in some states and in most of the european countries as well, so I don't see a problem there

Only some teens, and only some states. Almost nowhere considers 13 legal, but that's a teenager. And even if they do, 18 is the minimum in pornography. And that's part of the point.

If you are attracted to a woman by her primary sex characteristics then you are not a pedophile.

Yes and no.

What's "normal" adult sexuality is almost indistinguishable from ephebophilia. Ephebophiles like young, but sexually developed, people. The reasons categories like "teens" and "barely legal" and "schoolgirl" exist and are so ridiculously popular is because regular sexual preferences are young, healthy individuals to reproduce with.

There's nothing to distinguish, biologically, a sexually developed 13-year old from a fully adult body. There's quite a bit to distinguish them legally, and if you look up 13-year old porn on purpose, you're classified as a paedophile (which it could be, but paedophiles prefer pre-pubescent, hebephiles prefer pubescent and ephebophile prefer post-pubescent). Some would argue that legal porn with categories like "teens" and "barely legal" and "schoolgirl" (and the overwhelming domination of absolutely hairless models) panders to those who would look up 13-year old porn if it were legal to do so, but don't because it isn't. Moving back to the more mental feminists, some would argue that those who search for porn featuring the youngest-looking and closest to the legal minimum age limit are doing so because they are paedophiles and these categories should be illegal... Australia literally banned all sexualised depictions of women with smaller than B-cup breasts on this basis. Yes, in Australia if you're a 35-year old woman with small breasts, the government doesn't think you can be sexy...

And that brings us back to "how are you going to track down and ensure proper treatment of non-acting paedophiles if they do not act?". Agree with the lunatics and lock up people who search for "teens" porn and have sexual partners with non-approved breasts?

Which is more interesting to me is that in one of the most religious state, Texas, the term lesbian is the leading search result. It seems like you can cherry pick your beliefs as much as you want. This hypocrisy is one of the main reasons (for in my closest vicinity at least) to became an atheist.

The Deep South, not known for its racial equality, loves a good bit of ebony by the looks. Of course that might be consist with historic desires...

Rhode Island and MILFs though...


This still really needs to be in a thread appropriate to it though, rather than this particular thread.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Is there actually evidence for that? I'd always assumed that they came from the same basis. Can you point me to these volumes of evidence?

I believe that google can help you with those "volumes" of evidence. Generally though, homosexually is understood as a series of hormonal genetic predispositions combined with the pachinko game that is life's experiences. Basically, a bit of column a and bit of column b depending on the individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

[Dobermann92]

Only some teens, and only some states. Almost nowhere considers 13 legal, but that's a teenager. And even if they do, 18 is the minimum in pornography. And that's part of the point.
Yes and no.

What's "normal" adult sexuality is almost indistinguishable from ephebophilia. Ephebophiles like young, but sexually developed, people. The reasons categories like "teens" and "barely legal" and "schoolgirl" exist and are so ridiculously popular is because regular sexual preferences are young, healthy individuals to reproduce with.

There's nothing to distinguish, biologically, a sexually developed 13-year old from a fully adult body. There's quite a bit to distinguish them legally, and if you look up 13-year old porn on purpose, you're classified as a paedophile (which it could be, but paedophiles prefer pre-pubescent, hebephiles prefer pubescent and ephebophile prefer post-pubescent). Some would argue that legal porn with categories like "teens" and "barely legal" and "schoolgirl" (and the overwhelming domination of absolutely hairless models) panders to those who would look up 13-year old porn if it were legal to do so, but don't because it isn't. Moving back to the more mental feminists, some would argue that those who search for porn featuring the youngest-looking and closest to the legal minimum age limit are doing so because they are paedophiles and these categories should be illegal... Australia literally banned all sexualised depictions of women with smaller than B-cup breasts on this basis. Yes, in Australia if you're a 35-year old woman with small breasts, the government doesn't think you can be sexy...

And that brings us back to "how are you going to track down and ensure proper treatment of non-acting paedophiles if they do not act?". Agree with the lunatics and lock up people who search for "teens" porn and have sexual partners with non-approved breasts?

The Deep South, not known for its racial equality, loves a good bit of ebony by the looks. Of course that might be consist with historic desires...

Rhode Island and MILFs though...


This still really needs to be in a thread appropriate to it though, rather than this particular thread.

I understand your point, we had to draw a line which represents a somewhat mentally mature age. I also learnt that I can call myself ephebophile from now on I wouldn't call 13 year olds sexually developed though, most of them are developing, although there are rare instances when a girl can have her period as young as 9. If the age of the girl is more important for somebody than the looks then I would categorize them as pedophiles. This is hard to mesure though.

It isn't a surprise that Australia did that because they are notorious for their strict video game and porn censorships, although that underlying message is very harmful as it seems. I would never agree with locking up somebody if they didn't commit anything, but some precautions can't hurt. I wouldn't call people pedophile regarding to their search results.

The Deep South also has a very significant black population because of the slave trade, so I'm not surprised about that results at all.

You are an admin, if you want a new thread then just open one or move these posts into that, no offense. I wouldn't call for censorship if you moved my posts either, just notify me.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have an answer... the word wasn't created by God.

I was approaching it as if it were.

But I also have another question. If we have free will and we are all sinners, how does heaven work? Do we all lose free will so as not to sin?

 

[Danoff]

I was approaching it as if it were.

But I also have another question. If we have free will and we are all sinners, how does heaven work? Do we all lose free will so as not to sin?

Looks that way.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven?

 

[TexRex]

But I also have another question. If we have free will and we are all sinners, how does heaven work? Do we all lose free will so as not to sin?

In the absence of a supposed higher power, what is free will? Does that free will disregard empathy, conscience or even awareness of a very real penal system that has no reliance on the existence of a deity?

In the absence of a supposed higher power, what is sin?

 

[HenrySwanson]

In the absence of a supposed higher power, what is free will? Does that free will disregard empathy, conscience or even awareness of a very real penal system that has no reliance on the existence of a deity?

In the absence of a supposed higher power, what is sin?

I'm not sure how to answer because I believe in fate so that kinda negates the concept of free will.

Sin is even harder to define and as a Christian I'm still not sure what it constitutes

 

[TexRex]

I'm not sure how to answer because I believe in fate so that kinda negates the concept of free will.

Sin is even harder to define and as a Christian I'm still not sure what it constitutes

Well...that answers no questions and raises more.

What are Heaven and Hell in the absence of free will?

 

[TheGeologist]

I personally find the concept of a God confusing.

From a scientific standpoint, there is no such evidence a "God". There is tons of peer reviewed published literature out there about the planetesimal evolution of the Earth and none of it involves a "God".

Sure, one can always argue the nonsensical "Were you there when the Earth formed?" question, but can't one ask the same thing? "Were you there when 'God' made the Earth in 7 days?" No one was there, how could such a precise date be known?

Ancient religions were created to understand our world, why is it thought that Christianity is any different?

I wonder, if it was possible to prove Christianity was a falsehood that was made up to explain our existence, what would happen to those hardcore Christians? There are some that put so much stock into their faith.

 

[Rallywagon]

I personally find the concept of a God confusing.

From a scientific standpoint, there is no such evidence a "God". There is tons of peer reviewed published literature out there about the planetesimal evolution of the Earth and none of it involves a "God".

Sure, one can always argue the nonsensical "Were you there when the Earth formed?" question, but can't one ask the same thing? "Were you there when 'God' made the Earth in 7 days?" No one was there, how could such a precise date be known?

Ancient religions were created to understand our world, why is it thought that Christianity is any different?

I wonder, if it was possible to prove Christianity was a falsehood that was made up to explain our existence, what would happen to those hardcore Christians? There are some that put so much stock into their faith.

You answered your own question at the end. Those that are truly religious and are incline to ignore science would say that "evidence" is gods way of testing their faith.

As for free will. If you believe in god, and believe he is omniscient then free will is already negated. But, then, even within the atheist community free will is debated.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Well...that answers no questions and raises more.

What are Heaven and Hell in the absence of free will?

That's why I asked the question of how a heaven could be possible with free will. I'm not sure I believe what's in Danoff's reply since it's essentially saying we'd be so indebted to Jesus and He would be so powerful that it wouldn't be possible to sin in heaven, which I believe means we wouldn't have free will.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure I believe what's in Danoff's reply since it's essentially saying we'd be so indebted to Jesus and He would be so powerful that it wouldn't be possible to sin in heaven, which I believe means we wouldn't have free will.

I don't know... remember that we can buy forgiveness at any time. God will even have us if we repent our sins on our deathbed - which seems the most prudent course of action. And probably the most fun.

 

[Imari]

That's why I asked the question of how a heaven could be possible with free will. I'm not sure I believe what's in Danoff's reply since it's essentially saying we'd be so indebted to Jesus and He would be so powerful that it wouldn't be possible to sin in heaven, which I believe means we wouldn't have free will.

Let's be honest, Christianity isn't exactly logically consistent to start with, so it's no surprise that the ideas of free will and heaven turn out to be incompatible.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't know... remember that we can buy forgiveness at any time. God will even have us if we repent our sins on our deathbed - which seems the most prudent course of action. And probably the most fun.

But would that work in heaven?

Let's be honest, Christianity isn't exactly logically consistent to start with, so it's no surprise that the ideas of free will and heaven turn out to be incompatible.

It's definitely given me a lot to think about

 

[TenEightyOne]

But would that work in heaven?

Given that forgiveness is preparation for ascension to heaven the logical answer is Yes.

 

[UKMikey]

Given that forgiveness is preparation for ascension to heaven the logical answer is Yes.

This may be an ecumenical matter however. Opinions vary.

 

[TenEightyOne]

an ecumenical matter

You're quite right. And I can hear Father Jack Hackett saying the above.

 

[Dotini]

A sexy government sponsored robot goddess with artificial intelligence preaches gospel to masses.

 

[Novalee]

My question is why would god make a universe only to have to wait billions of years for the earth to be made to then invent adam and eve?

That leads into my last inquiry which is why would god make a unverse that is billions of lightyears spread out when all god needed was our solar system ?


Something is not computing.

 

[Danoff]

My question is why would god make a universe only to have to wait billions of years for the earth to be made to then invent adam and eve?

That leads into my last inquiry which is why would god make a unverse that is billions of lightyears spread out when all god needed was our solar system ?


Something is not computing.

Mysterious ways.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My question is why would god make a universe only to have to wait billions of years for the earth to be made to then invent adam and eve?

It was only a few days.

That leads into my last inquiry which is why would god make a unverse that is billions of lightyears spread out when all god needed was our solar system ?

Fake news.

Something is not computing.

You need to open your heart. And close your brain

 

[TexRex]

 

[HenrySwanson]

One of the Catholic Church's big wigs has been convicted of child sexual abuse:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1141d8be2b91